Forum: F-22A Raptor

It could be restarted in 5,6 years just as easily as the F-35 line could be restarted later next decade, if hard-stopped after LRIP FY10 aircraft are completed, sure.

It's not about an agenda though... it's about making economical/strategic planning sense in a program. Any ubrupt and massive shift to urgently restart one program would obviously have an equally shifting impact and cost on other industrial production means.

It's really an irrelevant topic with regards to the entire 'what is the most justifiable and rational F-22 mix' debate, going forward.

F-16.net Sponsor

That's not true. They don't call it "Joint" Strike Fighter for nothing. Shutting down the F-35 for any reason next decade will have enourmous geopolitical consequences the Raptor program couldn't hold a candle to. Again, the vastness of the misunderstanding of national security priorities and/or agenda fuel this irrational support for the expansion of the Raptor program.

-DA

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

DarthAmerica wrote:

That's not true. They don't call it "Joint" Strike Fighter for nothing. Shutting down the F-35 for any reason next decade will have enourmous geopolitical consequences the Raptor program couldn't hold a candle to. Again, the vastness of the misunderstanding of national security priorities and/or agenda fuel this irrational LACK OF support for the expansion of the Raptor program.

-DA

war planning has always been and will always be based on both current and projected threats. the raptors will be fielded in the next 20-30 years. can you honestly and precisely say that the current threat (or lack thereof as you are implying) will not change in that timeframe?

Quote:

I wouldn't bet on making the F-22 exportable. It's a far more complicated process than people imagine and you get far more bang for the buck with the F-35. I mean seriously. The F-22 frenzy never ceases to amaze. It's a great plane, I would not be surprised or mind if we got a FEW MORE as a result of the politics. But in the end, the time has come to move on. More are not justified and the only fighter gap is the gap in logic that has people believing that we need to field force levels to meet hypothetical threats.

These discussions will be a cute footnote in defense history as we move beyond the Cold War mentality that is spawning these F-22 death throes. Seriously, if we aren't planning on building them in at least 2x to 3x the current number then 60 more aren't worth the trouble when we have so many other things we really need to address.

you admit that the raptor is a great plane and yet you somehow dismiss the thought of getting 60 more? 60 is 2 additional squadrons plus reserve for training and attrition. i believe 2 more raptor squadrons are far more worth the trouble.

DarthAmerica wrote:

solomon wrote:

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40521420090622

looks like making an exportable F-22 is going to cost alot more....

I wouldn't bet on making the F-22 exportable. It's a far more complicated process than people imagine and you get far more bang for the buck with the F-35. I mean seriously. The F-22 frenzy never ceases to amaze. It's a great plane, I would not be surprised or mind if we got a FEW MORE as a result of the politics. But in the end, the time has come to move on. More are not justified and the only fighter gap is the gap in logic that has people believing that we need to field force levels to meet hypothetical threats.

These discussions will be a cute footnote in defense history as we move beyond the Cold War mentality that is spawning these F-22 death throes. Seriously, if we aren't planning on building them in at least 2x to 3x the current number then 60 more aren't worth the trouble when we have so many other things we really need to address.

-DA

Buying more F-22, in quantities as low as 12 not deprive your children of schools or hospitals either. The problems you think US has, doesnt not have to do with money, its a question of fixing the mentality and politics and mistakes made.

Your previous adminsitration(s), and I am not talking about just the president did more damage to the country than spending money to buy 10000 Raptors.

O.K. So, Here's what I'm seeing -

#1. It wouldn't be that difficult to 're-up' the program,speculation on the expense is debatable.
#2. Within the next 10 years(minimum) is there really gonna be another fighter that comes out MORE advanced than the 22.......hell no.
#3. Will it be predominantly at the whim of the political sentiment of our suppliers for which it is dependant as the F-35 will be.........not so much.
#4. Will some of the materials and components actually decrease in price over time as all things have in the past......probably.
#5. Won't a good deal of parts actually NOT stop production because they will constantly need to be replaced........yep.

........so what the hell is the problem, why are we getting our collective panties in such a knot?? This makes me feel a little more comfortable...and I'm really against the production cut.(don't get me wrong,i'm still gonna whine like a twelve year old girl everytime the topic comes up)

p.s. - if your answer to number two is the pak-fa or whatever, blow it out your vectored tail pipe. we'll probably see Thylacenes in my back yard before we see that thing in the air.(that's what i'm hoping anyway) Wink

Irrelevant nonsense. No offense but the Federal Government does more than just defense. Moreover, Federal Government waste includes some aspects of defense. Like buying weapon systems we don't need and funding peoples pet programs for instance. Arguing that funding spent elsewhere could have gone toward Raptors is both beyond the scope of the discussion, obvious and irrelevant. Unless of course you are prepared to account for every single Federal Dollar and debate on why this or that should or should not get funding relative to something else. Clearly you aren't about to do that.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

That's not true. They don't call it "Joint" Strike Fighter for nothing. Shutting down the F-35 for any reason next decade will have enourmous geopolitical consequences the Raptor program couldn't hold a candle to. Again, the vastness of the misunderstanding of national security priorities and/or agenda fuel this irrational support for the expansion of the Raptor program.

-DA

Perhaps short-term geopolitical consequences; but if combined with adjusted counter-offers, made to partner Industrial complexes and special interests.. such consequences could be mitigated (given the proper leadership imperative). But technically speaking, yes, the proper counter-offers (supplemental) plans could address the more mil strategic relevant aspects.

It must be noted however that the evolved JSF program itself created the so-called 'geopolitical priority' in which must now be self-fulfilled or else. A geo-political priority did not necessitate the JSF Industrial-strategic, creep-amalgamation, from inception. A truly excessive, cataclysmic (too big to fail) Military-Industrial-Strategic Bubble which we must indeed have to swallow or burst (de-leverage) in some fashion has become a very, very unfortunate king of acquistion processes.

So what could be the alternatives? Perhaps some elites and deciders are contemplating some form of contingencies? It will be an historic lesson, regardless.

Well, lets look at exactlly how long the JSF program has been going on. YEARS... The USAF and NAVY were asked to combine their programs into one. Then others were asked to jump on board to help fund it. To say the consequences would be short term is ludicrous at best. No program has ever been asked to do so much from one shared platform. Where are the counter-offers? UK doesn't want the Tiffy anymore (scandal in Saudi aside), nobody wants the Rafale outside of political circles (UAE), Gripen has been lucky (considering the scandals around it as well). What are the options Geo? F-22 is way outside most governments fiscal budgets, let alone still not for sale outside the US. Older modified airframes are clearly not wanted unless there is no alternative.... no need to list countries. Boeing is holding on for dear life through Congress and FMS. The F-35 is the only economical and feasible platform going forward like it or not. Too many apples in the basket.......

The only reason people all of the sudden have a case of the vapors over the F-35 breathlessly following every sneeze in the program and willing to forsake it and all else for an insignificant number of significantly expensive F-22s is because they don't understand the nature of the threat and they have an irrational love for this platform. Anyone looking for a live version of the saying "fighter pilots make movies and bomber pilots make history" need look no further than here.

It would take 1-2 decades to recover from cancelling the F-35 and that's just making up the numbers with a substitute platform. The F-22 cannot be that substitute. It's too expensive and not design optimized. The political consequences and damage to our alliance/coalition style of warfare would last well beyond that. Want an example? Look at the status of the Rafale program. Some 30 years after breaking from Eurofighter and that aircraft is still in gestation with Dassault not even able to give them away.

The F-22 is a great plane but most vastly misunderstand it's relative importance.

-DA

geogen wrote:

It could be restarted in 5,6 years just as easily as the F-35 line could be restarted later next decade, if hard-stopped after LRIP FY10 aircraft are completed, sure.

It's not about an agenda though... it's about making economical/strategic planning sense in a program. Any ubrupt and massive shift to urgently restart one program would obviously have an equally shifting impact and cost on other industrial production means.

It's really an irrelevant topic with regards to the entire 'what is the most justifiable and rational F-22 mix' debate, going forward.

Unlikely. LM as a corporation doesn't have money to have empty floor space and tooling just sitting around.

Skilled people that have matured in their ability to build the F-22 as time goes on, won't be around to fill the gap at some magical time in the future if someone just wants to start F-22 production after a number of years. Those people will be either put out of work, work on another program, move to another job in another company, retire or go make high-tech golf club designs.

DarthAmerica wrote:

Look at the status of the Rafale program. Some 30 years after breaking from Eurofighter and that aircraft is still in gestation with Dassault not even able to give them away.

-DA

Factually incorrect-- the Rafale is further along it's developmental pathway than the Typhoon, and in fact beat the Typhoon in Singapore's NGF evaluation (before losing to the F-15SG), probably because it had already integrated full air-to-ground payloads while the Eurofighter consortium was bickering over what radar to install or how many fighters to buy. In fact in the time it took Eurofighter to bring the basic Typhoon to IOC, Dassault had already developed a navalised version of the Rafale.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is great despite it's developmental program, which is, in fact, one of the examples of what the F-35 should NOT do. Similarly, the Eurofighter programme illuminates certain pitfalls that could yet potentially increase the price of the F-35, even at this stage of development, whereas the F-22 is 'safe', at least in terms of risk of rise in production costs. The fact that the Rafale can't sell has nothing to do with the developmental program of the aircraft.

edwin3060 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Look at the status of the Rafale program. Some 30 years after breaking from Eurofighter and that aircraft is still in gestation with Dassault not even able to give them away.

-DA

Factually incorrect-- the Rafale is further along it's developmental pathway than the Typhoon, and in fact beat the Typhoon in Singapore's NGF evaluation (before losing to the F-15SG), probably because it had already integrated full air-to-ground payloads while the Eurofighter consortium was bickering over what radar to install or how many fighters to buy. In fact in the time it took Eurofighter to bring the basic Typhoon to IOC, Dassault had already developed a navalised version of the Rafale.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is great despite it's developmental program, which is, in fact, one of the examples of what the F-35 should NOT do. Similarly, the Eurofighter programme illuminates certain pitfalls that could yet potentially increase the price of the F-35, even at this stage of development, whereas the F-22 is 'safe', at least in terms of risk of rise in production costs. The fact that the Rafale can't sell has nothing to do with the developmental program of the aircraft.

No, you missed my point.

-DA

elp wrote:

geogen wrote:

It could be restarted in 5,6 years just as easily as the F-35 line could be restarted later next decade, if hard-stopped after LRIP FY10 aircraft are completed, sure.

It's not about an agenda though... it's about making economical/strategic planning sense in a program. Any ubrupt and massive shift to urgently restart one program would obviously have an equally shifting impact and cost on other industrial production means.

It's really an irrelevant topic with regards to the entire 'what is the most justifiable and rational F-22 mix' debate, going forward.

Unlikely. LM as a corporation doesn't have money to have empty floor space and tooling just sitting around.

Skilled people that have matured in their ability to build the F-22 as time goes on, won't be around to fill the gap at some magical time in the future if someone just wants to start F-22 production after a number of years. Those people will be either put out of work, work on another program, move to another job in another company, retire or go make high-tech golf club designs.

It's not unlikely. If the need existed then the funds would come. if the funding is there, everything else follows. It's simply a matter of money and if for whatever reason the USG decided to restart production and funded it, you would have your F-22's.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

elp wrote:

geogen wrote:

It could be restarted in 5,6 years just as easily as the F-35 line could be restarted later next decade, if hard-stopped after LRIP FY10 aircraft are completed, sure.

It's not about an agenda though... it's about making economical/strategic planning sense in a program. Any ubrupt and massive shift to urgently restart one program would obviously have an equally shifting impact and cost on other industrial production means.

It's really an irrelevant topic with regards to the entire 'what is the most justifiable and rational F-22 mix' debate, going forward.

Unlikely. LM as a corporation doesn't have money to have empty floor space and tooling just sitting around.

Skilled people that have matured in their ability to build the F-22 as time goes on, won't be around to fill the gap at some magical time in the future if someone just wants to start F-22 production after a number of years. Those people will be either put out of work, work on another program, move to another job in another company, retire or go make high-tech golf club designs.

It's not unlikely. If the need existed then the funds would come. if the funding is there, everything else follows. It's simply a matter of money and if for whatever reason the USG decided to restart production and funded it, you would have your F-22's.

-DA

Nice how you try and make it sound so simple DA. You, and everyone on this board and certainly in the USG and DoD know it is NOT that simple. ELP is right on in what he said. The people trained NOW that make this plane will be no more and it will take years to retrain a new workforce to make it again. It will also either require LM to close down some other a/c they have in production in order to facilitate it or build completley new space. Which again will take years to do. Yea, sure it CAN be done with enough money, but the amount of money AND time required in order to get it done will be totally prohibitive.

The major workspace LM will have going at the time is F35 space. So we either build brand spanking new hangar space by the millions of square feet or close down a big chunk of F35 production which would no doubt lead to cancellation of planes and additional penaltys having to be paid by LM and/or the USG because of not fulfilling their contractual duties. Not to mention the negative effect it would have on our relationship with our world partners as you have so often eluded to ref any thought of cancelling the F35.

On top of all that, the only reason there would be that big of need for more F22's once the line is closed would be we were already at war or on the verge of it and in either case we would not have the time, even if we could come up with the money, in order to build new ones. There is no way any modern day war is going to give the good ole USA a few years (minimum) to build ourselves more planes to defeat our enemy. So DA, for all practical and realistic purposes, once the line is closed, it is going to stay closed and we all know it. Whatever amount we wind up with, be it 187 or 750, is how many we are gonna go to war with and we are going to finish that war with that many minus what we lose in said war. There will not be any new ones regardless of how much money we can beg China for at the time. Especially since it's them we most likely will be needing it to fight Wink

)

Beazz

I have to agree with Beazz. All those thousands of suppliers providing components for the F-22 will have switched production to other stuff or willhave gone out of business if the Raptor line shuts down. No way they're carrying excess inventory in the event that they decide to build new jets years into the future.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 vs. Congress