Forum: F-22A Raptor

Greetings to all:

I just finished reading an article in the Combat Aircraft magazine from the UK, where it makes a point about how much the USAF is sacrificing just to get two F-22A Raptors, and in general Defence budget problems.

Let me say before I have to start ducking to avoid being hit with beer cans:

I believe the Raptor is necessary for the USAF to obtain Air Supremacy.
I understand R&D money has already been spent. The more Raptors you buy, the CHEAPER it is supposed to be.
There is probably nothing that comes close to the Raptor in terms of capability.

The thing is, from the point of view of a distant observer, there is something seriously wrong here when you have to retire lots of B-52s, F-16s, F-117s, U-2s, and other planes perhaps to pay for two, three or say 5 Raptores.

Despite of how good they are, is it really the equivalent of let's say 20 or 30 other planes?. I do not think so.

The way it is going, The reduced number of Raptors to be purchased mean that all the Raptor is going to do is just replace the Nighthawk's role in the strike mission and a handful of F-15 squadrons and that is it.

Regards

F16VIPER

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

Rigth now the enemy isn't the same, Russia AF is a small fraction of that it was, so less A/C are rq to handle the combined treat of russia and china (as the current doctrine rule).

But you're right, the F-22A is too expensive (but not so expensive when compared with Typhons, Rafales and BEagle an SuperBugs, coz any new acquisition ont these planes cost about 70% of the same acquisition on an by far supeior Raptor)

Pre-apology for my upcoming long-windedness: Smile

F16VIPER wrote:

The thing is, from the point of view of a distant observer, there is something seriously wrong here when
you have to retire lots of B-52s, F-16s, F-117s, U-2s, and other planes perhaps to pay for two, three or say 5 Raptores.

I'm as big a fan of all those jets you listed as anyone. But just remember that those types are all older legacy designs (in the case of the BUFF, very old) that I'm sorry to say, many newer generation jets (Sukois, MiGs, some Chinese variants) can counter when flown by someone who knows what they're doing. So do we:

a) maintain or keep building 25 or 30 year old designs that the other side can match, or
b) retire those older airframes to afford a jet that requires far less mission support assets, a jet that does several roles better, faster, with less gas, and a jet that NOBODY (not the Chinese, not the Russians, not even the French Wink

) will be able to touch for at least 25 years?

I'd take "b". When it comes to this kinda combat, I don't want it to be a fair fight. I want our guys and gals to be able to punch the other guy's ticket without him even realizing it and come back safe. If that means bidding adieu to a few older jets, so be it.

Quote:

Despite of how good they are, is it really the equivalent of let's say 20 or 30 other planes?

Yes....definately. I tend to trust the opinions of the folks that'll take it into combat. Ask any driver whose flown the Raptor they'll tell ya it's the kinda jet they have wet dreams about.

Quote:

The way it is going, The reduced number of Raptors to be purchased mean that all the Raptor is going to do is just replace the Nighthawk's role in the strike mission and a handful of F-15 squadrons and that is it.

The Raptor will be far superior to the Eagle and Nighthawk in at least 2 areas:

1) In the striker role, being highly stealthy with supercruise will let it get into and out of the target area quicker with higher first-pass Pk and less crew risk than the Nightwawk (a 25 year old jet), in some cases being able to release the munition supersonically from several MILES away and be absolutely undetected.

2) For the air supremacy role, it can go further faster and need less support assets than the Eagle and also perform more roles than the Eagle was ever designed for. In the near future it will act as, among other things, an airborne node in a net-centric battlefield passing and receiving data to other users. And with planned upgrades and mods to the mission avionics and radar, it'll do several uber-cosmic things I can't discuss on an open forum. Whistle

The project numbers being bandied about by Raptor critics are meant to scare people, pure and simple. They gamble that Joe Taxpayer will see that $130+ million dollar a copy figure and get the willies without knowing about all the neat stuff he gets for that price. When you compare the costs against what you'll be able to bring to the fight, not just now but for decades to come, it's really no question that the jet is needed now in order to stay ahead of the threats you can't predict down the road.

VMF-214 wrote:

Rigth now the enemy isn't the same, Russia AF is a small fraction of that it was, so less A/C are rq to handle the combined treat of russia and china (as the current doctrine rule).

But you're right, the F-22A is too expensive (but not so expensive when compared with Typhons, Rafales and BEagle an SuperBugs, coz any new acquisition ont these planes cost about 70% of the same acquisition on an by far supeior Raptor)

The F-22 is not so expensive as Typhoon, Rafale, S Hornet? You must be talking about "value for money" ...right? Very arguable mate.

In answer to the original question, certain legacy aircraft are just not needed anymore. The U-2 isn`t needed, satellites and UAV can do the job at a lower risk. the B-52 isn`t going to be carpet bombing city`s any time soon so you don`t need huge numbers. The F-35 is going to replace the roles taken by the Viper and to a degree, F-117, which is now getting a bit long in the tooth as far as stealth tech` is concerned. As an example, the F-35 will be stealthier is the frontal aspect than the F-22 if the rumours are to be believed...There are no huge hordes of Soviet tanks to wipe out so we don`t need huge numbers of A-10s any more. I expect to see more Predator type vehicles carrying more weapons to take to the air in the near future.

The world has changed, so the USAF must as well. No force keeps the same doctrine /methods forever. It`s called evolution. The threat changes so you change your strategy. The defence budget can`t maintain current and future/planned equipment numbers so you change tack.

F-22 and other programs have to be paid for. It`s called managing the defence budget. You can do todays ops` with fewer numbers. Smarter ops` and weapons/systems can compensate to a degree I would have thought.....

If a real threat to the US develops in the next 10-15 years, I can see the USAF getting more than the 180 raptors has been ordered.
Can anyone tell me if all the -22s will have the same year number on the tail since they were all ordered in the same year, or will they be numbered in the year that they are built?

Is the airforce replacing their planes with a certain amount of raptors that can do the job of a certain amount of other planes. for example, if 2 raptors could do the job of, say, 10 F-15s (and no more than 12) then what the hell would be the point of making a new plane? If they are doing this, then WTF

!!!!

Or is someone just trying to save money?

When you negotiate with a manufacturer to create from dust 800 aircraft, and set the price based on that number, don't cry when you kill 85% of your intended number to purchase and the price goes up.

Everyone looks at the price today and cries over it. You have to look at what the original deal was, and what it has become today.

FA22F22 is spot on. Not only did the USAF tell Lockheed they wanted 700+ F-22s and then only buy 183, they also added the Air to Mud mission. I wasn't an economics major in college, but if you cut the numer purchased and change the design requirement than the unit price must go up. Let's also think about the price and inflation. 20 years ago, F-14s and F-15s cost $30 million. It would seem logical that the price would go up for a front line fighter over 20 years. Congress has screwed this program from the begining.

For what it's worth, I have seen the "real deal" capabilities of the Block 60 and would agrue to cancel the JSF and buy Block 60s. If the JSF funding from congress goes the way of the Raptor then we will only end up with 300 JSFs to replace over 1000 fighters.

wacopolumbo wrote:

FA22F22 is spot on. Not only did the USAF tell Lockheed they wanted 700+ F-22s and then only buy 183, they also added the Air to Mud mission. I wasn't an economics major in college, but if you cut the numer purchased and change the design requirement than the unit price must go up. Let's also think about the price and inflation. 20 years ago, F-14s and F-15s cost $30 million. It would seem logical that the price would go up for a front line fighter over 20 years. Congress has screwed this program from the begining.

For what it's worth, I have seen the "real deal" capabilities of the Block 60 and would agrue to cancel the JSF and buy Block 60s. If the JSF funding from congress goes the way of the Raptor then we will only end up with 300 JSFs to replace over 1000 fighters.

The F-16 Block 60 would be my obvious choice for a fallback option, if the F-35 program gets severely cut or scraped altogether. It's cheap, has good range, can carry a lot of ordnance and has lots of advanced goodies and capabilities, though admittedly, the F-16 design has about been stretched to the max. There wouldn't be a lot of room for future upgrades. But again, if the F-35 gets cut, it's a better option than having nothing new.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor - Something seriously wrong?