Forum: F-22A Raptor

Viperalltheway wrote:

I just found that article:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/ ... er_020609/

Quote:

Watts estimated that bomber research and development costs alone could reach $20 billion. If the service buys 60 bombers, the project's cost could reach $40 billion.

While the bomber is among the Air Force’s top five acquisition priorities, public Air Force budgets have not set aside the dollars for such an expensive project.

With the bomber development shrouded in secrecy, Watts finds it hard to know where the Air Force is steering the program.

666 million each. Shocked

Doesn't make any sense in the current economic situation!

Why not instead try to quadruple the loadout of SDBs on the F-35A ( with no AMRAAM inside + new racks = TOTAL 32 SDBs ) and the ability to use it as a UCAV?

In UCAV mode, range would not be limited by crew comfort, so virtually unlimited max range..

And add big CFTs and engine retrofit upgrade in a future spiral development in the 2025 timeframe.

That would be affordable!!

I think you consistently underestimate the difficulties in applying these concepts in the real world- the benefits of thousands of pounds of CFT's and upward firing missiles are outweighed by their inherent flaws and the research that would be necessary to make them work.

A B-3 could very well be worth 7 F-35s in certain missions, since it requires less refueling and maintenance support and would probably be significantly stealthier- and would carry a very large payload without significant penalties.

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Concerning the AAMs on the top, I was thinking, if the AVEL is not powerful enough they could make a more powerful variant of it. Check the drawing below, it might be possible to add a second piston ( or even 3! ).

However, I guess there would be other issues too. For instance the missile could not be ejected while the aircraft is doing a roll. That would be a acceptable compromise, as the missiles are used for long range engagements.

I don't know exactly how big the CFTs could be made, but the F-35 can carry 15600lbs of external payload. So it may well be able to carry large CFTs. The difference between carrying fuel in the CFTs and external tanks is that they produce much less drag. Extending the range of the F-35 with external tanks is difficult but with CFTs it would be much easier.

For instance the F-16's CFTs increase drag by 1% at subsonic speed. The 2 CFTs produce 12% of the drag of the centerline tank.

Also, the F-35A is about 10% lighter than the C. And I believe they have the same structure. So it would have more margin for big CFTs.

I'm not saying that this should be a standard configuration. The F-35As would not normally carry the CFTs. But if necessary they can. It would not be heavier than with its 15000lbs of fuel/ordinance that it can carry on the wing.

The CFT upgrade would be done at the same time as an engine upgrade. So I would say in the 2025 horizon. The engines would be upgraded with an upgrade kit like the 129 and 229 can be upgraded to 132 and 232.

Such a solution combined with SDBs on the B-2s (200 each ) would enable to do away with the B-3 or FB-22.

And they should also try to make new racks for the SDBs to double the payload internally. I don't know how they could do it however. That would be a real challenge I think.

I am sick and tired of people saying the US can't afford the f-22 and how we spend so much on our defense. We spend around 1/4 of the fed budget on defense wich turns out to be less than 5% of gdp and some how this is going to bankrupt us, but spending well over 1 trillion dollars on social programs isn't bankrupting this country and this spending returns nothing to the country unlike defense spending " just look around your house and think af the tech that has filtered down from defense spending". National Defense IS THE PRIMARY FUNCTION of the fedral goverment last time I checked give away programs ie. WIC ,HUD and the other crap that is given out to the leaches of our society was not in our constitution. We can afford many thousands of f-22's and a military that is much larger and better paid than we have now. I also have a beef with people that talk about "cold war" systems not working for the war on terrorism they work great. What works for the WOT is a well trained soldier that is well paid and has good communication but not FCS I was in the Army but I don't think the Army needs all of this pie in the sky stuff to kill bearded barbarians. But what he absolutely needs to worry about the air over his head. We can use the weapons that can keep China or Russia at bay to kill terrorist but you can't use the weapons that are designed to fight the WOT to use to keep China and Russia at bay. Anyone that thinks the world is done with major conflicts has never picked up a history book. The defense cut backs of the 90's where a huge mistake and the budget cuts we will surely see in the next 4 yrs will be even bigger ones. That being said the defense industry in this country has at best become inept and at worst corrupt like many industries in our nation, part of this is the govt's falt by allowing these companies to merge and just a few huge companies are around today. My father was an aerospace engineer for Martin Marrietta for 34 yrs and along came the peace dividen and he was laid off, mean while the crooks that ran the company were telling the crooks in DC how much money that the US would save by allowing Lockheed and them merge. It has realy worked well ie. the f-22. I've said that but I truely believe we should buy the f-22 and replace every f-15c with it we can afford it we just have to tell some of the leaches no more hand outs. This countries priorities are mixed up instead we would rather send the finest of our country into harms way in a fighter that is well beyond it's design life that could break up in a dogfight and bomber that last rolled off the assembly line in 1964, but fear not WIC, and HUD are in great shape so don't tell me what is bankrupting this country.

Question.....since we are fighting a Global War on Terror and units of our military are dploying to combat areas........

1. Shouldn't the DoD be able to instruct Lockheed Martin "You will build and support 500 Raptors for the USAF and 3,000 F-35 for the USMC, USN, and USAF over the next 10 years at a cost of $75 million per 22 and $45 million per 35. We will institue a payment plan to get the cost difference back to LM over the life of the aircrafts service in the US Military (30 or so years).

f14_forever wrote:

Question.....since we are fighting a Global War on Terror and units of our military are dploying to combat areas........

1. Shouldn't the DoD be able to instruct Lockheed Martin "You will build and support 500 Raptors for the USAF and 3,000 F-35 for the USMC, USN, and USAF over the next 10 years at a cost of $75 million per 22 and $45 million per 35. We will institue a payment plan to get the cost difference back to LM over the life of the aircrafts service in the US Military (30 or so years).

LM and all the subcontractors are private companies. You can't tell them to build anything. You can tell them I won't buy your product if it costs too much, or doesn't perform as advertised.

F14,

270 front-line combat ready Raptors, 300-350 upgraded F-15/16, expanded Reaper (and equivalent) squadrons and future UCAVs could arguably provide sufficient superior deterrence required by USAF, until perhaps 2025 (whereupon you'ld def have to replace said modernized Legacy craft with the next gen tech in order to keep the edge). If we can afford it, I'd support said 270 Raptor, plus 400+ F-35A, plus said UAV/UCAV force. Would be a realistic, potent deterrence given fast moving constraints, IMHO.

From Pesident Obama's Speech to Congress: "We’ll... reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use."

This is surely applauded by most taxpaying citizens and sounds only prudent - especially concerning our forseeable economic crisis, but...

Mr President, Sir, (and Mr. M Mullen, Admiral, Sir) the B-1B and F-15E were heavily relied upon (i.e., USED) in strategical, time-sensitive strikes on combatant targets throughout the entire modern conflict engagment regions you speak of... as necessary examples for which to sustain needed post-Cold war capabilities... and moreover, such aircraft platforms as noted above were even reportedly essential as Close Air Support during the 'Surge'. Regardless of the politics, it is a fact that these platforms were/are depended upon assets in today's Post-Cold War 'current defense requirements'.

Given this fact, it would seem that since both platforms could very well be forced into early retirement, much sooner than currently estimated (as with unforseen, accelerated tactical F-16 retrirements), it can be argued that replacements for these platforms be planned for and developed as critical to sustaining the said post-cold war capabilities in future. It should be re-examined therefore, of potential economical derivatives of current, trusted tactical airframes, e.g. F-22, as alternative replacements to fill this apparently crticial future capability. Hence, the FB-22 would be a logical and economical exploitation of the present F-22 tactical manufacturing line, if it were selected to be the future replacement (as a supplement to other potential technological platforms in future developments). To discount the justification of this option however, based on a popular assumption of late that the fast-diminishing Air dominance capability is simply not necessary in a post-Cold War era (and therefore any follow-on as well), appears to be highly flawed.

Furthermore: let it be realized that 'cold-war' aviation design threats, while no longer a reality, have been replaced with plans for competitive, rival aviation designs or current upgrades already underway - far superior (and anticipated in future) compared to the very, older 'Cold War' adversarial models as referred.

Any continued inputs welcome...

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 605

It would seem that we have the makings of a grassroots political campaign to further the ideas of the common men such as ourselves. I think that if a few of the people on this forum got together they could come up with a presentation for their congressmen that would clearly lay out the facts as we see them. Anyone want to be athe leader? I can't.

geogen wrote:

From Pesident Obama's Speech to Congress: "We’ll... reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use."

This is surely applauded by most taxpaying citizens and sounds only prudent - especially concerning our forseeable economic crisis, but...

Mr President, Sir, (and Mr. M Mullen, Admiral, Sir) the B-1B and F-15E were heavily relied upon (i.e., USED) in strategical, time-sensitive strikes on combatant targets throughout the entire modern conflict engagment regions you speak of... as necessary examples for which to sustain needed post-Cold war capabilities... and moreover, such aircraft platforms as noted above were even reportedly essential as Close Air Support during the 'Surge'. Regardless of the politics, it is a fact that these platforms were/are depended upon assets in today's Post-Cold War 'current defense requirements'.

Given this fact, it would seem that since both platforms could very well be forced into early retirement, much sooner than currently estimated (as with unforseen, accelerated tactical F-16 retrirements), it can be argued that replacements for these platforms be planned for and developed as critical to sustaining the said post-cold war capabilities in future. It should be re-examined therefore, of potential economical derivatives of current, trusted tactical airframes, e.g. F-22, as alternative replacements to fill this apparently crticial future capability. Hence, the FB-22 would be a logical and economical exploitation of the present F-22 tactical manufacturing line, if it were selected to be the future replacement (as a supplement to other potential technological platforms in future developments). To discount the justification of this option however, based on a popular assumption of late that the fast-diminishing Air dominance capability is simply not necessary in a post-Cold War era (and therefore any follow-on as well), appears to be highly flawed.

Furthermore: let it be realized that 'cold-war' aviation design threats, while no longer a reality, have been replaced with plans for competitive, rival aviation designs or current upgrades already underway - far superior (and anticipated in future) compared to the very, older 'Cold War' adversarial models as referred.

Any continued inputs welcome...

Hey Geogen,

You draw up the petition and I will certainly sign my name to it buddy. I'd add to it but somehow after calling Senator Nelson and Congressman Crenshaw a couple of braid dead idiots and telling them to leave the economy the hell alone, I don't think they would be to receptive to me. lol Although they do answer all my emails amazingly Wink

Beazz, tell Bill Nelson to get off his a$$ and get our carrier to Mayport!

Thanks for the support, Beazz! Man, I wish I were refined enough to actually draft an official outline of any magnitude with the attempt to significantly influence Congress? I could wing it, but IMHO it would not pass the stress test of determining a legit player from a simple cyber-warrior..

And respects out to SnakeHandler.. I seriously wish your articulation could assist in leading such a proposal, but understood if you can't. I appreciate your idea though and would definitely contribute to a grass-roots cause.

On another observation: it's interesting how many similar debates and arguments (mostly in a simplistic opposition to continued F-22 production) are uploading on forinstance, Youtube, in last few days. It's definitely a heated debate. (and apparently a threat to quite a few interests, it seems)..

For example, it's interesting that AlJazzeraEnglish seems to be taking the popular view that it's more rational for USAF to buy cheaper F-35s ($75 billion vs $300 billion???), than to go the claimed route of the shadowy Military-Industrial-Complex-pushed F-22!! Go figure...

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 605

Geogen, just "liberate" an existing outline and put your info in it. Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to. Also, you could work with your congressman on it. I'm sure he has templates and can offer advice and guidance if you are willing to do the grunt work for him. I figure that if the people opposed to the issue have such a loud voice, then those on the other side should have an equally loud voice.

geogen wrote:

Thanks for the support, Beazz! Man, I wish I were refined enough to actually draft an official outline of any magnitude with the attempt to significantly influence Congress? I could wing it, but IMHO it would not pass the stress test of determining a legit player from a simple cyber-warrior..

And respects out to SnakeHandler.. I seriously wish your articulation could assist in leading such a proposal, but understood if you can't. I appreciate your idea though and would definitely contribute to a grass-roots cause.

On another observation: it's interesting how many similar debates and arguments (mostly in a simplistic opposition to continued F-22 production) are uploading on forinstance, Youtube, in last few days. It's definitely a heated debate. (and apparently a threat to quite a few interests, it seems)..

For example, it's interesting that AlJazzeraEnglish seems to be taking the popular view that it's more rational for USAF to buy cheaper F-35s ($75 billion vs $300 billion???), than to go the claimed route of the shadowy Military-Industrial-Complex-pushed F-22!! Go figure...

Personally I don't think a presentation by Curtis LeMay, Billy Mitchell, Robin Olds, and Chuck Horner would convince them as they aren't looking to be convinced. They already have their agenda and a strong defense isn't in the cards. When they want to cut tens of thousand of high tech jobs by slashing defense so they can fund tens of thousand of ditch-diggers and trash collectors well, you may as well be talking to a bag of turnips.

So you believe we have just the right amount of trash collectors in place already.

OL

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Open letter to Admiral M. Mullen and DoD... re: F-22