Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

To me the F-22, while a great platform that in its role will kick a$$ for a very long time, is just not worth starting back up unless you can make some major changes to the design to fix some of the problems and make it have more in common with the F-35.

...and apply those changes to the current fleet of F-22As.

Doesn't the US Government own the right to the design and all the tooling? If they can make PW produce F404s, why can't they make Boeing build F-22s? Boeing already makes/made major components for the F-22 so maybe they could build the whole thing cheaper. Either way, I would feel more comfortable with a fleet of 500 F-22s and I think the USAF would too. There's always the black-program options. We could publicly acknowledge 187 F-22s and operate the rest like we used to do with the F-117 and B-2.

The F-22 was not substantially cheaper than a Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle. The F/A-18E/F is about half the price of a F-22 but its a smaller 4.5th gen aircraft.

F-16.net Sponsor

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

To me the F-22, while a great platform that in its role will kick a$$ for a very long time, is just not worth starting back up unless you can make some major changes to the design to fix some of the problems and make it have more in common with the F-35.

...and apply those changes to the current fleet of F-22As.

Doesn't the US Government own the right to the design and all the tooling? If they can make PW produce F404s, why can't they make Boeing build F-22s? Boeing already makes/made major components for the F-22 so maybe they could build the whole thing cheaper. Either way, I would feel more comfortable with a fleet of 500 F-22s and I think the USAF would too. There's always the black-program options. We could publicly acknowledge 187 F-22s and operate the rest like we used to do with the F-117 and B-2.

B-2 never flew as a black program, there was a public roll out and everything. And I dont think you're going to build 313 supercruising jets and then fly them only at night from Tonopah without somebody noticing...

As long as it is not EVERYONE noticing. Tonopah is not the only remote base. The existing squadrons can receive a few more birds and new squadrons can be detachments from the other fighter wings using the same tail codes already in use. Take the unit in HI, for example at Hickam AFB. It could be augmented with a few extra flights of F-22 and they could operate out of Barking Sands missile range airfield. It looks pretty remote to me. Give the USAF a little more credit. They could figure this out.

FlightDreamz wrote:

This looks like a play for votes to all the defense employee's whose job's are in jeopardy with sequestration around the corner. But even if Romney get's elected I don't see him coming through on this (especially with the F-35 Lightning II about to enter production).

That's exactly what this is. This was said at a Virginia Beach TV station. What's close to Virginia Beach? Newport News shipyard, Norfolk Naval Base and Langley AFB. Ships and F-22's. If he were here in DFW, he'd be pledging to build 10,000 F-35's and re-open NAS Dallas.

There's nothing short of war breaking out with a near peer opponent that would get F-22 production restarted.

discofishing wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

discofishing wrote:

Either way, I would feel more comfortable with a fleet of 500 F-22s and I think the USAF would too. There's always the black-program options. We could publicly acknowledge 187 F-22s and operate the rest like we used to do with the F-117 and B-2.

B-2 never flew as a black program, there was a public roll out and everything. And I dont think you're going to build 313 supercruising jets and then fly them only at night from Tonopah without somebody noticing...

As long as it is not EVERYONE noticing. Tonopah is not the only remote base. The existing squadrons can receive a few more birds and new squadrons can be detachments from the other fighter wings using the same tail codes already in use. Take the unit in HI, for example at Hickam AFB. It could be augmented with a few extra flights of F-22 and they could operate out of Barking Sands missile range airfield. It looks pretty remote to me. Give the USAF a little more credit. They could figure this out.

While keeping them in a secret reserve would be great, I just don't think it's at all practical. You'd have to hide budget somehow, spool up the whole contractor trail without attracting attention (and keep it going for years), explain away all the additional pilots, fly them covertly, and then figure out a way to physically hide the airplanes on the ground (build unexplained rows of hangars?). It's a nice idea but I honestly don't think any meaningful secrecy could be maintained for very long at all.

Two new stories on the subject, both of which share my skepticism. However, it was absolutely hilarious to see Wired's David Axe come to the F-35's defense.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09 ... ore-f-22s/

:: Please keep politics as much as possible out of this thread. To stay on topic, I have split some posts off to "<a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20344.html">Where the hell is Romney going to get the money?</a>". ::

Lieven wrote:

:: Please keep politics as much as possible out of this thread. To stay on topic, I have split some posts off to "<a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20344.html">Where the hell is Romney going to get the money?</a>". ::

Maybe this thread can be moved to a forum where we can talk about politics as much as we want. It's American election season and I honestly think we SHOULD be talking about politics. There's no need to shy away from it as long as the dialogue is respectful.

All posts predominately about ships were deleted. All future posts about ships here will be deleted.

Guys.. get real!
Its called Presidental Election suggar, which is as credible as vapor. Like Lieven says, where will the huge funding come from.. or rather what else will have to die if this ever going to happend..

Naah, this stinks all the way to the bank!

haavarla wrote:

Guys.. get real!
Its called Presidental Election suggar, which is as credible as vapor. Like Lieven says, where will the huge funding come from.. or rather what else will have to die if this ever going to happend..

Naah, this stinks all the way to the bank!

The actual production of F-22s was never more than a drop in the bucket against overall military spending. Obama's cancellation of the thing was just a bone for his voting base to gnaw on. The costs of restarting production would be a song compared to what's gonna be spent on the F-35, and the new F-22s would also be in service sooner.

Of course, I still think it's just a campaign promise and the F-22 remains a political hot-potato. But who knows, with sequestration coming, anything is liable to happen in the ensuing budget chaos.

The F-22's demise began prior to Obama's presidency, so putting it entirely on him is somewhat disingenuous.

As for more Raptors being built, there is simply no money, or need, for it. At this point the F-22 would require such substantial re-work to put it back into production that you might as well take that money and begin the next fighter program for whatever comes post F-35. I would be willing to be that no one even bothered to research the current F-22/F-35 situation before the campaign put this statement out. It has been a long while since anyone campaigned intelligently about military procurement matters...

HaveVoid wrote:

The F-22's demise began prior to Obama's presidency, so putting it entirely on him is somewhat disingenuous.

You're gonna have to be a lot more specific on that part.

Quote:

You're gonna have to be a lot more specific on that part.

I think Gates wanted to can it from the get go. Remember, he was SecDef under Bush as well.

While I don't know what Gates personally did or did not want, Disco and I remember correctly. The end of F-22 production was a process that began being contemplated as early as 2006. A last minute punt did push the final cancellation into the hands of Obama's administration who sealed the deal, yes.

The jet was less the victim of any political party, and more the victim of it's own mostly single purpose design.

HaveVoid wrote:

While I don't know what Gates personally did or did not want, Disco and I remember correctly. The end of F-22 production was a process that began being contemplated as early as 2006. A last minute punt did push the final cancellation into the hands of Obama's administration who sealed the deal, yes.

The jet was less the victim of any political party, and more the victim of it's own mostly single purpose design.

From what I understood Sec. Gates was okay with the F-22, except for the difficulties in deploying them and that deployable (combat coded) aircraft had limited A/G capability. A large deployment to the middle east for contingency operations and training is expensive as well. There wasn't the budget available to allow for a development program to correct these capability gaps (A/G, EOTS/EODAS/MADL) while concurrently producing new airframes.

Considering how many issues with the F-35 LRIP V contract (numbers & cost etc), I can understand why Lockheed would be hesitant to build a bunch of F-22s, and be unable to deliver them to the USAF for 2-3 years while the F-22++ avionics matures. Keeping the F-22 production line open past 2014 at a low rate, waiting for the F-35 tech and borrowing it for the F-22 production isn't a viable option for cost reasons alone.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Romney wants to buy more F-22s