F-16.net

Talk about timing. First the F-15 fleet "grounded" because after 35 years of experience with the airframe they think there may be a structural flaw and now studies the Pentagon has had done that call for more Raptors.

I am the first person who thinks a number closer to 400 than 200 is the number of Raptors but this is getting ridiculous.

"U.S. senators demand Pentagon release F-22 reports"

"Six U.S. senators on Friday demanded Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England release three government-funded reports that call for additional purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) F-22 "Raptor" fighter jets beyond the currently planned level of 183."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... geNumber=1

F-16.net Sponsor

Wait...the USAF has always insisted it needs more Raptors. CONGRESS has consistently cut funding, delayed development, both of which increase the cost and then pitched a fit because costs were spiraling out of control. NOW they want to know why DOD is burying reports that substantiate what the USAF has been saying this whole time???? What the hell is going through the minds of these 7 senators that they are demanding information that has been the lest kept secret out there? Is there a roadblock somewhere within the DOD between USAF and Congress that's undermining this effort?

I know trying to introduce logic to congressional procurement is just asking for a bloody nose migraine, but good grief.

I would point out that it was not congress but Bush and the idiot Rumsfeld who decided to take it from close to 400 down to 183. The cuts from the 750 down to 400 where done by Clinton and a Republican congress.

I will bash congress and the democrats but not on this one. The Republicans messed this one up.

Hopefully the decision makers wake up and realise that a greater number of Raptors is 1.) more economically and 2.) required to replace the Eagles. Would be great if the USAF could get more aircraft. The structural flaw of the F-15 is not that unusual for such an old airframe and exactly there is the weak point. You can upgrade aircraft to keep them up to date, nut it isn't worth the effort if the airframes are worn out.

as said on JSF thread, there's another parallel game being played. JSF could get enough AA capability to do F-22's job in a cheaper way. What is certain is that LM cant afford two commercial failures at the same time, so more a/cs will arrive, in a way or another.

The F-22 will have A2A capabilities that the F-35 will not. Think back (if you are old enough) to the late 70s. The same questions where being raised about the F-15/16 combo. The hi lo concept has served us well the past 30 years. The F-35 has been designed to be second only to the F-22 in A2A. The same held true of the relationship between the F-16 and F-15 back then. There is no reason to change the formula. The only question is how many of each will be procured.

I want to be an AF pilot so I'm biased in this one; I'd love more F-22's. At the same time I fear the politicians. They might say "Oh well, we can do the same with 50,000 UCAVs and save 3 billion". That would suck...

Newbie Joined: Nov 07, 2007 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

Without other funding priorities such as new transports (C-17s, C-130Js) and tankers (KCX) as well as rescue helicopters (CSAR-X), all these fancy jets are going to have a hard time deploying. There is also an interesting NY Times article today (Sunday) about enormous cost overruns in a satellite program. The Air Force is also hoping to have a 2018 bomber. Bottom line: the Air Force has many other procurement priorities than tactical aviation.

If the Navy wasn't a potential big factor in an air battle with China over Taiwan (if Taiwan is too vulnerable to base air force planes there, the USAF will not play much of a role) I would say junk JSF and buy more F-22 because we've already paid a lot of the F-22 development costs. Defense News just posted an article titled "Design Flaws Force Changes to USAF Raptor". I imagine more of these design flaws will show up on the JSF.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3164095&C=airwar

Thumper3181 wrote:

I would point out that it was not congress but Bush and the idiot Rumsfeld who decided to take it from close to 400 down to 183.

Weren't these the two leaders who also felt the invasion of Iraq could be accomplished with 125,000 ground troops (many of these were/are contractor)? This after a Pentagon study back (I think) 1999 on what would be required to invade Iraq. The study concluded it would take 400,000 ground troops (about twenty percent less than all of the Coalition's ground personnel in PGW#1) and at the end of the report it stated, even with this number of ground troops, we can not be sure that there will a civil insurrection that we can control!
I am glad this structural problem with the F-15 was found now. Can you imagine the mess if the F-22's production line was finished and close, then the F-15's structural problem was found. (I can see some liberal congressman wanting to have some of the F-22's manufacturing equipment disassembled.)

The politicians have messed up the F-22 program so badly it isn't funny. Inconsistent funding, after the end of the Cold War losing almost eighteen months to restructure the whole program to produce a maximum of one-half the original number of aircraft and the time span of the production would be greatly extended. Then those same people advocated for all these cuts then complained about how the price was rising. Their efforts in large part is the reason the price is so high.

talkitron wrote:

If the Navy wasn't a potential big factor in an air battle with China over Taiwan (if Taiwan is too vulnerable to base air force planes there

Some people don't want to face the problem of PRC versus ROC (an invasion of the island) but, no one can doubt the growing capabilities of the PRC to project power.

Adrian

Some say the AF sold it soul for the 22. They better hope they haven't bought a pig in the poke.
Why does the name McNamara keep ringing in my ears Shrug

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 18, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

In response to ACMIguy, McNamera applies more to the F-35 Lightning II than the F-22 Raptor I think. Anyone remember the F-111B that was developed for the Navy? Overweight, underpowered and eventually canceled and replaced by the F-14 Tomcat (and it took a while for the Air Force to get their moneys worth too). One wonders if a fresh design uncompromised by politics would have served the Air Force better.

And as needed as the F-35 is, some of the compromises I see in that airframe scare me. The Navy and Marine variant won't have an internal gun so as not to compete with the F-18E/F's (remind anyone else of the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam)?! The Lightning II has already had a redesign due to weight issues (something that plagued the F-111B as well) the alternative engine program has been cut and Lockheed Martin wants to cut BACK on testing to cut costs!

As annoying as it is to see a aircraft lose years in development hell, I'd rather see them test the hell out of the things, than to cut back on testing only to find problems later on when the aircraft are in service. Evil or Very Mad

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

As far as the gun is concerned, the F-35C has the option of carrying a stealthy external gun pod. If it's performing missions where air to air combat might ensue, I'm sure it will be carrying the gun pod. If its mission is purely attack, I suppose the gun pod will be left out of the mix.

ACMIguy wrote:

Some say the AF sold it soul for the 22. They better hope they haven't bought a pig in the poke.
Why does the name McNamara keep ringing in my ears Shrug

Don't know. He killed just about every good idea that crossed his desk- on the way to the trash can.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Raptor_One wrote:

As far as the gun is concerned, the F-35C has the option of carrying a stealthy external gun pod. If it's performing missions where air to air combat might ensue, I'm sure it will be carrying the gun pod. If its mission is purely attack, I suppose the gun pod will be left out of the mix.

Don't forget for today's bug hunts that 20-25 percent of the work is with the gun. Very Happy

For those of you who like to look at the numbers game...

During Operation Desert Storm most fighter squadrons deployed with a full complement of 24 jets and 30 plus pilots... during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom most fighter squadrons deployed only half their complement of aircraft.

Although I do see a need to have more F-22s you need to look at this. There will be a total of six squadrons of active duty (Langley, Elmendorf, Holloman) and one ANG squadron (Hickam) with assigned aircraft with three associate squadrons of personnel (ANG at Langley, AFRES at Elmendorf, and active at Hickam).

I seriously doubt that all seven F-22 squadrons and their associate units will be commited! During Desert Storm only 5 F-15 squadrons deployed (two from Langley, one from Eglin, two from Bitburg) and you still had eleven at their home stations (three at Kadena, two at Elmendorf, two at Eglin, three at Holloman, one at Langley).

During Iraqi Freedom only three F-15 squadrons deployed (Eglin, Langley, and Kadena).

I also seriously doubt that the F-22 will be the only type of aircraft deployed into a conflict. When was the last time the US employed a single type of aircraft to fight? The F-22 will have plenty of help in the future!

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

More F-22s on the way