Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[sferrin]

The thing that sucked is the cancellation was purely political. It had absolutely nothing to do with requirements. Gates' ego turned out to be every bit as big as McNamara's.

 

[LowObservable]

The termination of the F-22 made perfect sense given that the F-35 would enter service in 2013, cost half as much to acquire as the F-22, have F-16-like operational costs and be 400-600 per cent more effective in air combat than anything except an F-22.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Except if you had asked for the unfiltered opinion of just about any senior Air Force officer they would have said they wanted more F-22s and explained that the F-22 and F-35 were supposed to complement each other.

 

[sferrin]

The termination of the F-22 made perfect sense given that the F-35 would enter service in 2013, cost half as much to acquire as the F-22, have F-16-like operational costs and be 400-600 per cent more effective in air combat than anything except an F-22.

Except that those in command of the USAF said exactly the opposite. In fact they'd indicated they'd give up 500 F-35s if they could get 100 more F-22s. They got fired for their expert opinions.

 

[DrRansom]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

 

[sferrin]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

I think the world has changed enough that they'd rather start with a clean sheet (F-X) than start the F-22 program up again. Requirements are different. And starting it up again would take years and a LOT of money.

 

[Sundog]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

Yes, they're calling that program F-X.

Seriously, though, building the F-23 would be building a new air frame and if they're going to do that, they're just going to build the F-22's replacement. Whereas they still have all of the jigs, etc, to build the F-22.

Although, the F-15 line is still open and they could just build more of those. They don't actually need more F-22's as upgraded F-15s are still quite formidable and by the time any of our so called enemies get around to having aircraft that could threaten the F-22s we have in sufficient numbers, if ever, we'll already be flying the Raptors replacement. This is more about what the USAF wants, more so than what it needs.

 

[DrRansom]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

I think the world has changed enough that they'd rather start with a clean sheet (F-X) than start the F-22 program up again. Requirements are different. And starting it up again would take years and a LOT of money.

I take that as a sort of agreement with my point. The F-22 is great but is isn't the airplane of the future.

 

[sferrin]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

I think the world has changed enough that they'd rather start with a clean sheet (F-X) than start the F-22 program up again. Requirements are different. And starting it up again would take years and a LOT of money.

I take that as a sort of agreement with my point. The F-22 is great but is isn't the airplane of the future.

I think the F-23 would have been closer but still isn't really there.

 

[Triton]

The Next Generation Tactical Aircraft (F-X) is planned to be introduced in 2032. What will the fleets of T-50 PAK FA, J-20, and J-31 look like? The Russian Federation's fifth-generation lightweight fighter? The threat posed by anti-aircraft weapon systems? Will the F-X experience delays?

 

[bobbymike]

One thing I wonder about the F-22 and a restarted production line is if the USAF would rather have an equivalent number of F-23's, assuming for some reason the costs were equivalent.

The F-22 tactics are following F-23 strengths (supercruise, high stealth, etc.) so might the USAF wish it now could get the F-23?

I think the world has changed enough that they'd rather start with a clean sheet (F-X) than start the F-22 program up again. Requirements are different. And starting it up again would take years and a LOT of money.

I take that as a sort of agreement with my point. The F-22 is great but is isn't the airplane of the future.

Yes if you are starting from NOW but the argument of too few started at cancelation and that the cancelation if it never happened we would be looking at a fleet of maybe 350+ F-22s today. Then looking to Gen 6 in the 2030s (and having to fly F-15/16/18s for 20+ more years) would not be so concerning at least to me.

I think that would make a huge difference given the "Look at the world today" situation.

 

[sferrin]

Will the F-X experience delays?

Given that pretty much every military aircraft program in the Western world has experienced delays since the end of the Cold War, I don't know why this one would be any different. I think there are several factors at play all working together to create the perfect storm of "delay". 1. Those who have actually designed and brought multiple aircraft into service in their careers are a dying breed. So the learning curve is a lot longer. 2. Budgets are so uncertain anymore we try to have it all up front and buy as many aircraft as possible as soon as possible "just in case". This means you're doing even more difficult things right up front making an already complicated job more complicated. 3. Aircraft are getting more complicated. That's just a fact, and if you want to stay in the game there's no way around it. That means upfront there are more unknown unknowns. Also, where there is a lot of new technology rolled in as well they can't alway say, "well, we did it like this on aircraft X and it worked fine". Hell, there are fewer people around than in the past who CAN even say, "we did it this way in the past. . ." 4. With the internet being what it is programs are under the microscope like never before, and those with agendas, combined with politicians that really don't understand what actually goes into a military aircraft, creates an atmosphere where "risk" isn't just a four-letter word, program managers and directors have nightmares about it. That tends to make things take a lot longer making sure every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed. Where program X might get something done with a few phone calls and a bit of brainstorming program Y requires an act of Congress, the sacrifice of a dozen virgins, and the planets to be in alignment to accomplish the same thing. All in the name of C-Y-A.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Next Generation Tactical Aircraft (F-X) is planned to be introduced in 2032. What will the fleets of T-50 PAK FA, J-20, and J-31 look like? The Russian Federation's fifth-generation lightweight fighter? The threat posed by anti-aircraft weapon systems? Will the F-X experience delays?

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing concrete that sees the F-X being 'planned for introduction' in 2032. They don't even know what an F-X looks like, or would look like. They will have some more information based on the various initiatives they plan on undertaking between now and 2021 or 2022 but even if all goes to plan there is unlikely to be a single operational F-X flying around even in 2035. 2038-2040 for the USAF seems more likely unless there is some serious investment made over the next 5-6 years to invest in bringing the timeline ahead.

 

[marauder2048]

Some of AFRL's thinking on advanced armaments for current and future aircraft from Precision Strike 2015

Note: reduced quality to fit within server upload limit

 

[bobbymike]

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/07/f-22-gets-the-aim9x-missile/

 

[donnage99]

Lol at this "The late arrival of the AIM-9X (already integrated in most of US combat planes since 2003) to the F-22 very well may signal a new era in Air Force airpower." Of all the capabilities that the f-22 possesses, having a bigger knife in a knife fight is a much needed welcome, but wouldn't exactly signal a new era.

 

[sferrin]

Lol at this "The late arrival of the AIM-9X (already integrated in most of US combat planes since 2003) to the F-22 very well may signal a new era in Air Force airpower." Of all the capabilities that the f-22 possesses, having a bigger knife in a knife fight is a much needed welcome, but wouldn't exactly signal a new era.

x2. Nor is the lack of an HMCS the end of the world. That said, they're correct about effectively giving the F-22 two more BVR missiles (albeit just).

 

[Airplane]

The Next Generation Tactical Aircraft (F-X) is planned to be introduced in 2032. What will the fleets of T-50 PAK FA, J-20, and J-31 look like? The Russian Federation's fifth-generation lightweight fighter? The threat posed by anti-aircraft weapon systems? Will the F-X experience delays?

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing concrete that sees the F-X being 'planned for introduction' in 2032. They don't even know what an F-X looks like, or would look like. They will have some more information based on the various initiatives they plan on undertaking between now and 2021 or 2022 but even if all goes to plan there is unlikely to be a single operational F-X flying around even in 2035. 2038-2040 for the USAF seems more likely unless there is some serious investment made over the next 5-6 years to invest in bringing the timeline ahead.

16-20 years is a long time to stretch out 185 F-22s. Depending on how the new Russian and Chinese aircraft develop, the F-35 is piss poor rival, EOTS/MADL included.

 

[NeilChapman]

Depending on how the new Russian and Chinese aircraft develop, the F-35 is piss poor rival, EOTS/MADL included.

I don't know if I'd go that far. But I can't go into the reasons in the F-22 topic ;-)

Pretty much everything in inventory is being upgraded and will continue to be. It just so happens that the F-22 requires upgrades just to meet the design life of 8000 hours.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-raptor-retrofit-to-take-longer-but-availability-hits-414341/

And you're not going to restart building a 25 year old design for myriad reasons.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858

Congress is asking the same questions.

AF just completed and presented a draft of their "2030" requirements to command in the last few weeks. I expect we'll start hearing more leaks about what they want. Expect "presentations" to Congress this time next year for 2018 budget.

 

[bobbymike]

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/30/heres-why-the-u-s-should-restart-the-f-22-raptor-production-line-instead-of-developing-a-sixth-generation-fighter/

 

[NeilChapman]

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/30/heres-why-the-u-s-should-restart-the-f-22-raptor-production-line-instead-of-developing-a-sixth-generation-fighter/

"For instance, thrust vectoring (TV) wasn’t a strictly needed feature since it could bring some stealthy trade-offs to the airframe of an aircraft built to achieve most of his kills silently. "

To me this article seems like more of a case to build the YF-23 since it had reportedly better RCS numbers with just its basic design features. Now that they realize how their going to engage "air superiority" and TV is not strictly needed the F-23 with arguably longer legs, speed and stealth might make more sense. You're going to go through the EMD phase again anyway to integrate the latest electronics and engines.

Besides - it's better looking!

 

[sferrin]

The Aviationist is like an honest version of Foxtrotalpha. They don't know a whole hell of a lot but at least they try to play things straight.

 

[Flyaway]

The F-22As will train alongside RAF Typhoons of 3(F) Sqn from RAF Coningsby during the week commencing 18 April. 3(F) Sqn earlier worked with F-22A Raptors at Exercise 'Red Flag' at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, during large force employment manoeuvres this year. In 2015, 6 Sqn Typhoons also attended a 'Red Flag' exercise before heading to Langley AFB, Virginia, to work with 1st FW F-22A Raptors for Exercise 'Western Zephyr'.

As Air Commodore Ian Duguid, the RAF's Typhoon Force Commander, who was also at the welcome briefing, told IHS Jane's , "Both the RAF and USAF are keen to continue the interoperability and integration of the Typhoon with the fifth-generation F-22. It is what we have been doing during our visits to 'Red Flag' and 'Western Zephyr'." Both sides are keen to develop their standard tactical procedures (STPs) for the fourth-generation/fifth-generation jets, work seen as vital with the introduction into service of the fifth-generation F-35B Lightning II in 2018.

http://www.janes.com/article/59560/f-22-raptors-arrive-at-raf-lakenheath

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force to assess cost of reconstituting F-22A production line, buying 194 additional aircraft

A House panel is directing the Air Force to consider restarting the F-22A production line, a potential first step in reconstituting the Lockheed Martin manufacturing program more than four years after the company disassembled the enterprise capping an epic battle between the service, which maintained a need for 381 aircraft, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense which in 2009 determined 187 are sufficient.

 

[Flyaway]

Wouldn't that just end up costing an absolute fortune & driving up the unit cost to an even higher level. Also this is the same bunch of politicians who wouldn't let them export it and therefore help push down the unit cost.

However, Air Force officials have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project. A 2010 RAND study commissioned by the Air Force placed the cost to buy just 75 more F-22s at $17 billion in 2008 dollars.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/19/house-lawmakers-air-force-study-restarting-f22-production.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

A little more detail.

 

[Flyaway]

I also fear that the money for this would be taken from other important replacement programs in the area of tankers & training aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

It would buy them some time to see how SSLs shake out while developing the F/X. On the other hand, it makes it that much longer before F/X gets into service. Considering they're building F-35s where they used to build F-22s they'd have to figure out where they'd do it. Oh, and there's the small detail of where the money would come from. No, the F-35 isn't a source, unless you want the costs exploding there. No, nuclear weapons programs are not a source. We need them and they're already starved. (Considering we can't even design or build a NEW nuclear weapon anymore, "starved" is being generous.) I give this approximately 0.0% chance of panning out.

 

[Airplane]

It would buy them some time to see how SSLs shake out while developing the F/X. On the other hand, it makes it that much longer before F/X gets into service. Considering they're building F-35s where they used to build F-22s they'd have to figure out where they'd do it. Oh, and there's the small detail of where the money would come from. No, the F-35 isn't a source, unless you want the costs exploding there. No, nuclear weapons programs are not a source. We need them and they're already starved. (Considering we can't even design or build a NEW nuclear weapon anymore, "starved" is being generous.) I give this approximately 0.0% chance of panning out.

Obviously the costs come from increased defense spending. We're already down, what, 20% over the last couple of years? The downward trend cannot continue while maintaining a viable military. Military spending must increase. The costs to restart the F-22 production are tiny to the costs of doing nothing but letting the USAF F-15s and F-16s decompose. Also, there is nothing wrong anymore with exporting the 22 to friendly nations to share the costs. With PakFa and Chinese stealth fighters flying, there isn't much to be learned in a +25 year old aircraft.

 

[bobbymike]

It would buy them some time to see how SSLs shake out while developing the F/X. On the other hand, it makes it that much longer before F/X gets into service. Considering they're building F-35s where they used to build F-22s they'd have to figure out where they'd do it. Oh, and there's the small detail of where the money would come from. No, the F-35 isn't a source, unless you want the costs exploding there. No, nuclear weapons programs are not a source. We need them and they're already starved. (Considering we can't even design or build a NEW nuclear weapon anymore, "starved" is being generous.) I give this approximately 0.0% chance of panning out.

Don't want to get too hypothetical but I wonder how much they could incorporate F-35 tech into a 'new' F-22 including advances in stealth materials and using F-35 engines, etc. One of the knocks against the F-22 was maintainability of stealth would new skin coatings/paints, etc. of the F-35 solve this? What would two F135s do for range performance?

Interesting to speculate unfortunately don't think it will happen despite needing another 200+ F-22s.

 

[sferrin]

Obviously the costs come from increased defense spending. We're already down, what, 20% over the last couple of years? The downward trend cannot continue while maintaining a viable military. Military spending must increase. The costs to restart the F-22 production are tiny to the costs of doing nothing but letting the USAF F-15s and F-16s decompose.

Preaching to the choir. But that doesn't make money appear.

Also, there is nothing wrong anymore with exporting the 22 to friendly nations to share the costs.

Of course there is. All the reasons for not exporting it still apply.

With PakFa and Chinese stealth fighters flying, there isn't much to be learned in a +25 year old aircraft.

Assuming you're correct (almost certainly not the case) why make it easier for them?

 

[SpudmanWP]

IMHO The quickest way to restart F-22 production "if" new/updated avionics are needed is to adopt the F-35's avionics package, lock, stock, and barrel (Yes, including the AEOTS).

The only significant change would be to increase the size of the array for the APG-81 and adapt the sensor bays to the Barracuda ESM.

Obviously the middleware packages will need to be redone to interface with F-22 specific hardware such as flight controls, engine controls, misc sensors, etc.

An added benefit of this is that the F-22 would get feature updates when the F-35 does (weapons, radar & ESM modes, threat libraries, etc)

All that being said, it's not likely to ever happen (restarting the program)

 

[sferrin]

Don't want to get too hypothetical but I wonder how much they could incorporate F-35 tech into a 'new' F-22 including advances in stealth materials and using F-35 engines, etc. One of the knocks against the F-22 was maintainability of stealth would new skin coatings/paints, etc. of the F-35 solve this? What would two F135s do for range performance?

Interesting to speculate unfortunately don't think it will happen despite needing another 200+ F-22s.

You would definitely not want to use F135s. The F119 was specifically designed for the F-22s flight envelope. (Which also brings up the fact that not only would you have to reconstitute the F-22 production line but also the F119 line.) The F135 is more like an F110 and optimized for a different envelope. To give the F-22 F-35-like maintainability you'd have to completely redesign a significant portion of the aircraft. $$$$cha-ching$$$. And the temptation to install the F-35s avionics/sensor suite would certainly be there $$$CHA-CHING$$$. I'd stick with the APG-77/ALR-94 as they both seem to be better than the equivalent F-35 systems. (Though the APG-81 might have more options.)

 

[bobbymike]

Don't want to get too hypothetical but I wonder how much they could incorporate F-35 tech into a 'new' F-22 including advances in stealth materials and using F-35 engines, etc. One of the knocks against the F-22 was maintainability of stealth would new skin coatings/paints, etc. of the F-35 solve this? What would two F135s do for range performance?

Interesting to speculate unfortunately don't think it will happen despite needing another 200+ F-22s.

You would definitely not want to use F135s. The F119 was specifically designed for the F-22s flight envelope. (Which also brings up the fact that not only would you have to reconstitute the F-22 production line but also the F119 line.) The F135 is more like an F110 and optimized for a different envelope. To give the F-22 F-35-like maintainability you'd have to completely redesign a significant portion of the aircraft. $$$$cha-ching$$$. And the temptation to install the F-35s avionics/sensor suite would certainly be there $$$CHA-CHING$$$. I'd stick with the APG-77/ALR-94 as they both seem to be better than the equivalent F-35 systems. (Though the APG-81 might have more options.)

Thanks Scott! They should have parallel studies, this one and could we build F-23s ;D

 

[DrRansom]

In my opinion, the problem with restarting the F-22 line is that it would delay a F-X program by 5 - 10 more years. The F-22 is ill-suited to A2/AD warfare because of it's short range (and more focused stealth design); more recent USAF research has pushed a large aircraft with greater internal range and all-aspect stealth.

If Congress really wanted to help the USAF, it would give enough money to jump-start a 5+gen F-X program for immediate deployment. Use the ESAV studies and aim for a new plane in testing by 2025. The plane's combat systems can come from the F-35, the engine can be based off F-135 / ADVENT. The plane could be made F-111 sized for dual striking / air supremacy role.

Restarting the F-22 won't fix the USAF's future problem of penetrating aircraft for future air defense environments. It will be an expensive stop-gap.

 

[Flyaway]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

The US House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces wants to know how much it would cost to resume production of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter and it is even willing to consider export options and foreign partnerships as an offset.

The proposed language directs the air force secretary to produce an unclassified report “by not later than 1 January 2017” on the cost of building another 194 aircraft. The report must consider variables to the unit cost, such as larger or small quantities and “opportunities for foreign export and partner nation involvement” if the 1998 prohibition on the export of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government could be repealed.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-lawmakers-want-cost-data-for-building-194-more-f-424404/

 

[sferrin]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

When you have Israel selling US tech to China and Japan sending it to Russia, yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "keep it for ourselves".

 

[Flyaway]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

When you have Israel selling US tech to China and Japan sending it to Russia, yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "keep it for ourselves".

First I've heard of this what precisely has either nation supposed to have sold?

Also as Israel at least is getting the F-35 & in many ways this features more advanced technology I am not sure how this argument really holds up now, especially if they see fit to sell partner nations one but not the other.

 

[marauder2048]

Oh, and there's the small detail of where the money would come from.

Send the bill to Robert Gates; he's good for it with two New York Times best-sellers.

 

[Airplane]

In my opinion, the problem with restarting the F-22 line is that it would delay a F-X program by 5 - 10 more years. The F-22 is ill-suited to A2/AD warfare because of it's short range (and more focused stealth design); more recent USAF research has pushed a large aircraft with greater internal range and all-aspect stealth.

If Congress really wanted to help the USAF, it would give enough money to jump-start a 5+gen F-X program for immediate deployment. Use the ESAV studies and aim for a new plane in testing by 2025. The plane's combat systems can come from the F-35, the engine can be based off F-135 / ADVENT. The plane could be made F-111 sized for dual striking / air supremacy role.

Restarting the F-22 won't fix the USAF's future problem of penetrating aircraft for future air defense environments. It will be an expensive stop-gap.

Yes, let's not build a proven fighter and rebuild the USAF to chase another white rabbit down it's hole and come up empty handed. I think the US can walk and chew gum at the same time.