F-22 vs newer F-15 & F-16 airframes - And the real price

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 67
Joined: 20 Feb 2004, 21:02

by AJAX » 14 Oct 2006, 04:52

Amongst all the budget/cost talk within the F-22 forum, at one point or another the argument that the 184th Raptor off the line will only be moderately more expensive than a brand spanking new -15 came up, and I believe the poster was getting his cost/unit number from an announced cost/sale to South Korea, Singapore, or some other nation.

Well, over in the "Other Military Aircraft" forum, Slater has ponied up an article relating to Boeing's Super Eagle offer to the USAF in case the F-35 runs into unforeseen development/funding difficulties.

"The new-build proposal, expected to be offered at a target price of $59 million (2006 US dollars) versus roughly $60 million-plus for the baseline F-35, would be available in 2012-13 assuming an authority to proceed decision in 2009."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... Eagle.html


I am not here to bash the Raptor, there just seems to be a little, small delta between $59mil and the roughly $100mil number thrown around previously. That $40mil delta could pay for a lot of maintenance...

Aside from it's significant bomb truck capability, does the E's air to air capability lag behind a C's in any significant amount?

Does this number change your opinion in any way?


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

by PhillyGuy » 14 Oct 2006, 05:19

AJAX wrote:Does this number change your opinion in any way?


About what? No new F-15 or F-16 airframe will EVER give you what the F-22 or even the F-35 gives you. Stealth, integrated next generation sensors, unprecedented net centric capabilities, unmatched airframe performance (more so the F-22), and future growth potential, just to name a few. With that in mind even if a new Eagle costs 30 million I would ALWAYS rather have one, 100 million F-22.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 01 Oct 2006, 19:25

by FireFox137 » 14 Oct 2006, 05:38

What the hell.... it's time to move this discussion someplace else:

“Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle.” A maybe not so famous quote by a quirky offbeat genius … i.e John Boyd (who also had some wacky ideas against outfitting planes with radars and the like).

You my friend/s with you little smarmy B-47 comments…. Good gosh. To quote one of my favorite movie lines, “Hear you nothing that I say?” You want to talk about to me about 1700 infantry tactics by the Brits because I say boldly that we’re building up a myopic force of exactly what you are claiming to be against.

Let me tell you a little something here. Again, this isn’t opinion, it’s fact:

1) Stealth as many of you people are talking does not exist. Period. Our Raptors and Lightings are not wrapped in elven cloaks of invisibility. Period. Yes, I highly and strongly support reducing your RCS since in wartime you simply want to take advantage of every possible advantage you can get your sweaty hands on.

Way back in the 70’s (before I suspect many of you here were born or were still in the assembly line) someone at Lockheed remembered or came across that now famous paper by that Soviet guy who wrote about the scattering properties of electromagnetic waves…. Then the computer combined with that paper and a little bit of ingenuity and ….. drum roll….. Have Blue is born. Everyone knows that. However, there’s more to that story that may be considered a little bit of side track. But anyways, since I feel like writing, I will do just that. Also around that time when our boys in blue and nomex were having heartburn over the Soviets SAM’s after our not so good experiences in ‘Nam, they also dual pathed an investigation into some super-duper-fast-high-angels type of bird as well. Now, this isn’t classified so don’t go moaning about this. But around that same time a little ol’ company by the name of Rockwell did some very thorough investigations into supercrusing fighter type aircraft. So you got Have Blue going on…. Rockwell’s stuff going on, and then also some stuff being done outta’ NASA on an airframe with Mach 6+ capability (looked a lot like the artists concepts for the hypothetical SR-71 replacement). Now whether or not that demonstrator ever actually flew (and there’s tons of very detailed data available to the public)…. Well, that’s open to debate, but there’s a lot of seismologists with more than a couple fake quakes on their plots coming out of exactly where such a bird would have been flying out of. That’s another story altogether.

Eventually some people put together the F-117 concept with Rockwell’s study on supercrusing fighters and said, “Ah ha, a new wonder weapon is born.” What they didn’t know or want to know is that invisibility isn’t exactly that when you’re talking about airplanes. Some proposals for study go out, a few refinements, and changing of requirements and presto, the ATF was off an running. If you do a little bit investigating on your own, you’ll find out that what Rockwell studied in their supercruiser stuff looks about 90% exactly like the proposal that the AF canned because Rockwell wasn’t up to date on what was going on in those hidden areas of the services.

Now then, back to your “Hey diddle diddle” tactics… that is exactly what our force structure is shaping up to be. Why? Because of the farce of a totally invisible jet. Oh yeah, sure you can and should reduce your RCS to as small as possible, but let me tell you this, and that is that there are systems out there that can track our ‘ol Raptors and Spirits. I know this because one, I have the scientific education to know this. Two, I know more than a little about engineering stuff. Three, combine a little physics with a little electrical engineering, and you gotta stealth buster. That is if you’re planning on humming along at 30-65K ft thinking you’re Frodo Baggins wrapped up in your cloak of invisibility. I’m not even referring to IR signatures mind you.

Now then, on to IR… you want to talk about 1775 war tactics. Ha! Those Brits in their bright red suits are exactly as many pilots may find themselves to be as they going dashing about sky all the while with their bright red asses glowing away like a beacon….. You may as well send out e-mail to your adversaries just to be polite and let ‘em know ahead of time you’re on your way do throw some JDAMS at ‘em from whatever altitude.

I don’t know how anyone can conceivably claim that low level incursions into hostile airspace is a thing of the past. That’s just plain naive thinking. If I were to fly over your house in say a Piper Cherokee at 200 hundred feet and a 130 knots…. Before you’d see me, I’d know where exactly you were and then when you did spot me you would have a chance in hell of aiming your rifle at me to get a shot off. Why my friends? Because it’s good old simply high school trigonometry. It’s a simple matter of sines and cosines and differentiating this with respect to that….. Now then let’s up the ante and I’m not in Cherokee, but I’m in a supercruising capable low RCS and just as importantly low IR signature platform. Uh oh, I’m a lot harder target to (1) detect ahead of time (radar don’t go through hills and it’s also not an omnipresent eye) and since I’m a low RCS platform your detection range is limited even further and (2) because I’m not strutting my red a$$ out in the air like a Mexican hooker without and underwear on, your IR homing SAMs aint gotta lot of chances to make a score. Go right ahead and sing the praises of the glowing red Raptors and Lightnings but you’re hamburger meat wrapped in a nomex bun if you think you’re flying around in Wonder Woman’s jet plane because someone told you that hard target to hit. Yeah, sure the Bosnian’s aint got much hope but Russia, China, and (maybe) NK is another story.

I also wonder why the AF has seen fit to train Spirit pilots in low level stuff? Hmmm? Yeah, I think it’s because someone got the bright idea to train pilots who are flying billion dollar planes how to use 1775 tactics. Yup, that’s gotta be it! I see the light! I’ve been wrong all along!

Our nation has not too unconsistently outfitted our air forces with some of the most expensive hyped up equipment and consistently thrown away capabilities that other nations would sacrifice every new born child for. I can remember when the F-108 was being drawn up. Truly fantastic aircraft that would have been, even if it didn’t have a Valkyrie to escort into Soviet airspace. Oh yeah, what about that other plane… what was it called… Super Crusader….??? That plane that could have dusted off every Mig in it’s path and was damned near Mach 3 capable too. Nope. Sorry. Don’t need that when we can build some Phantoms (which I loved ironically enough) and tisk tisk for shame on anyone who thinks they are going to tumble around the sky firing guns. Then more up to people’s memories would be the F-16XL (would have been F-16F by designation)…. Geez, why with a little re-engineering and structural upgrades to an already highly effective platform would we want a supercrusing longer legged beast? Nah, don’t need that at all.

Oh and to whomever wrote that comment about me preferring to keep the Phantoms around rather than building the 16’s….. You must be scanning for key words and writing based out of gut emotional reaction rather than to anything that I have actually said. I think that I’ll just call you Bill Clinton since he pulled that same kind of shell game stuff on the citizens.

Oh and another thing about the F-16. Did you happen to know that the AF did not want it?

Back in the days of Have Blue the original notion was the correct notion: to build a plane with a small RCS that took advantage of chaos of war to give those planes a chance of getting in and getting out intact. No one was supposed to have gotten the dumb notion that a bunch of slide ruler geeks could bend the laws of physics and make something disappear to the extent that you fly right into battle sipping on coffee because someone learned how to make the statue of liberty disappear on national television.. Stealth is very valuable since you need to capitalize on every single weakness that your enemy may have. But to cry from the rooftop that low level tree hugging is in line with 1775 British war tactics is simply dumb.

Capitalize on your past success and incorporate the new stuff, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water people. Trust me, there are things out there and things on the way that if you rely on lobbing some 250 pounders or whatever from your wonder weapon aircraft at whatever altitude, you’re done. The people who know this are the people who aren’t commenting. I realize this is just a stupid forum for plane nuts and the like. Trust me, the US is not the only nation with the ability to zap planes and missiles from the sky with a beam of photons. And trust me, that within the lifetime of the 22 and the 35 those systems are going to be out there in quantity. I don’t care if you’re cruising at 1.8 or 2.3 or whatever mach number. You’re not going to outrun and dodge a beam of light, especially at high angels. Lower to the deck you’ve got a better shot at it because those photons gotta cut through that much extra atmosphere…. At higher altitudes you’re worse off because of the reduced atmosphere. Yeah sure… whoever thought about that in 1986 when the designs for the ATF were being finalized? (Cough Cough…. SDI)

Truth be told, we need a mix of capability. We need the high alt. stuff because it is effective against the lesser armed foes. We also need the tree hugging stuff too because of all its inherent advantages to detecting and tracking and firing upon. Way back in the very early 80’s Boeing’s ATF concept was a plane that could kiss the trees as well as do the high alt. supercruising stuff. Nope, not to be. If anyone who’s been around long enough can remember that circa 1982/3 the AF published an artists rendering of what the ATF was to look like. Anyone remember that? Anyone? Well, I do, and I don’t have that picture anymore but it was the spitting image of the F-22. It had the one piece bubble canopy, the F-15/Foxbat shape, except that it had outwardly angled tail surfaces…. That is what the AF wanted in 1982/3 and that is what the AF got. Anyone want to know truthfully why the F-35 made it and was teamed up in the head to head to flyoff with that fat ugly whale of a Boeing? Because for some reason most likely due to fear of change the AF got it stuck in it’s collective head that the F-15 was then end all and be all fighter.

You want to talk to me about B-47s???? We’re build up a fleet of aircraft for the 21st century that are clones of an airframe that dates back to the 60’s my friend. I got an idea, let’s bring back the B-47’s but thrown on some PW’s and fancy electronics. Have at it! FSW wings for turning? Who needs that? Blended wing/body concepts that are have a lower RCS than either of the new birds? Who needed that? Not the US, obviously. A few extra feet of skins and heat “tiles” to hide IR? Who the hell needs that? Certainly not the US. My god, we’ve got planes that throw JDAMS out of their bays at mach whatever, and that’s all you need and will ever need for the next 25 years.

If someone had the guts and the political backing all would not be lost. The F-22 is an awesome plane none-the-less. Scrap the JSF, double up the tooling capacity on the 22, build up 100 or so a year and keep the fighter force at that. You don’t need a less capable plane in the JSF to team up with a plane that itself isn’t all it could have been. Screw the Marines and their cries for a replacement Harrier. They could live with the superbug if the Navy has decided that airplane is enough for their needs for fleet defense. Save those billions of dollars by not buying that ugly duckling 35 and actually build a decent bomber force again. It’s those big sticks that kept the peace more than the fighter jockeys would have you think.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

by idesof » 14 Oct 2006, 06:10

Hmm, let's see Ajax... One F-22 can shoot down 6 F-15(A-Z) in one sortie. Two sorties, 12 F-15(A-Z) dead. Three sorties, 18 F-15(A-Z) dead. And so on. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll take the Raptor.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 630
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

by Thumper3181 » 14 Oct 2006, 06:41

Interesting post FireFox. I was born in 1962. Do you really think the Chinese and the Russians have the capability today to detect an F-35 at FL40 at more than 40 miles? If not today, then when? What about the Japanese, Israelis or Europeans? Can they do it? Will they be able to do it anytime soon?

If the stealth JDAM combination is ineffective (let’s not get in to discussing knocking out GPS) then why do so many countries seem to want the plane?

F-22 and supercruise I am not so sure about in regard to IR detection. True no plane is truly (f-117 comes close) IR stealthy but I thought there was some work done either after or at the nozzles to mitigate IR signature. Further even if the Raptor has no IR mitigation supercruise dos not use AB, its IR signature would be no more than any other plane.

What I am getting at is that sometimes there is a difference between theoretical science and the application of it. Sure theoretically some physics and electrical engineering can defeat stealth but is the tech practical? Is it affordable?

That all said, I tend to agree with you. We should build lots more F-22s and can the F-35. If we need bomb trucks buy some upgraded F-15s also.

There are only two problems with that. If we give up on the F-35 we basically give away the fighter export market. That bears significant consideration. The Harrier can be modernized I agree, but what about the Navy? I think the Superbug is an excellent plane but will it still be competitive in 15 years?


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
Location: Langley AFB, VA

by checksixx » 14 Oct 2006, 18:08

The high cost of the F-15 mentioned was in reference to starting the "C" line back up, tooling it etc, etc...

-Check


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 21:20

by RobertCook » 14 Oct 2006, 20:25

AJAX wrote:I am not here to bash the Raptor, there just seems to be a little, small delta between $59mil and the roughly $100mil number thrown around previously. That $40mil delta could pay for a lot of maintenance...


And more aircraft getting shot down in future conflicts would save even more in maintenance. ;)

AJAX wrote:Aside from it's significant bomb truck capability, does the E's air to air capability lag behind a C's in any significant amount?


Hypothetically, the F-15E configured for air superiority (drop tanks only, no CFTs) would not lag in any significant manner of which I'm aware. Its structure is about 5000 lb heavier, but it is also built to take more powerful engines, and currently has about 10000 lb more thrust than the F-15C.

AJAX wrote:Does this number change your opinion in any way?


Not at all, because both the F-22 and F-35 are more economical in the long run against far more capable foes than what we've grown accustomed to going up against.

Thumper3181 wrote:What I am getting at is that sometimes there is a difference between theoretical science and the application of it.


It's sort of like how plasma can absorb radar to the point where stealth can be achieved. Applying this technology would be a "simple" matter of generating copious amounts of the stuff and making it "stick" to a high performance airframe during flight. No problem, right? ;)

Thumper3181 wrote:Sure theoretically some physics and electrical engineering can defeat stealth but is the tech practical? Is it affordable?


Achieving a practical level of stealth while maintaining great aerodynamic performance was quite a feat in itself, and defeating it to the point where it would provide little practical benefit seems to be at least as difficult. I've been hearing for more than a decade that this capability will be completely obsolete within a few years, and that the F-22's flight performance will be awful compared to that of previous fighters as a result, but there is some evidence suggesting that the naysayers may have been mistaken....


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
Location: Cheyenne WY

by Roscoe » 14 Oct 2006, 21:40

AJAX wrote:Aside from it's significant bomb truck capability, does the E's air to air capability lag behind a C's in any significant amount?


The Mud Hen has a better radar than the base Eagle but lags significantly behind the AESA version. The CFTs are the big kicker though, they restrict the AOA to which the Beagle can reach because the airflow differences cause the bird to do funny things at high AOA.

Bottom line, the Beagle has a long stick capability that if the ROE would allow would be fairly effective. Can't dogfight as well if the gloves are left on however. Not even close to being LO enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the Raptor. Very expensive to buy (less than Raptor, about $75M/copy IIRC) and maintain (more than Raptor).
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
Location: Cheyenne WY

by Roscoe » 14 Oct 2006, 21:53

FireFox137, that post just proves how effective our efforts to classify the sensitive info has been. I just hope any future adversaries think the way you do...the next war will last about 5 minutes.

I won't go ever every mistake (don't have that long) but I will focus on the one thing you repeated over and over.

No one but you has said that stealth equals invisibility, at least no one with any credibility. LO reduces the effective range of radars significantly, but not completely. Keep in mind that radars are placed to overlap their coverage. LO simply reduces their coverage so that the overlap is reduced and in fact gaps are created in their coverage. Combine that with some standoff jamming that raises the noise floor in the radars and hence lowers their effective sensitivity and those gaps are even larger. Don't need invisible, that will suffice.

Otherwise your post was enjoyable, but it belongs on the fiction shelf, not the fact shelf as you claim when you started that message.
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 630
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

by Thumper3181 » 15 Oct 2006, 00:26

Perhaps I may have missed it somewhere but what about his assertion that the Raptor's IR signature is that of any other plane? Without going in to anything classified but going beyond "yup, thats taken care of" can anyone speak to it?


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 21:20

by RobertCook » 15 Oct 2006, 02:01

Thumper3181 wrote:Perhaps I may have missed it somewhere but what about his assertion that the Raptor's IR signature is that of any other plane? Without going in to anything classified but going beyond "yup, thats taken care of" can anyone speak to it?


Well, if the F-35's LOAN exhaust nozzle, for example, has some kind of "cooling system" that keeps its IR signature relatively small, then I suppose that the F-22 has one that is at least as effective. Other than that, the F-22's top coat redirects most of the energy in IR wavelengths to other, less exploitable wavelengths (it probably serves as RAM, too). Aside from trying to keep everything cool inside, dumping as much heat from other areas of the airframe as possible into the exhaust, I'm not sure what else could have been done.

Since IRST systems start out as significantly inferior in range and other capabilities compared to radar, the IR signature suppression on the F-22 doesn't have to be quite as ambitious as that of RCS in order to get the desired effect. The F-22 will use datalink, the ALR-94, and its onboard LPI radar to detect other fighters first in order to gain a tactical advantage at greater range. While we're on the subject, this is probably why the USAF felt that they could do away with the F-22's IRST for the time being--it really wouldn't provide enough of an advantage unless it was to have been some kind of super-IRST, and the technology for that probably didn't and doesn't exist. Some people like to point out the paradox of a stealth fighter not having an IRST while many other modern fighters do, but the goal is to achieve air dominance with overwhelming tactical advantage, not to be absolutely stealthy per se.


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
Location: Cheyenne WY

by Roscoe » 15 Oct 2006, 05:28

I'll just add that the USAF wouldn't go to as much effort as it did on the RF side just to neglect IR...signature is a balancing act.
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 630
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

by Thumper3181 » 15 Oct 2006, 07:13

With stealth we all understand to one degree or another how it works and why it works. I am having a more difficult time with IR suppression. Can someone explain in general terms how you can cool off an exhaust plume enough enough against a sub zero degree background so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

by Raptor_One » 15 Oct 2006, 08:14

I doubt there is any active cooling of the exhaust gases, but rather absorbing some of the exhaust gas heat into the aircraft's structure (i.e. material used for space shuttle tiles in the nozzle section of the F-117). This would be passive cooling. Then you can spread the exhaust gases out over a wide area like the F-117 does. You can also do like the B-2 (and YF-23) and have your engine nozzle placed on the top side of the aircraft, forward of the aircraft's trailing edge (or whatever you want to call it if we're not talking about a flying wing). By doing this, the aircraft's external structure dissipates some of the heat from the exhaust gases before they hit the trailing edge. And of course some the heat is simply disipated by the relatively cool ambient air temperature before passing the aircraft's trailing edge. The F-117 dissipates the heat from the exhaust gases by using a very wide and thin nozzle lined with space shuttle tile material. This nozzle also vectors the exhaust 'up' somewhat to make it more difficult for a missile seeker head to home directly on the tail section (especially when fired from below the F-117).

Anyway, the cooler you can make yourself at nearly zero distance from the aircraft, the closer a IR detection device will need to be to get a lock. IR detection devices (even the most advanced ones) aren't infinitely sensitive. They require a target to be significantly cooler or hotter from its surroundings in order to get a lock. This, of course, depends on range. The further out you are, the greater the temperature difference needs to be. This should be true even for imaging IR detection devices, but I'm no expert. If you look closely inside the F-22's nozzles, you'll see some ceramic-looking material on the sides. I don't know if this is space shuttle tile material, but it could be. :)


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

by cru » 16 Oct 2006, 05:58

The Mud Hen has a better radar than the base Eagle but lags significantly behind the AESA version.
Roscoe, I was under the impression that the APG 63(V)1 put on some 180 F 15 C is better than the APG 70 of the F 15E. Also, the AESA you mentioned --APG 63(V)3--is in fact the back-end of an APG 63(V)1 with the fron-end derived from the APG 79 (see: http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_017911.pdf)


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests