Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

My current understanding of the modern philosphy of the airborne military of the United States (and many other countries) is that of the Hi-Lo mix. A high capability aircraft is developed to fill a role (such as air superiority), but it turns out to be too expensive to procure in sufficient numbers to satisfy the military. Thus, a less capable (and less expensive) aircraft is developed to fill the number requirement. We see this with the F-15 (hi) and F-16 (lo) for the USAF.

Think back to when the ATF program was being developed. Since it was aimed at developing a replacement for the F-15C, it can be said that the ATF program was to yield hi-end aircraft. This is what we get with the F-22.

Would it have been feasible for the ATF program to been written out in such a way that its goal was to produce two variants of the same aircraft to fill the hi-lo mix all in one? Perhaps an F-22A (hi) and a hypothetical F-22B (lo)?

The F-22A would be the same as it is today. The F-22B would be a lower-cost, lower-capability aircraft. Costs might be reduced by giving it a lower performance radar, weaker engines, and deleting the thrust-vectoring nozzles. The wings and tails could also be down-sized to reduce the amount of material used in its construction. The wing loading would be increased if this was done, but if the F-22B had a strike role built into it (like the F-35), a higher wing loading might not be so bad.

So I guess my question is, could an F-22B have been produced to make a cost-effective low-end fighter plane? Would the costs of such a program have been less than the current F-22A + current JSF program?

If this could have been done, it might have saved costs in some areas. For example, there would be a lot of commonality between the two types of F-22 and research relevant to one would be of use when designing the other. Might have costed less than developing an entirely new airframe (F-35) to fill the low capability role. I do admit that it might not have worked out as well for the Navy and Marines if this had been done instead of the JSF program.

F-16.net Sponsor

The 'bean counters' looked at a less high tech versions of the F-14 and F-15 when Congress first cried about the cost of these two programs but, since these two fighters were pushing state of the art in so many areas, a slightly less capable variant did not have enough of a cheaper price to warrant any further look at the program... while the performance was not up to what the services wanted. To little bang for the bucks.
The fly in the ointment was the end of the Cold War. If the F-22A had become operation towards the middle or end of President Clinton's first term, the price of the F-22A would have been dramatically lower. Congress still would not have been happy about the price, especially considering the glowing record of the F-15. The F-22A would have become operational just eight years after the Su-27 became operational!!!

Better to have a fully tricked out F-35 than a half-baked Raptor IMO.

For ships about 20% of the life cycle cost is the cost of the ship. For planes it has to be somewhat similar. You would save $ only on the purchase price, and little to none, possibly negative on the other costs.

If I am not mistaken the Japanesse were willing to pay $1 billion for a downrated F-22. I still think that was the best option to keep the production line open. Also, the Isreali's, Australia and others would have loved to get thier hands on even a F-22 light.

strykerxo wrote:

If I am not mistaken the Japanesse were willing to pay $1 billion for a downrated F-22. I still think that was the best option to keep the production line open. Also, the Isreali's, Australia and others would have loved to get thier hands on even a F-22 light.

Only about 3 guys in Australia who run a website would have taken up that offer.

It probably would have cost more than a billion to get what done anyway... and didn't they want domestic assembly? They, like pretty much everyone else, is better off with the F-35.

----------
Making a 'high' and a 'lo' version would have been a very odd arrangement for several reasons. First, where would you draw the line? Once you had that arranged, you'd be faced with a bunch of design compromises to get 2 versions to work reasonably well. Starting with the 'high' and going down from there (as you suggest) presents numerous headaches in terms of redesign, material and systems substitution, and consequent testing.

You might as well get more of the original and leverage economies of scale, especially if it's just going to be shoehorned into a role it's not really designed for (strike).

Ooor... you combine the requirements with the new airplane the Navy and Marines want so you can make a couple thousand of them for relatively cheap. And you can then specialize them for their mission (strike). Call it Togetherness Attack Airplane (TAA) for short.

For $1 billion (of which the U.S. government would take 50% from before expenses are figured) they should have been able to come up with a pretty decent compromise. The way the economy is and with China putting so much effort into destabilizing the region, I'm not so sure the U.S. wouldn't have been better off selling an F-22J to the Japanese, with modest Mitsubishi Heavy Industries assembly or not.

popcorn wrote:

Better to have a fully tricked out F-35 than a half-baked Raptor IMO.

I second that

I third? that!

Ditto

They'll end up getting a derated F-35. A derated F-22J has more potential than the derated F-35.

Pleas show ANYWHERE that mentions ANY KIND of derated (or "dumbed down") F-35.

They don't exist.

Yes, the F-22J has potential- potential for breaking the all-time cost record for a fighter aircraft. The F-2, an aircraft based off the F-16, costs 127 million dollars. That does not bode well for a 5th generation fighter aircraft.

What exactly would an F-22J be downgraded to in terms of systems? I could see the Japanese buying F-22Js and then getting pissed South Korea and Australia got a more capable and state of the art aircraft in the F-35A.

Disco,

Unfortunately, the initial (mature) block III F-35A (probably ordered through 2015 and delivered by 2017, IOC 2018) will not be such a game-changing, state of art aircraft by 2017-2018. Moreover, heavily upgraded new build legacy jets, properly equipped, could likely defeat such an entry level F-35A imho. (I'll PM hypothetical loadouts and scenarios, if interested).

Sure, if a block V F-35A was to become IOC by 2012 then yes, that would arguably be 'game changing'. But that is unfortunately not the reality...

I'd have to mostly agree with Madrat on this one that a downgraded F-22 would still be superior to a block 2.5-3.0 F-35A and yes, most likely cheaper.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Low-end Raptors?