Forum: F-22A Raptor

SM - Interesting possibility re: the conceptual 2030 F-X, fighter replacement. I with you, would like to think it's as easy as just planning for it and flicking a switch.. Personally, my gut is saying the politics, economics and reality of the future won't support a full blown, original design F-X development by that timeframe. Perhaps it would be far more prudent and calculating to further upgrade F-22 and/or F-35 going into that timeframe for a much more cost-effective approach and at least securing a technological/capability upgrade instead of gambling on a whole new design just to find it flops in the final test with no cash remaining for upgrades. Call me ultra-conservative and cautious on this one, but that's just my pragmatic gut talking..

tmofarrvl - great insight on the subject and very effectively communicated. To the point, thanks..

DA - "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"

After 5-10 years of persistent, fully funded, uninterrupted national sacrifice and super-human will-power? $ Cost to re-start a discontinued F-22 line and the assumed 3-4 yr political decision alone, to decisively support a reversed-One-eighty on accelerated 'Cold War' restarts, on top of a 3-4 yr rapid re-manufacture of a line, would not be prudent 'acquisition process', nor acceptable defense planning. (e.g., It would be more rational to just buy Euro-fighter Tranche 3 in a crisis mode (and ask for industry off-sets later)).

Planning/doctrine needs to be much more 'polar-contingency-abled' and flexible. Rigid, absolute assumptions going forward at this highly dynamic cross-roads in history must be red-flagged.

Such a doctrine and 'process' is unsustainably flawed, IMHO, I'm sorry..

F-16.net Sponsor

Updated: 8:17 p.m. April 21, 2009

Lockheed won’t fight end of F-22 program

Sen. Saxby Chambliss says aircraft’s future doesn’t look bright

By BOB KEEFE

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The future of the F-22 fighter jet program based at Lockheed Martin’s plant in Marietta took another major nosedive Tuesday, after the company said it will accept the Pentagon’s plans to end the program.
Many lawmakers — led by those from Georgia — blasted the idea of cutting a program that employs 25,000 people nationwide in the middle of a recession.

On Tuesday, the F-22’s chief backer in Congress, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said he wasn’t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program’s future doesn’t look bright.

However, Lockheed’s chief financial officer said the ultimate impact at the Marietta plant, where final assembly of the F-22 employs 2,000 workers, might not be as bad as first expected.

That’s because while the F-22 program might be going away in the next several years, the Defense Department’s plans to ramp up production on another fighter jet — the F-35 — as well as two cargo planes could save many jobs at the Marietta plant, which does work on those planes as well.

“We’re fortunate at Marietta that at the same time we’re seeing a downturn of the F-22 production, we’re seeing a significant uptick in [cargo plane] production for the C-130J program, as well … as the C-5 program,” Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce Tanner said in a conference call with investors.

“It remains to be seen if those things unwind perfectly to be able to avoid any kind of issues [in Marietta], and we’ll have to take a look at seeing what elements of the F-35 program can be moved around between different … locations,” Tanner said. “But that’s something we’ll obviously strive to do to have as little disruption as possible to the Marietta workforce.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently announced that he wants to buy only four more F-22s, effectively ending the program probably sometime in the first quarter of 2012. The Air Force is expected to have 187 of the planes by then.

Tanner said Lockheed tried to fight for continuation of the F-22 program, but indicated the company had all but given up.

“We’ve had our chance to lobby this matter, we think we’ve had a full hearing of that discussion and we’re disappointed by the decisions, but we’ll accept those and go on,” he said.

Gates’ decision to end purchases of the fighter jets, which cost $140 million each — double that when research and development costs are added in — touched off a firestorm in Congress.

The battle lines are different this time, Chambliss said. “Every other time we’ve had to fight for the F-22, I’ve had the Pentagon with us, the Air Force with us, and I’ve had Lockheed with us,” Chambliss said.

“We need all three of them if possible, but we know the Pentagon is in opposition to us, the Air Force looks like they’ve signed on to Gates’ budget … so I’m very concerned where Lockheed is now.”

Chambliss, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he wants 60 more of the planes to be built, not just the four more that the Defense Department has said it wants.

“It was going to be an uphill fight anyway, but you’ve got to have them [Lockheed] on board with you; otherwise, it makes it an extremely difficult battle,” he said.

Simply disastrous!

Save the world's most potent ace maker and largest distributor of Sukhoi parts from the chopping block!

skyhigh wrote:

Simply disastrous!

Save the world's most potent ace maker and largest distributor of Sukhoi parts from the chopping block!

I'm the Devils Advocate. Why?

-DA

DA, I stumbled across your thread at

Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-55894.aspx

HOLY KRAP

I have never seen so many posts in so little time. Not to mention the vitriol that some are spewing in your general direction.

I got through reading about 13 pages last night and gave up Wink

Keep up the good fight.

SpudmanWP wrote:

DA, I stumbled across your thread at

Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-55894.aspx

HOLY KRAP

I have never seen so many posts in so little time. Not to mention the vitriol that some are spewing in your general direction.

I got through reading about 13 pages last night and gave up Wink

Keep up the good fight.

Yes its rough overthere. People really really love the F-22 to the point of obsession. I love it too but I tend to view all weapons as mere tools and I don't get personally invested in them or attached. I could love it today, then change happens, and be through with it tomorrow. I'm on "time out" over there until Monday which I personally don't have a problem with as it will allow things to cool off a bit and then we can get back to Raptor talk!

Speaking of which, I have been playing with various numbers and I'm starting to get a very rough idea of what about 120 combat coded planes means. I'm basing my cursory analysis on 8000 flight hours and potential threats that really exist and so far I don't see a deficit with the exception of the mishap rate. I still think it will improve over time though. Not quite finished but my gut tells me that we will be ok. Seems like Lockheed isn't too concerned either but then they are the beneficiary either way since they have the 5th Gen market cornered. I'm sure the business group has done the math on how cutting F-35 vs F-22 would affect revenues. I mention that because considering the budget and the other priorities mentioned by the SecDef and USAF CoS it seems that the only room to maneuver would be to bit into F-35 numbers on the back end. But I don't think people are in the mood for a unit fly away cost price increase considering the state of the economy.

I've also began to look at the issue of starting over F-22 production once the line has shut down. Based on what I do know about the availability of raw materials and lead times to get silicon production going for example, the time it would take to put a management team together and deal with regression issues and reintegrate new parts due to obsolete parts and availability, tooling and all that jazz I sitting at a minimum estimate of about 2 years from the time a decision is made until the 188th F-22 rolls off of the line and God said money was no object and just make it happen. That assumes things go relatively smooth. So for instance is in 2017 the situation changes we would be looking at 2019-2020 from my guess. With F-X coming in the later part of 2020's it would have to be a very dire situation indeed to justify. Perhaps it may even be easier to modify the still in production F-35 into one of Dwight's Violet Lightning designs. Just a thought.

-DA

The only thing is... you make mention of restarting the production line "if we ever need to and money is no issue". But:

1. In any situation where we all of a sudden need more F-22s (say in war) to replace combat losses, 2 years may be 2 years too late.

2. Money is always an issue. It's the issue right here, right now. Even during a modern conflict, it will be an issue. Money can't solve point #1 anyway as it will just be too little and too late to affect the outcome.

Not that such a scenario is likely, but it means that the F-22, following #187, is effectively never going to be produced again. Especially when you move into the 2020 time frame. By then, the USAF will want something newer and better.

skrip00 wrote:

The only thing is... you make mention of restarting the production line "if we ever need to and money is no issue". But:

1. In any situation where we all of a sudden need more F-22s (say in war) to replace combat losses, 2 years may be 2 years too late.

2. Money is always an issue. It's the issue right here, right now. Even during a modern conflict, it will be an issue. Money can't solve point #1 anyway as it will just be too little and too late to affect the outcome.

Not that such a scenario is likely, but it means that the F-22, following #187, is effectively never going to be produced again. Especially when you move into the 2020 time frame. By then, the USAF will want something newer and better.

I understand that. My point was just to address the consequences of ceasing production. I just wanted an idea of what an optimistic LM Engineering VP might tell me if I were the USAF CoS and all the sudden needed more F-22's. Its has nothing to do with combat losses or any specific scenario. I already qualified my money comment as a hypothetical. Again, I agree that the line should be shut down and I do not believe, not saying people have to agree just that I believe it, that more will be needed.

-DA

Quote:

I'm basing my cursory analysis on...potential threats that really exist and so far I don't see a deficit...my gut tells me that we will be ok.

Interesting...Just curious as to your threat analysis (if you would share) for that which will really exist in say 10-15 yrs? I mean... not if we'll be at war with Canada or NZ or Ireland but, you know.. will there be a sufficient real existing threat which will justify USAF to truly require 1,700 Gen 5 Stealth Multi-rolers? (and not to mention another 680 USN mix of stealth a/c).. I mean, that's pretty scary to absolutely need that requirement and to know that for sure today, about the future, to make that fixed love it or hate it, long term, shot-gun commitment for one silver bullet system, right?? (and sheesh, I do hope you're right that we'll be OK, without that actual threat existing!!)

Quote:

...it seems that the only room to maneuver would be to bit into F-35 numbers on the back end. But I don't think people are in the mood for a unit fly away cost price increase considering the state of the economy.

Noooo... please NO cost increases with this economy, you're so correct on that! But at least if SecDef or even Congress feel the must-need to cut into our said 'back end orders', I guess things will be OK anyway and good news at least would be that saved money from the extra non-needed Stealth fighter orders could go into upgrading the ones we had to the modern standard, right? as the priority was just scooping up those jets that kept rolling off the line as was predicted, just like magic - in order to secure as many mods possible, to brilliantly keep the unit prices down!! Confused

Quote:

I've also began to look at the issue of starting over F-22 production once the line has shut down...and all that jazz I sitting at a minimum estimate of about 2 years from the time a decision is made until the 188th F-22 rolls off of the line... Just a thought.

Wow that would be brilliant! I like your math... so if it takes 30 months to complete a Raptor from start to finish, but you can get not only the entire line re-established, fortified, sub-contracted, materialized and get that bird chirping at the other end all in 24 months... it's a miracle, You're hired!! Simply unbelievable - wish we could clone a whole DoD dept of you! Crying or Very sad

geogen wrote:

Wow that would be brilliant! I like your math... so if it takes 30 months to complete a Raptor from start to finish, but you can get not only the entire line re-established, fortified, sub-contracted, materialized and get that bird chirping at the other end all in 24 months... it's a miracle, You're hired!! Simply unbelievable - wish we could clone a whole DoD dept of you! Crying or Very sad

I did qualify it as a matter of emergency. Certainly you don't mean to suggest you think they can't be made any faster?

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

geogen wrote:

Wow that would be brilliant! I like your math... so if it takes 30 months to complete a Raptor from start to finish, but you can get not only the entire line re-established, fortified, sub-contracted, materialized and get that bird chirping at the other end all in 24 months... it's a miracle, You're hired!! Simply unbelievable - wish we could clone a whole DoD dept of you! Crying or Very sad

I did qualify it as a matter of emergency. Certainly you don't mean to suggest you think they can't be made any faster?

-DA

What you suggest DA is NOT simply making them faster. If the line were up and running full speed as it is now, to go to 24 months is a 20% increase in speed and that alone would be a pretty large increase and not easily achieved. You're suggesting not only a 20% increase in build rate, but starting a production line from scratch with absolutely NOTHING in place to make so much as ONE airplane in that time!! Emergency or not, that is pure nonsense!

Beazz

beazzz wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

geogen wrote:

Wow that would be brilliant! I like your math... so if it takes 30 months to complete a Raptor from start to finish, but you can get not only the entire line re-established, fortified, sub-contracted, materialized and get that bird chirping at the other end all in 24 months... it's a miracle, You're hired!! Simply unbelievable - wish we could clone a whole DoD dept of you! Crying or Very sad

I did qualify it as a matter of emergency. Certainly you don't mean to suggest you think they can't be made any faster?

-DA

What you suggest DA is NOT simply making them faster. If the line were up and running full speed as it is now, to go to 24 months is a 20% increase in speed and that alone would be a pretty large increase and not easily achieved. You're suggesting not only a 20% increase in build rate, but starting a production line from scratch with absolutely NOTHING in place to make so much as ONE airplane in that time!! Emergency or not, that is pure nonsense!

Beazz

Nonsense is a bit harsh don't you think? The F-117 went from paper airplane to reality in 31 months and that was a Black Program that had to deal with unbelievable multiple layers of security. Tell me why in your own words, not because you heard someone said, that is is not possible under any circumstances circa 2015-2020 to get the 188th F-22 into the air inside of 24 months with the following conditions previously mentioned:

a. National Emergency requiring the immediate production of F-22's

b. cost was not an issue as it is now

Before you respond, keep in mind that the lay version of what I'm asking you is do you think the USA can't re-open or re-create the F-22 production line and make 1 fighter all within 24 months. Also keep in mind that the production line isn't going to be opening from scratch. Much of the institutional knowledge will still exist and there is actual data to streamline and speed the process up unlike a brand new development platform.

-DA

DA I'll let Beazz answer for himself - he'll keep us all on our toes with a good answer I can vouche for that..

I'll just remind the fact that perhaps under the best 'Black Program' with multiple layers of security, the F-22 could indeed be restarted faster than if done under multiple layers of DoD and Congress.. so I'll accept your 24 month production sales pitch.. But I'm sorry but you're forgetting the 18 month actual re-constitution of the line, suppliers, material, and work force (which would have moved on to other projects).

In a true crisis, it would be more prudent to quick buy Tranche 3 EF

geogen wrote:

DA I'll let Beazz answer for himself - he'll keep us all on our toes with a good answer I can vouche for that..

I'll just remind the fact that perhaps under the best 'Black Program' with multiple layers of security, the F-22 could indeed be restarted faster than if done under multiple layers of DoD and Congress.. so I'll accept your 24 month production sales pitch.. But I'm sorry but you're forgetting the 18 month actual re-constitution of the line, suppliers, material, and work force (which would have moved on to other projects).

In a true crisis, it would be more prudent to quick buy Tranche 3 EF

Geogen,

Let me reiterate so as to be precisely clear. I do not think this is something that would be necessary or even wise given that in the latter half of next decade the F-35 would be rolling off the production line at the rate of 1 per work day IIRC. I'm just saying that if the US had to, it could make more Raptors. I've just detected a hint of bias in some OSINT media reports from various sources that make it seem as if it's an absolute impossibility. Now, having said that...

...Why on God's good green Earth would we choose a Eurofighter as our most prudent option when we have made in the USA F-35's, F/A-18E/F and maybe even F-15E variant production lines still going? Admittedly I'm not a fan of the Eurofighter but C'mon...lol

Thinking outside the box a bit, if a near term upgrade to our air to air capabilities was needed, what about a the swift development of a cooperative UCAV that acted as an orbiting persistent spear thrower that took cues from off board sources with the spears of course being AMRAAMS. I mean, the RQ-1 didn't take to the skies with the Hellfire or Stinger in mind but necessity sure facilitated the rapid combining! That was quickly followed by the MQ-9 and in the same decade we have the Avenger prototype. With each iteration the UAV got more capability, more survivable and heavily armed. There are a lot of ways to make 187 Raptors work including working with other emerging technologies.

-DA

If I were a USAF general, I would want up to five times that number.

Anyway, would you want to serve with the Air Force you have or the Air Force you want?

It's up to the company and field grade officers, from second lieutenants to full colonels, because they're doing the bulk of the fighting, and you want as many pilots, male and female, coming home alive mission after mission in this remarkable air dominance fighter instead of sending them to their premature deaths in the "21st century F-105 Thud" the brass is promoting.

The Air Force's saving grace would be the largest distributor of Sukhoi parts.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 vs. Congress