Restarting F-22 production

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 21 Apr 2016, 04:40

madrat wrote:Its a conspiracy of bad actors trying to sink the F-35. They did enough damage with extra Super Hornet and Growler purchases, money better spent across the board on force maintenance. Now they want to weigh LM's management down with a golden carrot...

The extra Super Hornets and Growlers are about keeping the production line open, and competition in the fighter market. Even though funding may be "better spent on force maintenance ", buying more Super Hornets and Growlers is necessary.

If Boeing stopped producing fighters, that will reduce cost pressure on LM? Unlikely.

If ULA and the previous lack of competition in the EELV program is any indication, the F-35 production costs will mysteriously increase.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 21 Apr 2016, 09:21

cosmicdwarf wrote:
madrat wrote:Its a conspiracy of bad actors trying to sink the F-35. They did enough damage with extra Super Hornet and Growler purchases, money better spent across the board on force maintenance. Now they want to weigh LM's management down with a golden carrot...

It's more likely to kill the 6th gen fighter than the F-35.

I think you are right. F-35 is the big thing now and for some time. I see F-22s being used until about 2050-60 and then be replaced with something like 6th gen fighter. Of course F-22s would need SLEP to do that. I actually think that there is so much untapped potential in 5th gen systems that it might take a suprisingly long time before we move on to 6th gen systems. I also think that going to 6th gen will be much tougher than now predicted.

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 22 Apr 2016, 15:38

Does anyone think Trump might politicize restarting f-22 production like Romney did in 2012?

He's always saying "we are going to buy the military equipment that the generals want"
Although I'm not sure the USAF actually wants more raptors like they might have 5 years ago.

tincansailor · by **tincansailor** » 23 Apr 2016, 04:26

les_paul59 wrote:Does anyone think Trump might politicize restarting f-22 production like Romney did in 2012?

He's always saying "we are going to buy the military equipment that the generals want"
Although I'm not sure the USAF actually wants more raptors like they might have 5 years ago.

I don't know if Trump would want to boost the F-22. He's not bright enough to get ideas like that on his own. The cost would scare him off the idea. I do fear he would go after the F-35 because he's read media reports saying it's not as good as Legacy fights. He was bring it up on the campaign trail for weeks. Once he gets an idea in his head it could become an obsession. Saving money by cutting F-35 numbers could become a policy. He could keep the program in LRP thinking it would save money.

As for the F-22 I think the USAF wanted enough planes to form 10 squadrons. With 24 planes in a squadron, with 4 spares you would need 280 F-22's. With a training squadron, and one for testing that's 336, with a few spares say 350. If we'd sold some to Japan, Australia, and Israel we might have built 500. I don't know if they could have gotten enough of those out of production chips for that many computer cores. Does anyone think we could have built that many without upgrading the computer cores, along with many other upgrades?

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 23 Apr 2016, 18:06

I'm honestly not worried about trump or the f-35, he polls so poorly with women and minorities that it would be stunning if he won the general election. The F-35 is too far along even for a personality like Trump to stop.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 23 Apr 2016, 19:02

les_paul59 wrote:I'm honestly not worried about trump or the f-35, he polls so poorly with women and minorities that it would be stunning if he won the general election. The F-35 is too far along even for a personality like Trump to stop.

Even if he won he's smart enough to know what he doesn't know.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 23 Apr 2016, 21:22

les_paul59 wrote:I'm honestly not worried about trump or the f-35, he polls so poorly with women and minorities that it would be stunning if he won the general election. The F-35 is too far along even for a personality like Trump to stop.

In my own honest opinion... anyone who is giving serious thought or intend to vote for him has an IQ level on par with pocket lint.

I don't believe there is a program that is ever too large to stop now especially with modern media and access. I look to the F-22 as an example of a program that was indeed a very large nationwide effort (contractors and sub-contracts in 45 states if I remember correctly). It was at FRP very close to FOC and then the ax came down.

The last thing I want to see is a short fall in numbers of F-35s and than people... the very same who cried for its end... will bitch that we don't have enough.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Apr 2016, 15:12

In the great USAF vs Robert Gates fight, Gates is looking rather foolish as time goes on.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Apr 2016, 15:13

les_paul59 wrote:I'm honestly not worried about trump or the f-35, he polls so poorly with women and minorities that it would be stunning if he won the general election. The F-35 is too far along even for a personality like Trump to stop.

Stop it? no way! he would find a way to keep it going and make Canada pay for the whole thing LOL

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Apr 2016, 15:16

playloud wrote:Best Fighter for Canada has been mentioning it. It's funny though, as they claimed the F-35 range was too low, and the cost was too high... but some of them want Raptors.

Either way its a fifth Generation choice...

Notice the USAF isn't talking gripens or super hornets BF4C ?? :lmao:

fbw · by **fbw** » 24 Apr 2016, 15:32

les_paul59 wrote:.

As for the F-22 I think the USAF wanted enough planes to form 10 squadrons. With 24 planes in a squadron, with 4 spares you would need 280 F-22's. With a training squadron, and one for testing that's 336, with a few spares say 350. If we'd sold some to Japan, Australia, and Israel we might have built 500. I don't know if they could have gotten enough of those out of production chips for that many computer cores. Does anyone think we could have built that many without upgrading the computer cores, along with many other upgrades?

The USAF had requested 381 F-22 to populate ten squadrons. That's 24 PAI per squadron + BAI+ training+ weapons and test aircraft+ attrition airframes. The rule of thumb is roughly 60% of the inventory are combat coded. Last time the numbers were available, there were 123 PAI F-22 between active duty and national guard squadrons.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 24 Apr 2016, 16:44

How soon we forget...

F22 was a nightmare of a program. I wont take everyone through the links -- you can google them yourself, but for example -- anyone remember the minor international dateline problem?

All of these restart ideas are nonsense -- prohibitive for so many reasons -- time, big NRE for the all new stuff you think you can just 'tweak' or import from F-35 (note the eye roll), update the engines, DMS for the stuff you retain, a full test slate, restart at zero for manufacturing learning curve (and a big URF for a small production run as a result), and not exportable so you cant realize any economies of scale. Betcha the CPFH and O&S would be special too.

:roll:

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 24 Apr 2016, 16:52

quicksilver wrote:How soon we forget...

F22 was a nightmare of a program. I wont take everyone through the links -- you can google them yourself, but for example -- anyone remember the minor international dateline problem?

Judas. That was like a ten minute software fix. :roll:

By that measure EVERY program is a "nightmare of a program". Newsflash: Almost every program has issues, and the more groundbreaking it is the more it has. Because, you know, it's harder.

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 24 Apr 2016, 19:23

sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:How soon we forget...

F22 was a nightmare of a program. I wont take everyone through the links -- you can google them yourself, but for example -- anyone remember the minor international dateline problem?

Judas. That was like a ten minute software fix. By that measure EVERY program is a "nightmare of a program". Newsflash: Almost every program has issues, and the more groundbreaking it is the more it has. Because, you know, it's harder.

And because you're treading in unexplored territory where there is no existing answer or model to copy from.

durahawk · by **durahawk** » 24 Apr 2016, 19:26

quicksilver wrote: Restart at zero for manufacturing learning curve

Actually, the F-22 is probably one of the best preserved lines in history:

A total of more than 30,000 jigs, fixtures and other "tooling" used to build the plane are being logged into a database and tucked into containers, some custom built, for long-term storage at Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California.

The Sierra depot's high desert climate, low humidity and mild temperatures, are optimal for systems that might be needed to build components to support the fleet, or perhaps one day resume production.

Lockheed is under Air Force contract also to preserve the shop-floor know-how used to manufacture the fighter. It is accomplishing this through a video library of "smart books," DVDs designed to capture such things as how to hold a tool for best results.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fighter-usa-lockheed-idUSTRE7BC09T20111213

This is of course is just Lockheed though, and there probably are thousands of suppliers who made parts for the F-22 and F119 engine. Many of these suppliers may continue to produce spares or a shared part with the F-35/F135, but there is likely an equivalent number who have shut down entirely. The primary goal of the Air Force in preserving the Lockheed tooling was to increase sustainment capability and decrease cost. I don't see the F-22 ever returning production unless World War III breaks out and we are in desperate need for fighters. I think at this point, the money that would be spent on an additional batch of Raptors would be better spent on either buying more F-35's or R&D on a sixth gen.