Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Now I recognize we need a fighter like the F-35 to serve as the "bulk" of our force, to haul the iron, to be something of a "general-purpose" combat aircraft much like the F-16 became. The F-35 promises to excel at doing just that and by replacing the F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier it kills three birds with one stone. Yet I am strongly of the mindset that we need more specialized combat aircraft too, this includes designs focusing on air-superiority like the F-22, bombers, and dedicated close-air-support aircraft like the A-10.

F-16.net Sponsor

SpudmanWP wrote:

I was trying to put it in the simplest terms possible.

Quote:

We've taken what is currently the uiltimate weapon in the air and made it nothing more then a Wal-Mart special that anyone with cash can have and in the process have threatend our own national security simply for a *sale*!!! Pathetic if you ask me.

Wouldn't that be if we did export the F-22?

By keeping the F-22 here we guarantee that we have an exclusive hold on the best A2A fighter for the foreseeable future.

By ultimate weapon Spudman I was referring to stealth in general. I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and don't have the *big picture* as those genious folks selling our best to anyone with a pocket full of cash and a *promise* to not steal our tech, but it just seems to me when you have a weapon that no other nation on the planet has and everyone out there would like to have it, until such time as the enemy actually produces one for themself, you simply do not give it, sell it or in way shape manner or form allow anyone to have it. Is there anyone on here that can honestly tell me had we given the stealth tech of the F117 or B2 out 20 to 25 years ago that todays stealth would still be as formiddable a weapons system as it still is?

Beazz

lampshade111 wrote:

Fantasy? The B-1B must surely have been fantasy too back then, considering the fact that only four B-1A prototypes were made.

The B-1 was a bomber. It is understood and accepted in this day and age that the production runs for bombers never reach sufficient volume to take advantage of economies of scale. You need to get past 250 airframes before the unit cost can be said to be "learned out". The F-22 didn't quite get there. The B-1 never got close. But while that is acceptable for a bomber, it is not acceptable for a fighter. Do you honestly believe that someone is going to restart the F-22 production line for a handful of airframes, when the cost per unit will be three times or more the cost for the F-35? Like it or not, to believe that anyone is going to pay that much for a handful of additional airframes is fantasy.

lampshade111 wrote:

The tooling at the central assembly line isn't going to be destroyed unless congress or the DefSec manages to order it done.

Do you have any idea how many pieces of hardware go into making one of these airplanes? Thousands. The typical manufacturing cycle for an airframe component will look something like this: raw material from supplier A, will be processed by supplier B, then machined by supplier C, which will then go into a sub-assembly at location D, all before the prime contractor assembles the final product at location E. Every step in this process requires specialized tooling - which no one is going to pay to warehouse for a program that is no longer in production. We're not talking about a single room of final assembly jigs at Lockheed Martin. We're talking about an entire supplier base for thousands of components. The Defense Department will be scrapping out that tooling faster than you can imagine.

lampshade111 wrote:

When it comes to smaller subcontractors, they can be brought back on board again or new ones chosen. Much of the technological basis for the Raptor is still going to be around for the F-35.

Lad, you have no idea how difficult it is to reestablish a production process when the original tooling is gone, the original suppliers either don't exist or don't want the work, and the original manufacturing processes don't correspond to current "best practices". As I mentioned before - I do.

None of the suppliers are going to keep idle resources on their books, just waiting for an additional Raptor contract to drop out of the sky. They will be working on other projects. Asking them to divert resources to relearn the tooling and processes for an out-of production airplane would not only be incredibly expensive, but would also seriously disrupt whatever other programs they are currently engaged on - most likely the F-35 among them. No one in the Pentagon is going to advocate that as a good idea, or a wise use of resources.

None of us have to like the fiscal realities of the world we live in. But pretending that they don't exist isn't helping anyone. Once the F-22 goes out of production, it is going to stay that way.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Quote:

In fact I would argue that with the addition of DAS and the helmet mounted sight the F-35 would have a better than even chance of beating the Raptor at close range.

Assuming if the F-35 were carrying 9Xs to begin with (on it's wing on pylons). If so, uh-oh, the Lightning would have been detected long ago and never would have even got to a merge. Doh

It also can come down to which F-35 model/variant. Sure would hate to go to the merge in an F-35B/C without those 9Xs. Oh, gotta remain stealthy...Ah!!! Just remembered, neither of those models carries an internal gun! Did someone strap on that stealthy gun pod??? I'd sure hate to BFM without something as basic as a gun (right navy and Marines?). Doh

All right, I'm in the F-35A, the one with an internal gun. Yahoo!!! Thumb

OK, no 9Xs in hanging off my wing so I'm fully stealthy!!! Thumb

OK, now where's that Raptor (never mind why are these two fighting each other, that's beside the point)! OK, I see him and (at merge) "Fight's On"!

Oh SH!T, he just did what?!? What the...he's pointing right at me!!! I can't do that. And I'm the one with the DAS/Helmet thingys. Man, he isn't fair!

lampshade111 wrote:

The F-35 is no substitute for the F-22...

I concur and nobody in the USAF, USN, USMC or LM has ever said otherwise either.

I support the F-35, but I also know what it isn't.

Lets see just about every argument you used against the F-35 here could be used in regard to the F-22 and every argument used here could be used against it once the new sidewinders with lock on leave are fielded.

How do you know the F-22 will point better? How do you know the combination of the F-35s pointing ability and the use of a helmet mounted sight will not result in the F-35 having a good chance of getting off the first shot.?

Do you know at what range the APG-81 will be able to lock onto the F-22? Do you know at what range the AMRAAM radar will be able to do the same? Two miles, three miles, five miles??? Frankly you probably don’t know.

So back to DAS. At close range that gives me better situational awareness than the F-22 pilot and since it’s cued to the HMS, reaction time I going to be quicker.

Back to Sidewinder. I was talking about internally carried sidewinders which will be possible once the upgraded Sidewinder is fielded. The combination of the missile and the EOTS will enable the F-35 to cue the missile’s seeker to the F-22.

The B and C version are supposed to have a stealthy gun pod. How stealthy I don’t know, but who said anything about the Navy and Marines.

Correct the F-35 is no substitute for the F-22. The F-35 is far more capable at so many other things. Just because the F-22 can perform marginally better at BVR doesn’t mean the F-35 will not be very effective against any peer or near peer advisory as well. If we took your argument then we should have bought the F-23 which would have made an even better interceptor than the F-22.

Don’t get me wrong the F-22 is a great plane. Today it is a force multiplier in the area that the Air Force is weakest but it is not the future unless you like air show performances.

For the record I think they should have continued F-22 production for a couple of more years to address current shortcomings in the F-15/F-16 fleet, but a healthy, well funded F-35 program is more important and the reality is that killing the F-22 is the price to pay for it.

tmofarrvl wrote:

The B-1 was a bomber. It is understood and accepted in this day and age that the production runs for bombers never reach sufficient volume to take advantage of economies of scale. You need to get past 250 airframes before the unit cost can be said to be "learned out". The F-22 didn't quite get there. The B-1 never got close. But while that is acceptable for a bomber, it is not acceptable for a fighter. Do you honestly believe that someone is going to restart the F-22 production line for a handful of airframes, when the cost per unit will be three times or more the cost for the F-35? Like it or not, to believe that anyone is going to pay that much for a handful of additional airframes is fantasy.

And yet B-1B production began despite the fact that there was virtually no established production line for the B-1A, and enough years had passed where some wanted all development to be focused on what would become the B-2.

Do you consider 200+ additional aircraft to meet USAF requirements to be a "handful" of airframes? I certainly don't. And we have yet to see what the cost of the F-35 will actually be anyway.

tmofarrvl wrote:

Do you have any idea how many pieces of hardware go into making one of these airplanes? Thousands. The typical manufacturing cycle for an airframe component will look something like this: raw material from supplier A, will be processed by supplier B, then machined by supplier C, which will then go into a sub-assembly at location D, all before the prime contractor assembles the final product at location E. Every step in this process requires specialized tooling - which no one is going to pay to warehouse for a program that is no longer in production. We're not talking about a single room of final assembly jigs at Lockheed Martin. We're talking about an entire supplier base for thousands of components. The Defense Department will be scrapping out that tooling faster than you can imagine.

I know that these aircraft contain thousands of parts and have a large manufacturing base. So what is your point? Through either sheer will on the part of the Navy or Grumman, the tooling for the F-14D was preserved long enough to force Cheney to have the tooling destroyed, and you don't think important tooling can't be preserved for the F-22A despite the fact that the F-35 uses many of the same components?

tmofarrvl wrote:

Lad, you have no idea how difficult it is to reestablish a production process when the original tooling is gone, the original suppliers either don't exist or don't want the work, and the original manufacturing processes don't correspond to current "best practices". As I mentioned before - I do.

The difficulties involved haven't stopped production tooling from being preserved in the past. The industry has seen such a relative lack of work since the end of the cold war do you really think most subcontractors would choose to say no at the prospect of building another 200 F-22s? I am sure P&W would love to build another 400+ F119 engines considering how desperate they are for work lately. Like it or not reestablishing the production line is going to be easier than setting it up the first time around. Yes it is going to be costly and take some time, but the technology is there, the design is there, and similar components are being used on another aircraft. Lockheed Martin is also bound to continue some F-22 development in the hope a sensible administration has another look at the aircraft.

tmofarrvl wrote:

None of the suppliers are going to keep idle resources on their books, just waiting for an additional Raptor contract to drop out of the sky. They will be working on other projects. Asking them to divert resources to relearn the tooling and processes for an out-of production airplane would not only be incredibly expensive, but would also seriously disrupt whatever other programs they are currently engaged on - most likely the F-35 among them. No one in the Pentagon is going to advocate that as a good idea, or a wise use of resources.

Yet that hasn't stopped subcontractors from preserving idle resources in the past, nor the fact that there is a relationship between the components of the F-22 and F-35. Again, it is not going to be as expensive as setting up a production line for the first time or for a whole new design, and arguing that we can't produce the F-35 and F-22 at the same time is simply incorrect. Nobody in the Pentagon would advocate building more F-22s as long as Gates and the current administration is around, but that can change.

tmofarrvl wrote:

None of us have to like the fiscal realities of the world we live in. But pretending that they don't exist isn't helping anyone. Once the F-22 goes out of production, it is going to stay that way.

Fiscal realities?! I see no "fiscal reality" that justifies the cancellation of the F-22 and the incredible waste of money we have seen in a failed effort to "stimulate" the economy. There was simply no good excuse for cutting the F-22 and it is a national disgrace that the program was cut. As long as the F-22 has the slimmest chance in hell of seeing renewed production, which it does, I will hope that our nation comes to it's senses however unlikely that may be!

em745 wrote:

Was rearin' to go with a lengthy reply, but I see Scorpion1alpha, Beazz, Loader2088 and lampshade111 pretty much covered it all.

I see that you got it em745. Cheers buddy.

Thumper3 - that was a well articulated post, sir. Good arguments, especially with your F-23 deductions Smile

I personally will disagree with some of your conclusions though and many will emphasize that the miscalculated 'cost', to fully fund F-35, will very unfortunately likely come at far higher an expense to USAF procurement/ops/programs/capabilities than merely killing additional block 35 capable F-22 production a couple of years (i.e., Increment 3.3+ variants, intended as the actual long-term, Air-superiority/strike model).

lampshade111 wrote:

Do you consider 200+ additional aircraft to meet USAF requirements to be a "handful" of airframes? I certainly don't.

If it makes you feel better to believe that the US is somehow going to pony-up the resources to more than double the F-22 production run - fine. But be aware that you will have zero credibility among any of us old enough to know better.

lampshade111 wrote:

I see no "fiscal reality" that justifies the cancellation of the F-22 and the incredible waste of money we have seen in a failed effort to "stimulate" the economy.

The US spent more than a decade producing just 187 F-22 fighters. Resources like that are not lying around waiting for someone to just spend the money. You can go on believing it if you want - but the argument comes across like a fervent belief in Santa Claus. Don't expect anyone to take that line of thought seriously.

tmofarrvl wrote:

If it makes you feel better to believe that the US is somehow going to pony-up the resources to more than double the F-22 production run - fine. But be aware that you will have zero credibility among any of us old enough to know better.

Well of course I like to imagine our country isn't going to hell in a handbasket but that is not the point. We HAVE the resources to produce a full complement of F-22s and considering everything else we pay for, we have the money to do so as well. What is lacking is the political will and common sense. I honestly don't care if I have zero credibility among yourself just because you insist that it is impossible. Yet if the B-1B could be resurrected, the Raptor certainly can.

tmofarrvl wrote:

The US spent more than a decade producing just 187 F-22 fighters. Resources like that are not lying around waiting for someone to just spend the money. You can go on believing it if you want - but the argument comes across like a fervent belief in Santa Claus. Don't expect anyone to take that line of thought seriously.

And you are under the impression that we were producing F-22s at a full rate since 2001? The first several years only a handful of F-22s were built and even the (planned/eventual?) production rate of 36 a year was not the maximum that could have been achieved anyway. But whatever you say, Obama clearly knows whats best.

Nope 187, plus maybe one or two more from the "Long Lead time" parts Mr. President Bush ordered to turn over the decision on the porgram is it. Game Over, don't let the door hit you on your bum on the way out. The only Jet (modern of course) in american history that has ever "restarted production" was the U2, and that was because congress pulled the plug on the SR-71, which was suppose to replace the U2.

The B1-B is a totally different Bird from the B1-A. Nixon's Cabinet decided to reinstate the program, but it was at a totally different stage in it's life than the 22 is now, so drawing a parallel between these jets is almost irrelevant. It would be more along the lines of the f-35 getting canned, and than the next president restarting it.

But New jets are showing up with FF tail flashes!! Hurray, for purty paint jobs.

get_lo wrote:

Nope 187, plus maybe one or two more from the "Long Lead time" parts Mr. President Bush ordered to turn over the decision on the porgram is it. Game Over, don't let the door hit you on your bum on the way out. The only Jet (modern of course) in american history that has ever "restarted production" was the U2, and that was because congress pulled the plug on the SR-71, which was suppose to replace the U2.

The B1-B is a totally different Bird from the B1-A. Nixon's Cabinet decided to reinstate the program, but it was at a totally different stage in it's life than the 22 is now, so drawing a parallel between these jets is almost irrelevant. It would be more along the lines of the f-35 getting canned, and than the next president restarting it.

But New jets are showing up with FF tail flashes!! Hurray, for purty paint jobs.

You lose a little of your authoritative voice when you write of "Nixon's Cabinet" reinstating the B-1B. No offense, I'm sure you meant to write "Reagan's" since all Republican presidents look alike. Very Happy

As to those who bemoan how much the US spends on "Defense" I would point out the the recently passed DOD funding bill includes hundreds of millions for such "Defense" necessities as an "Edward M Kennedy Center" for the study of something or other. Sad

Before we even talk about whether to resurrect the F-22, let's first explore what REAL THREAT that the current F-16s and F-15s (and much other jets) are unable to meet? This threat thing is blown way overboard for a war economy.

Remember, perceived threat is NOT real threat. It's only what one thinks or feels, and that can be wrong at times. (America's intelligence on Iraq has failed miserably anyway.) For now, it is just another expensive hobby at the expense of the taxpayers. Little wonder why it is deep in trillions of debts.

Heck, too much Fear Factor on TV?

Loader2088 wrote:

get_lo wrote:

Nope 187, plus maybe one or two more from the "Long Lead time" parts Mr. President Bush ordered to turn over the decision on the porgram is it. Game Over, don't let the door hit you on your bum on the way out. The only Jet (modern of course) in american history that has ever "restarted production" was the U2, and that was because congress pulled the plug on the SR-71, which was suppose to replace the U2.

The B1-B is a totally different Bird from the B1-A. Nixon's Cabinet decided to reinstate the program, but it was at a totally different stage in it's life than the 22 is now, so drawing a parallel between these jets is almost irrelevant. It would be more along the lines of the f-35 getting canned, and than the next president restarting it.

But New jets are showing up with FF tail flashes!! Hurray, for purty paint jobs.

You lose a little of your authoritative voice when you write of "Nixon's Cabinet" reinstating the B-1B. No offense, I'm sure you meant to write "Reagan's" since all Republican presidents look alike. Very Happy

As to those who bemoan how much the US spends on "Defense" I would point out the the recently passed DOD funding bill includes hundreds of millions for such "Defense" necessities as an "Edward M Kennedy Center" for the study of something or other. Sad

Your Right, Nixon's Sec Def pushed it further though development, but the B1-B came along with Reagan.

something to think [Link pending approval]
The USAF will retain a fleet of F-15C (Golden Fleet) of almost 200 planes. Royal Navy will drop 50 F-35 for one of the two carriers it was building and instead purchase EF2000's. The USAF and Britain should have the most visibility to the F-35 and it's capabilities. This might be partly cost, partly politics but it appears both countries feel the need for more planes with higher speed, higher energy capabilities then what the F-35 offers.

For the USAF a long term solution for the need for addition air superiority fighters (instead of keeping the golden fleet) might be a non-stealth F-22. The cost savings of having these built with same skins as the teen series fighters (stealth version has unreal labor time due to manually installing every expensive stealth panel) would bring cost to F-35/EF2000 levels with better performance. The golden fleet will only last so long and will be costly for the AESA and other planned upgrades. A non-stealth F-22 fleet would eliminate the F-15 from the arsenal and would last much longer because of the new airframes. I would be surprised if the non-stealth F-22 would not be or approach LO specs based on the planes angles to prevent direct return to begin with.
Nick

sirsink167sig wrote:

something to think about...
Royal Navy will drop 50 F-35 for one of the two carriers it was building and instead purchase EF2000's.

(spits out drink) You seem sure there - whats the source? - I thought it was just speculative pants!

If we got more EF2000s it would be a job creation thing - would prefer a real 5th gen fighter myself - there are a lot of UK jobs in the F-35 program anyway.

As for non stealthy F-22s - Im all for that, my beloved F-16s can take em out BVR Cool

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Is there any chance of a resurrection or reboot for the F-22