Forum: F-22A Raptor

BDF - I'd counter by suggesting only an EA/FB-22 catalyist (or FB-35) could enable a credible, future (2015-2025) offensive deterrence, deployed from more flexible, stand-off basing - thus better stabilizing a potential crisis for a hopeful non-conflict end result. Otherwise, bluffs can be called if intent and capability is not convincing and we all know what can tragically result from that. But I concur with the conclusions within professional claims that 120 MC F-22s should be supplemented by increased orders, of any amount - just order them (as Gates would say). IMHO.

DarthAmerica wrote:

...So clearly, 187 represents the minimum number that we are able to live with and still do the things asked on the USAF. Choices. MOre later...

Such as 'do things as aksed on the USAF' (by DoD) like: buy 1,700 F-35A bomb-trucks over the next 25 yrs @ $140m/ea (Block 3 mod prices) to perform ops after the skies are cleared?

With all due respect and an interest for a full and honest public decision on unprecedented long-term defense commitments, it's time for US Congress to go to work on this and not just read brochures.

F-16.net Sponsor

F-35 is not a "bomb truck", it's a multirole fighter. It's also much more in demand and more relevant across the full spectrum of operations.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

F-35 is not a "bomb truck", it's a multirole fighter. It's also much more in demand and more relevant across the full spectrum of operations.

-DA

Good simple answer DA. I have to believe that there must be something in the pipeline already in development considering the "6th Generation" comment regarding future F-22 purchases and no interest in purchasing more F-15's. There has to be something going on since I would not consider the F-35 a direct replacement for the F-15.

DarthAmerica wrote:

The world situation has changed. Also, I don't buy the line that production can't later be restarted. Sure, it would be expensive as hell. But it's not like we would have to go through r&d again. 1-2 years notice and production could resume. Maybe quicker. But that's very unlikely given the situation today IMHO.

-DA

I have seen what happens when production on major aircraft systems is suspended - even for a couple of years. Even with all of the production tooling still in place, restarting production means that long term agreements need to be renegotiated, and production processes relearned and recertified. Suppliers who used to provide key components may not necessarily be willing to take on the same workshare that they once contributed - which means finding new suppliers who are qualified to produce the same hardware. Moreover, the original tooling may not be conducive to the manufacturing processes of the day, or at a new supplier.

I witnessed an example myself, not so many years ago, where a major aerospace product (a relatively low-tech, civilian product) was taken out of production for only two years. Restarting the production line, even with all of the original tooling still intact, required another two years of concerted effort.

If you want to argue that a production run of 187 warplanes is adequate to meet Americal's air superiority needs for the next twenty years, then you are free to make that argument. But don't kid yourself or anyone else by claiming that production of the Raptor could be restarted at any time on a couple years notice.

The long-lead production time for the F-22 today - with a fully primed and learned out production process - is two years. That extra funding that Congress allocated last year for long lead items for an additional 20 Raptors? The funding that the Pentagon elected to spend only four aircraft shipsets worth? That's for airplanes that will be delivered in 2011. Restarting the Raptor production line from a cold start would require over half a decade - at best - and assuming that you don't have to redesign the entire electronics suite from the ground up because too many of the original components simply cannot be replicated.

Let's be clear on this. Once the production line for the Raptor is shut down, it is shut down for good. No one is going to be willing to pay the very steep price to redevelop the tooling and recertify the processes.

DarthAmerica wrote:

...So clearly, 187 represents the minimum number that we are able to live with and still do the things asked on the USAF. Choices. MOre later...

-DA

Schwartz dodged the critical question: Does 187 represent a high risk solution? The obvious answer is yes. Not only that, the fleet size is too small for keeping 126 combat coded jets as it is; as of right now they have ZERO attrition reserve jets, none. The current loss rate is around one per 35,000hrs so we’re looking at one per year on average. So even if we’re so lucky to actually field the F-X follow on jet in the 2028 timeframe we’ll be down one a full squadron from peace time attrition.

What’ve I’ve been hearing is that Gates cancelled all seven meetings he was scheduled to have with the USAF/ AFCoS during the deliberation process on TACAIR/F-22 issues (this is after CoS pitched the 60 jets in Jan). This seems to be corroborated somewhat indirectly in AvWeek’s latest Check 6 podcast as they mention that many of these decisions were decided in the very inner circles of OSD and it appears that the service chiefs had very little input. These decisions are clearly budgetary and political and should have been made in QDR.

BDF

BDF wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

...So clearly, 187 represents the minimum number that we are able to live with and still do the things asked on the USAF. Choices. MOre later...

-DA

Schwartz dodged the critical question: Does 187 represent a high risk solution? The obvious answer is yes. Not only that, the fleet size is too small for keeping 126 combat coded jets as it is; as of right now they have ZERO attrition reserve jets, none. The current loss rate is around one per 35,000hrs so we’re looking at one per year on average. So even if we’re so lucky to actually field the F-X follow on jet in the 2028 timeframe we’ll be down one a full squadron from peace time attrition.

What’ve I’ve been hearing is that Gates cancelled all seven meetings he was scheduled to have with the USAF/ AFCoS during the deliberation process on TACAIR/F-22 issues (this is after CoS pitched the 60 jets in Jan). This seems to be corroborated somewhat indirectly in AvWeek’s latest Check 6 podcast as they mention that many of these decisions were decided in the very inner circles of OSD and it appears that the service chiefs had very little input. These decisions are clearly budgetary and political and should have been made in QDR.

BDF

It does not matter. They have come out on record stating that the consensus is 187 is the maximum number given other priorities. That has to be factored into this. Also the United States military is not a one trick pony. Our capability to defeat the enemy does not rest on a single platform. That is a single point of failure. WHat he did not say was whether or not 187 is a minimum number. We are free to speculate that of course. But do you think it would be wise for the USAF CoS to openly state the absolute minimum number? I don't. And I don't think 187 is the minimum either. I do think its a low number, but obviously there is some room in there for losses ect.

I think people need to reconsider the CONOPS for F-22 deployment. The way the SecDef and CoS are approaching the issue, they see the F-22 as a "silver bullet" force. Its intended to "replace" the F-15 anymore. Rather it will augment as needed in extremely high threat environments. This is why F-22's aren't performing CAP over Iraq and Afghanistan the way F-16s do and F-15s used to do. But if for instance we were to get into a conflict there with an Iraqi neighbor and needed more a2a/ISR firepower. An F-22 detachment would augments the forces to kick down the door and go after the HVA/IADS/Red Air. It's an offensive employment doctrine.

-DA

tmofarrvl wrote:

Let's be clear on this. Once the production line for the Raptor is shut down, it is shut down for good. No one is going to be willing to pay the very steep price to redevelop the tooling and recertify the processes.

I flat out disagree with this. If the nation suddenly had a need to do this. It's only a matter of cost. Expensive yes. Impossible, no. It all depends on the necessity of it.

-DA

I have gone thru the shut down and re-start of an aircraft production line. If shut down in such a manner as to be kept "Warm" a line can be re-started fairly eaisly, but you have to have properly stored the production tooling and keep long lead suppliers available or go ahead and buy those long lead items like Ti forgings for your first lot of aircraft and store those for a possible re-start. If the production tooling is scrappedI think you can forget a re-start. There is a very long supply line to get all of the thousands of vendors back on contract and up to speed.

arl8733 wrote:

I have gone thru the shut down and re-start of an aircraft production line. If shut down in such a manner as to be kept "Warm" a line can be re-started fairly eaisly, but you have to have properly stored the production tooling and keep long lead suppliers available or go ahead and buy those long lead items like Ti forgings for your first lot of aircraft and store those for a possible re-start. If the production tooling is scrappedI think you can forget a re-start. There is a very long supply line to get all of the thousands of vendors back on contract and up to speed.

I haven't experienced this with a military aircraft so I can only offer an opinion. I don't think we would see renewed production outside of an extreme circumstance and that would be accompanied by extreme cost. But I don't think it's impossible either way. The knowledge is there to restart and if given the proper motivation $$$ a private company like LM will deliver said product. I mean look at the Chinese. They take and remanufacture Russian platforms illegally and they don't have the institutional knowledge or fully developed tech trees and they manage. I have a hard time accepting that LM, with in house knowledge and all the details could not pull F-22's out of a hat in 1 to 2 years time if need be and for the right price. But again, this is just my uninformed opinion.

-DA

If the Pentagon does not meet the Air Force's request for additional Raptors, then the 5 sided symbol of military power will be buzzed...

...by a single Raptor, flown by some disillusioned pilot from Langley AFB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eAWJiuDY50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXRSJ-IH3L0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5dkzYwExAA

DarthAmerica wrote:

It's only a matter of cost.

It's not only a matter of cost, but of schedule as well. In your prior posting you made a claim that:

DarthAmerica wrote:

1-2 years notice and production could resume.

That is simply wrong. Process certification, raw material acquisition and manufacturing all require time. For an aircraft as complex as this, years of time. No amount of funding can replace that. Or as the old addage says, "Getting nine women pregnant at once will not produce a baby in a month."

Eleven years from now in 2020, the USAF expects to be scraping together the necessary funding to field a new generation of stealth bomber. There is not going to be money floating around to resurrect a production line for the Raptor, no matter how badly they might want more airplanes at that juncture. Even if they wanted to, the lead time to recreate the tooling, relearn the manufacturing process, and produce aircraft would stretch across more than half a decade. No one is going to fund that. They might as well develop an all new aircraft aimed at a 2030 delivery date.

Maybe a fleet of 187 F-22's is enough - or maybe it isn't. But there should be no illusions here. The decisions that are made now will decide what kind of an air superiority fighter force the USAF has available for the next two decades to come.

tmofarrvl wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

It's only a matter of cost.

It's not only a matter of cost, but of schedule as well. In your prior posting you made a claim that:

DarthAmerica wrote:

1-2 years notice and production could resume.

That is simply wrong. Process certification, raw material acquisition and manufacturing all require time. For an aircraft as complex as this, years of time. No amount of funding can replace that. Or as the old addage says, "Getting nine women pregnant at once will not produce a baby in a month."

Eleven years from now in 2020, the USAF expects to be scraping together the necessary funding to field a new generation of stealth bomber. There is not going to be money floating around to resurrect a production line for the Raptor, no matter how badly they might want more airplanes at that juncture. Even if they wanted to, the lead time to recreate the tooling, relearn the manufacturing process, and produce aircraft would stretch across more than half a decade. No one is going to fund that. They might as well develop an all new aircraft aimed at a 2030 delivery date.

Maybe a fleet of 187 F-22's is enough - or maybe it isn't. But there should be no illusions here. The decisions that are made now will decide what kind of an air superiority fighter force the USAF has available for the next two decades to come.

I disagree with you but I am willing to be corrected and taught. Can you elaborate? Do you have a reference to a similar project schedule with a timeline?

-DA

Out of curiosity, what would be involved if restarting up the F-117 line was wanted?

Re: 2020 bomber and a hypothetical gen 6 2030 Air superiority replacement... unless F-35 program is substantially modified I don't see either of those two programs getting off the ground - Perhaps only if F-35 is curtailed after around 2027 (with the decision to discontinue made around 2022). I think everyone from DoD, Industry, USAF and Congress do not want to even think about probable skyrocketing prices for expected later-Block F-35 procurement. I think we're fooling ourselves that a Block 6 forinstance, with new engine, All-Aspect passive sensor/management, plus all the ultra Block 5 goodies, etc, will be priced as low as advertised (good luck getting the fixed-contracts anytime soon, for those late blocks).. unfortunately.

The most sensible solutions, IMHO, from a gut standpoint, would be to continue the F-22 line long enough for Congress/USAF to reconsider a FB-22 alternative to whole new Bomber (and new future fighter)... or ditto, for a hypothetical FB-35 concept (Block 7+) to kick in maybe around 2025 as common Interceptor/Light-Bomber (adapted for Carrier deployment). More reliance on new longer-range FB doctrine, IMO, could also enable a more Tanker-semi-autonomous Air Force. That would obviously require a significant vision rethink no question.

DarthAmerica wrote:

tmofarrvl wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

It's only a matter of cost.

It's not only a matter of cost, but of schedule as well. In your prior posting you made a claim that:

DarthAmerica wrote:

1-2 years notice and production could resume.

That is simply wrong. Process certification, raw material acquisition and manufacturing all require time. For an aircraft as complex as this, years of time. No amount of funding can replace that. Or as the old addage says, "Getting nine women pregnant at once will not produce a baby in a month."

Eleven years from now in 2020, the USAF expects to be scraping together the necessary funding to field a new generation of stealth bomber. There is not going to be money floating around to resurrect a production line for the Raptor, no matter how badly they might want more airplanes at that juncture. Even if they wanted to, the lead time to recreate the tooling, relearn the manufacturing process, and produce aircraft would stretch across more than half a decade. No one is going to fund that. They might as well develop an all new aircraft aimed at a 2030 delivery date.

Maybe a fleet of 187 F-22's is enough - or maybe it isn't. But there should be no illusions here. The decisions that are made now will decide what kind of an air superiority fighter force the USAF has available for the next two decades to come.

I disagree with you but I am willing to be corrected and taught. Can you elaborate? Do you have a reference to a similar project schedule with a timeline?

-DA

I work for ARDEC, and some simple items, like the metal ammo containers, take a long time to re-cert when coming back into production.

That's just for a frakking metal box. We still have to do new contracts, FATs, LATs, etc. for the munition itself. Especially if it's been out of production for some time.

Geogen... In fact that the USAF is looking at the next Air Dominance fighter in the 2030 timeframe.

This Briefing Doc shows the first flying F-22 replacements (F-X in the graph) around 2027 just as the last of the F-15C/D models are brought offline.. See page 25

It also shows all the F-16s gone by 2025 and A-10s gone by 2026.

Of course planning on F-X in 2027 is one thing and PAYING for F-X is another.

This Doc also packs a lot of info on the Eglin AFB F-35 beddown timeline.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 vs. Congress