Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I like that it was a Republican appointed Sec Def who only four years ago said there is no longer any need for high tech weapon systems in today's low intensity conflicts. And what happened? Only two years later, oh, eureka! Let's focus our attention or Asia and China! Brilliant! It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a dysfunctional government issue. Too many talking heads and not enough quiet men. It's why centralized forms of government can organize and accomplish incredible feats of human engineering, without debating themselves into ruin.

F-16.net Sponsor

^^^ "It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a dysfunctional government [Link pending approval];

Gentlemen, I'd like to remind everyone of a quote given to us by a true legend of comedic [Link pending approval]

... Ron White: "You can't fix Stupid!!!"

Personally, I think firing half to 2/3's of the Pentagon would be a much better cost cutting move.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I'm guessing the rock-star president didn't even know, he was probably just having a vague recollection of some conversation he had with Gates a few years back. I doubt Romney is knowledgeable on the issue either, but at least he was able to name the aircraft.

I disagree. President Obama cancelled the F-22 because Sec. Gates was concerned about the high cost of spiral upgrades, while less-than-optimal Block 30 jets came off the production line. The F-35 developed technology "upgrades" could be incorporated into a F-22 but not in the required cost & time-frame needed to keep the line open.

In the Super Hornet program, when the Block I jets were upgraded, the older components (e.g. APG-73 Radar) were used to upgrade fleet F/A-18Cs at reduced cost to the Navy. There is very little commonality between F-22 avionics and F-16s so the F-22 Block 5/10/20 components removed during upgrade have limited use other than on early build F-22s.

neurotech wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I'm guessing the rock-star president didn't even know, he was probably just having a vague recollection of some conversation he had with Gates a few years back. I doubt Romney is knowledgeable on the issue either, but at least he was able to name the aircraft.

I disagree. President Obama cancelled the F-22 because Sec. Gates was concerned about the high cost of spiral upgrades, while less-than-optimal Block 30 jets came off the production line. The F-35 developed technology "upgrades" could be incorporated into a F-22 but not in the required cost & time-frame needed to keep the line open.

In which case, Obama could have saved himself some grief with the defense crowd if he'd just called it an "indefinite halt" until some serious issues were solved. Then again, a permanent halt was a nice bone he could throw to his base. Either way, Obama apparently couldn't recall which airplane he'd canceled. It probably wasn't that important to him.

All I want is that if the Line gets restarted, Canada gets an offer to purchase a few. Or else we'll build the Arrow! HA!

If the line gets restarted, the level of shocked, surprised, astounded, and generally flabbergasted I would be is hard to put in words.

The waste of money just to reconstitute the line would be better spent on any of a myriad of other programs. Just doesn't seem feasible. And if Canada is baulking at the F-35A, the odds of them taking Raptors are somewhere on the order of magnitude of the odds of them ordering some new build FW-190s.

HV

Its too late for the current F-22A. They should've thought this through more thoroughly back in 09. Should we have bought 381 Raptors and have jets flying around with ZZ, MO, and LN on the tail? Absolutely. But the decision has already been made and its far too late to reverse it.

However remote, I could see Romney opening up discussion for either an improved F-22B/C to replace the remaining F-15C/Es, or possibly even an FB-22-like design to replace the Strike Eagle (that I actually want to see).

But regardless, any talk beyond speculation at the lowest level about restarting the line is pointless. Thats basically like discussing what we would buy if we won the lottery.

I would fully concur with Sketch's assessment and preferred plan of attack. Something along that line would indeed be the more strategic, viable and prudent approach. But of course, such a plan would not also include MR being able to greet the the first F-22B (or an hypothetical evolved -C mod) rolling off the line, so how absurd would it be for a politician to instead propose such an long-term strategic plan with results realized after one has already left office?

Set the ball rolling, at least. Get Congress to fund the R&D (the airframe already exists, remember? We're just improving it!) while working on rebuilding the production capacity. If I remember correctly, a lot of Raptor subcontractors don't even exist any more, so reestablishing the production infrastructure is critical. Could it be done in eight years? I wouldn't rule it out.

It's time for Zero to be a metaphorical Carter in more ways than one.

I imagine that a new F-22C or FB-22 would share more in common with the F-35 in terms of production techniques, parts, and subcontractors than with the F-22A. Lockheed (assuming they would build it) would probably use some of the ones currently working on the Lightning, rather than try to bring back the ones that were shut down.

Its not unthinkable, as Romney has said countless times that he aims to create jobs and grow the economy while adding trillions to defense spending. By restarting the line and building new jets more people would be put to work and the economy would grow. The only justification would have to be a speedy production cycle (first jet wheels up by 2018, IOC 2025) and the retiring of all of the remaining Eagle variants. This may also justify reducing the number of F-35s the AF would buy, but in the end I think a capable jet would make up for it.

Honestly, I would love to see Romney initiate an FB-22 as a replacement for not only the Strike Eagle but also the B-1. As you guys have discussed before on here, an FB-22 with a 2 seat, delta wing config with a 25% longer fuselage to accommodate a larger A2G payload (and AMRAAMs in the side bays instead of sidewinders), and 2 F135 engines instead of F-119s (no need for thrust vectoring) would be alot cheaper than the 2018 bomber or whatever its called.

Don't forget DSI inlets, a deeper bay for 2k, etc.

So which one from below?

I liked the tailless version:

Back from the dead....

Stretch it and give it something like a pair of 3 foot wide by 25 foot long by 3 foot tall bomb bays. Allow for an internal load of up to 18000 pounds, not including the weight of the rotary launchers. Imagine any of the following packages:

2x GBU-28 Deep Throat (5000#; 14"x25') sum = 10000#
8x Mark 84 (2050#; 18"x10'9") sum = #16400
8x GBU-15 (2000#; 18"x12'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-24 Paveway III family (2000#; 14.6"x14'2") sum = #16000
8x GBU-27 Paveway III family (2000#; 28"x13'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-31 JDAM-ER family (2100#; 18"x12'8") sum = #16800
16x Mark 83 (1000#; 14"x10') sum = #16000
16x GBU-16 Paveway II family (1000#; 14.7"x12') sum = #16000
16x GBU-32 JDAM-ER family (1000#; 15"x10') sum = #16000
16x AGM-154 JSOW-ER (1100#; 13"x13.5') sum = #17600
36x Mark 82 (500#; 11"x7'4") sum = #18000
36x GBU-12 Paveway II family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
36x GBU-38 JDAM-ER family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
60x GBU-39 SDB (285#; 7.5"x6') sum = #17100
60x Mark 81 (265#; 9"x6'2") sum = #15900
60x GBU-53 SDB II (205#; 7"x5'9") sum = #12300

...Or maybe a mixture where the right front bay holds 15x GBU-53, the left front bay holds 4x AGM-154, and the rears of both bays carry 4x GBU-31 JDAM-ER's. (sum of approx. 15875 pounds)

I'd concur with Spud's choice graphic being something worthy of deeper consideration and new evaluation by decision makers as a possible next-gen requirements alternative to say, NGAD and/or NGB. Ironically though, it would have likely been the F-23, not the F-22, which could have been a more prudent and plausible starting point for such a 'large evolution'.

But in staying on topic... MR would have had a more credible point if he had said something more generic such as the USAF needs to evaluate enhancing medium term stopgaps as well as evaluate new alternatives for the next-generation recap strategies. To simply say however that he would restart the F-22 line and accelerate production is likely just not realistic and probably even a harmful miscalculation and only delays making truly necessary reforms in recap strategies to enhance capabilities during increasing budgetary austerity/reduced buying power ahead.

As for the view also made by Sketch that such a follow-on F-22B or eventual FB-22 etc, could replace all the Eagle variants... that would seem reasonable of course, but don't expect to see F-15E variants fully retired in such a case until significant squadrons of any such hypothetical next-gen F-22x had achieved IOC.

Personally though, I'd be in the camp contemplating A B-1R reconfig path + FB-22 + UCAV + next-gen stand-off munitions as a more prudent and less risky alternative to say, an NGAD + NGB acquisition path.

madrat wrote:

Back from the dead....

Stretch it and give it something like a pair of 3 foot wide by 25 foot long by 3 foot tall bomb bays. Allow for an internal load of up to 18000 pounds, not including the weight of the rotary launchers. Imagine any of the following packages:

2x GBU-28 Deep Throat (5000#; 14"x25') sum = 10000#
8x Mark 84 (2050#; 18"x10'9") sum = #16400
8x GBU-15 (2000#; 18"x12'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-24 Paveway III family (2000#; 14.6"x14'2") sum = #16000
8x GBU-27 Paveway III family (2000#; 28"x13'10") sum = #16000
8x GBU-31 JDAM-ER family (2100#; 18"x12'8") sum = #16800
16x Mark 83 (1000#; 14"x10') sum = #16000
16x GBU-16 Paveway II family (1000#; 14.7"x12') sum = #16000
16x GBU-32 JDAM-ER family (1000#; 15"x10') sum = #16000
16x AGM-154 JSOW-ER (1100#; 13"x13.5') sum = #17600
36x Mark 82 (500#; 11"x7'4") sum = #18000
36x GBU-12 Paveway II family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
36x GBU-38 JDAM-ER family (500#; 11"x11') sum = #18000
60x GBU-39 SDB (285#; 7.5"x6') sum = #17100
60x Mark 81 (265#; 9"x6'2") sum = #15900
60x GBU-53 SDB II (205#; 7"x5'9") sum = #12300

...Or maybe a mixture where the right front bay holds 15x GBU-53, the left front bay holds 4x AGM-154, and the rears of both bays carry 4x GBU-31 JDAM-ER's. (sum of approx. 15875 pounds)

That sounds like a B-1 Bomber level payload. The problem is that the B-1s are more expensive to operate, compared to the B-52, and I don't think a B-1++ (4xF-119?) design refresh is a good idea, considering that it won't be a true 5th Gen solution and will still cost $400m+ per aircraft.

I think they should look carefully at the requirements, and make a 5.5th Gen Tactical Strike/Bomber, designed around what could be achieved with minimal technology "risk". The F119 & F135 engines are relatively mature designs. The mission systems avionics could be leveraged from the F-35 or F/A-18E/F Block III systems.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Romney wants to buy more F-22s