Forum: F-22A Raptor

Same contractor, but that seems to be where it ends. I'm trying to figure out where the big parallels might be in terms of release, contractor and DoD/USAF reaction etc.

Can anyone offer any pointers? I'm not afraid to do my own research, but my sources - paid and public - are kind of lacking.

Is it even possible to extrapolate the F-22's possible future using the F-16 as prologue? At what point do they diverge?

I'm figuring this would be especially tough given stringent export restrictions on F-22 vs. the F-16, which found a broad international market.

Thoughts?

F-16.net Sponsor

F-16 was built as a lost cost fighter. F-22 is anything but.

Draw your own conclusions... Smile

My train of thought alligns with Roscoe's and he's in the system. I think you'll see more similarities in the F-35 and F-16 than the F-22.

-Aaron

As the replacement for the F-15, the Raptor is primarily an Air Dominance Fighter. The F-16 was billed as a lightweight multi-role fighter. The F-15 and F-16 are 4th generation aircraft and were built to compliment each other. The F-22 and F-35 are fifth generation fighters; taking advantage of the latest in stealth and electronic technologies, and are also built to compliment each other, with the F-35 as the designated replacement for the F-16.

raptor5, by your name and location I take it you work with F-22s?

-Aaron

Point of note, the F-16 was originally developed by General Dynamics. They sold the plane and all its stuff to Lockheed in 1993 (I'm not exactly sure of the date). The F-16 was originally designed as a multirole fighter. It was meant to do a lot of things and does them all really well. It may have been the first production fighter that was Fly by Wire. Both planes are unstable in flight. Without their onboard computers, they would crash and burn because a human cannot control the plane. Um, there's a lot of little nitpicky details that are the same between the planes. The overarching ideas of the planes and the way they were designed and built are highly different.

It can't be really seen what will happen with the 22 in 10 years. I believe the following will happen with the Raptor in the next 10-20 years. Up until this time the Raptor will be THE air dominance fighter of the world. After that time, it may lose potency seeing as more and more UCAVs will be entering service. These aircraft will be able to pull 15-25 g's (probably). Today's aircraft can only pull 10-11 g's at most. This means the UCAVs will make today's aircraft (at least the air superiority ones) obsolete. The Raptor will probably end up hauling more and more bombs throughout its life because of this.

TenguNoHi
I was associated with the F-16 in many capacities for 27 years. I have been on the Raptor program for 5 years now. My heart is still with the F-16, however it's time is almost up. Time has a way of doing that to aircraft. The Raptor is an awsome aircraft with tremendous capabilities.

LordOfBunnies
No matter how many g's you pull........if you can't see it........you can't hit it! Smile

The F-16 was not designed as a multi role fighter, that's what the AF redesigned it into. It was designed fore pure air superiority.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

It can't be really seen what will happen with the 22 in 10 years. I believe the following will happen with the Raptor in the next 10-20 years. Up until this time the Raptor will be THE air dominance fighter of the world. After that time, it may lose potency seeing as more and more UCAVs will be entering service. These aircraft will be able to pull 15-25 g's (probably). Today's aircraft can only pull 10-11 g's at most. This means the UCAVs will make today's aircraft (at least the air superiority ones) obsolete. The Raptor will probably end up hauling more and more bombs throughout its life because of this.

Sounds good, except that its backwards

The first applications of UCAV's will be attack aircraft not fighters as most ground targets are definite and the fact that you want a pilotless stealth aircraft to do the really risky stuff like penetrating an air defense network. Raptor will still be required to clear the airspace for UCAV's at first it will at least be a little bit of time before UCAV's are able to adequately percieve the situation around them before they are able to engage targets and make decisions based on constantly changing circumstances and multiple threats. It won't be long though.

I understand that UCAVs are being built to do attack missions right now. But at the rate they are advancing it may not be long before they are doing air superiority missions. I gave a range of years for a reason. 20 years from now it is not unprobable that UCAVs will be doing most everything. The future is not predictable. In the next 10 years UCAVs will enter service and do ground attack work. These (maybe) might be modified to do some air to air work. We don't know, this is no longer predictable. Manned combat will likely never fade out, but the UCAVs will take over most of it.

Also, sorry about the F-16 thing, my bad. I made a poor assumption. Silly fighter mafia Razz

. And as always I say stupid things on this forum so this should be nothing new.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

I understand that UCAVs are being built to do attack missions right now. But at the rate they are advancing it may not be long before they are doing air superiority missions. I gave a range of years for a reason. 20 years from now it is not unprobable that UCAVs will be doing most everything. The future is not predictable. In the next 10 years UCAVs will enter service and do ground attack work. These (maybe) might be modified to do some air to air work. We don't know, this is no longer predictable. Manned combat will likely never fade out, but the UCAVs will take over most of it.

Also, sorry about the F-16 thing, my bad. I made a poor assumption. Silly fighter mafia Razz

:oops:just kidding. And as always I say stupid things on this forum so this should be nothing new.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

Point of note, the F-16 was originally developed by General Dynamics. They sold the plane and all its stuff to Lockheed in 1993 (I'm not exactly sure of the The F-16 was originally designed as a multirole fighter. It was meant to do a lot of things and does them all really well.

I keep seeing this statement made lately and I can't help but disagree. The F-16 was designed as a light weight WVR day fighter. It was never orginally designed as a multirole jet.

Yes yes yes, I made a bad assumption. I looked it up and corrected myself in my last post. I remember reading something that said the LWF did not even necessarily have to have a radar. Anyway, back on topic.

The comparison = They are both combat jets on the planet earth. Other than that.... Laughing

elp is generalizing a bit; the only thing they have in common is that for both planes the first and most important customer is the USAF.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-16 vs. F-22 History: Are there any parallels?