Restarting F-22 production

[cosmicdwarf]

just some extra reading...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-423298/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 2s-422950/

I am pretty sure we can all unanimously agree here that restarting the F-22 production at this point is impossible or very very improbable. Just for "fun" though what do you think it would take to re-open the line if it were indeed possible (militarily, financially, and politically)?

Anything is possible with enough money. Politically generally the will seems to be there, but the will to get the USAF enough money is likely lacking.

[accessdenied]

just some extra reading...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-423298/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 2s-422950/

I am pretty sure we can all unanimously agree here that restarting the F-22 production at this point is impossible or very very improbable. Just for "fun" though what do you think it would take to re-open the line if it were indeed possible (militarily, financially, and politically)?

Anything is possible with enough money. Politically generally the will seems to be there, but the will to get the USAF enough money is likely lacking.

Agreed. It's just a matter of money and for the politicians to allocate the funds. This isn't the Tomcat where tooling was destroyed. This isn't the A-10 where the tooling is 40 years old and lost and damaged. The Bone assembly line was reopened. It took money and political will. I'm sure some of the Raptor tooling will need refurbishment or rebuilding, but the bulk majority should be A Ok since it was mandated to go into storage in case it was ever again needed.

the question is: do we wait 20 years for a 6th gen bird? over those 20 years the raptor fleet is going to dwindle away. the F-15 fleet is going to get even older and smaller. Same with the F-16. The USAF will have a handful of F-22s and in theory a lot of F-35s. Or will someone recognize that the F-22 is a proven design that works, and a 6th gen fighter is unproven and risky? It's better to have something that works than gamble on an unknown. In a perfect situation the F-22 would be restarted, +200 built, and work on a 6th gen begins.

I would also like to not see the 6th gen become what the F-22 and F-35 were and are: designed with state of the art technology that needs to be perfected over a very long engineering development cycle lasting years and years, I say use today's off the shelf technology to mitigate risks, costs, and shorten development time.

[cosmicdwarf]

just some extra reading...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-423298/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 2s-422950/

I am pretty sure we can all unanimously agree here that restarting the F-22 production at this point is impossible or very very improbable. Just for "fun" though what do you think it would take to re-open the line if it were indeed possible (militarily, financially, and politically)?

Anything is possible with enough money. Politically generally the will seems to be there, but the will to get the USAF enough money is likely lacking.

Agreed. It's just a matter of money and for the politicians to allocate the funds. This isn't the Tomcat where tooling was destroyed. This isn't the A-10 where the tooling is 40 years old and lost and damaged. The Bone assembly line was reopened. It took money and political will. I'm sure some of the Raptor tooling will need refurbishment or rebuilding, but the bulk majority should be A Ok since it was mandated to go into storage in case it was ever again needed.

the question is: do we wait 20 years for a 6th gen bird? over those 20 years the raptor fleet is going to dwindle away. the F-15 fleet is going to get even older and smaller. Same with the F-16. The USAF will have a handful of F-22s and in theory a lot of F-35s. Or will someone recognize that the F-22 is a proven design that works, and a 6th gen fighter is unproven and risky? It's better to have something that works than gamble on an unknown. In a perfect situation the F-22 would be restarted, +200 built, and work on a 6th gen begins.

I would also like to not see the 6th gen become what the F-22 and F-35 were and are: designed with state of the art technology that needs to be perfected over a very long engineering development cycle lasting years and years, I say use today's off the shelf technology to mitigate risks, costs, and shorten development time.

It's still an older design that may not fit the future (beyond the expected lifetime of the current F-22 fleet) of air combat. That would be why the USAF would rather spend the money they get on the 6th gen (which is supposed to be what you want to be).

They may even prefer to spend more money on more F-35s over F-22s as well.

[vilters]

Restarting production? ?
Why?
To fight WHO?
When?
Where?
------
There is NO Who,
no Why,
no When,
no "where"......
-------
And nothing in the first 10-20 years either.
The only thing is that clown in North Korea. But that's a clown, nothing more nothing less.
-------
And Putin???
He barks, but has nothing to bite..... And no money to invest in hardware to stand on.

[jetblast16]

'but has nothing to bite.....' ? He has enough (nuclear) firepower to knock a large portion of the West back into the Stone Age. Don't underestimate Russian military strength, particularly the capability of its Strategic Forces.

[accessdenied]

Restarting production? ?
Why?
To fight WHO?
When?
Where?
------
There is NO Who,
no Why,
no When,
no "where"......
-------
And nothing in the first 10-20 years either.
The only thing is that clown in North Korea. But that's a clown, nothing more nothing less.
-------
And Putin???
He barks, but has nothing to bite..... And no money to invest in hardware to stand on.

How much life.... REAL usable life as a twisting and turning Mach 2 capable fighter, is left in the F-15 fleet? Without limitations placed on them due to metal fatigue?

Honestly, your arguments against the F-22 production are the same arguments that shut the like down prematurely.

[jetblast16]

'I say use today's off the shelf technology to mitigate risks, costs, and shorten development time' You gotta pay to play. Following this strategy won't push the "state-of-the-art". True, next-gen capability is going to cost.

[vilters]

Adding up all fighters the "east" has to offer? You end up with??

We already have a 4-5 to one in pure flyable airframe numbers only. (Just counting airframes)

Then add the quality difference, pilot training, organisation and you get what?

Then add up tankers and other support A/C and we can safely say : We are "more" then "more" then safe for the next 30 -50 years.
--------
Then add the declining China economy, add up that Putin has no money left, and all we got left is a Clown in North Korea.

[nutshell]

'but has nothing to bite.....' ? He has enough (nuclear) firepower to knock a large portion of the West back into the Stone Age. Don't underestimate Russian military strength, particularly the capability of its Strategic Forces.

Do you remember (or Did you watch) that Putin's interview where he said he'd gladly dismantle all of his nuclear weapons if the US do the same?

If i were to be the Russia's prime minister, i would NEVER EVER be "happy" to get rid of the only thing that instill fear upon my enemies and grant my country the deterrent to keep the Nato at bay.
Unless my nuclear arsenal is rotting, hardly usable, unlikely to detonate.

But fear not, the only thing that would be wiped out from the face of earth in case of nuclear war, is my country, Italy.

Because we're proudly the number one target for Russia's ICBM and nuclear submarines since 1960.

[yeah as absurd as it could be, there are infact more nuclear weapons pointed at us then toward the rest of the west]

[les_paul59]

This whole Russia vs. the West business is so overblown...Putin would never take that chance, he isn't a madman people, he just has to support his scumbag allies like Iran, Syria and the like. When you only have a few friends, you have to keep them happy.

The USAF has no real need for more raptors

[zero-one]

Wrong question. The question is which will remain effective longer. (It's a no-brainer.)

It is, I think we can all agree here that the current combat coded F-22 is far superior to anything that the enemy will have until at least the 2040 time frame.

Russia and Chain's AFs are still ramping up on late model Flanker buys. this means that within the next 15-25 years their fighter force will still be largely composed of late model Flankers (a.k.a. Raptor food).

Now with a few upgrades like side looking AESA and a dedicated IRST system, which was originally what the F-22 was supposed to have anyway. then you're simply compounding the problems for the majority of RuAF and PLAAF fleet.

I simply can't see how a clean sheet 6th gen design will be just "slightly more expensive" then an upgraded Raptor restart program.

Anyway, below is a good read on how one airforce officer thinks the F-22 restart program can be feasible. Not sure if it has been posted.

Here are three proposals to offset some of the costs associated with restarting the Raptor line. While each has its own degree of difficulty, partial success of any of the propositions is worth the effort. My WAG of a plan has four major components:

Slow F-35A procurement for the USAF and defuse any per-unit price increases by ramping up delivery of F-35As to international customers. Accelerating foreign F-35A deliveries ensures the number of F-35As coming off the Lockheed-Martin production line remain consistent with current projections, preventing a spike in per unit cost that could scare off international customers and put at risk the total USAF purchase of 1,763 F-35A airframes. This would require a great deal of negotiation with our international partners, including requiring them to modify their current spending projections. But with rising tensions in the Pacific and elsewhere, perhaps our allies would welcome a chance to accelerate their own F-35A initial operational capability.

Second, the US should allow export of the F-22B to our closest allies. HASC opened the door for this option when they tasked the Air Force to look at “opportunities for foreign export and partner nation involvement if section 8118 of the Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) prohibiting export of the F-22 were repealed.” In the past, Australia, Japan and Israel were very interested in purchasing the Raptor.

The fighter landscape in each of these nations has changed; Australia and Israel have signed contracts for the F-35, and Japan recently flew its indigenous design for a stealthy 5th Generation fighter. Signing an F-22 sales agreement to any of these nations, especially without impacting current F-35 procurement plans would be extremely difficult. However, success in even one of these nations could help amortize the cost of reopening the line over a greater number of aircraft, keeping per unit costs more reasonable. Additionally, export of the F-22B would allow the US the benefit of achieving cost savings that develop from quantities of scale, even if the US bought a relatively small number of fighters per year.

Third, and most painfully, my plan would require the retirement of the F-15C on a 1:1 basis with F-22Bs reaching operational status. The Eagle is the most successful air superiority fighter in history (104:0 air-to-air kill ratio makes a pretty persuasive argument), and its retirement will be a sad day for thousands inside and outside the active duty Air Force. However, by the time the theoretical F-22B reaches operational status the youngest F-15C airframe will be more than 50 years old, and ready for its retirement from the force. It must be noted that my plan would not allow for premature retirement of the F-15C fleet, these airframes could only be retired as they are replaced by the newest Raptors. This would prevent a further USAF fighter gap, and would provide a ready and trained force to pilot the new F-22s.

The Air Force must treat this acquisition as a total force initiative. Considering the majority of remaining F-15C squadrons are in the Air National Guard (ANG), the 1:1 replacement of the F-15C would send new F-22B airframes directly to the Guard. The ANG should therefore assist with procurement, modernization and sustainment. This would undoubtedly require complicated budget machinations, but the opportunity for new-build 5th generation fighters could be very enticing for the ANG.

Would these three efforts be enough to pay for 194 Raptors, while the Air Force is procuring 80-100 B-21s and 1763 F-35s? Probably not, but that is not a reason to not try. The F-22 is vital to the Air Force’s ability to survive and defeat emerging threats and A2/AD environments for the next two decades (at least). Air Force and DoD leaders, as well as Congress, should make every effort to find the means to reopen the Raptor line and preserve US Air Dominance for decades to com

https://fightersweep.com/5023/case-re-o ... ptor-line/

[jessmo111]

Zero I posted that article In a similar thread entitled how to PAY for a F-22B. To say that some here are tired of discussing it would be putting it midly. Maybe its time to let fate and congress decide.

[jessmo111]

Adding up all fighters the "east" has to offer? You end up with??

We already have a 4-5 to one in pure flyable airframe numbers only. (Just counting airframes)

Then add the quality difference, pilot training, organisation and you get what?

Then add up tankers and other support A/C and we can safely say : We are "more" then "more" then safe for the next 30 -50 years.
--------
Then add the declining China economy, add up that Putin has no money left, and all we got left is a Clown in North Korea.

Vitters I worry about 2 things:

1. The Chinese advances in stealth.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html



2. Advances in high advanced SAMS

That Bird is NOT a sukkoi

[jessmo111]

Its Not a Su-30, but a High value asset killer.
Will it turn and burn with a F-22? No It wont have the power plant.
Will it become a major threat to JSTARS, Tankers, AWACS,?
Yes. And the irony is the F-22 is less equipped than the F-35 at tracking stealth targets.
It doesn't have to get in a furball with F-35s or F-22s. It just has to kill support assets.
A F-22 with IR cheek arrays would be ideal for tracking down leakers, and cruise missile carriers.

[zero-one]

Its Not a Su-30, but a High value asset killer.
Will it turn and burn with a F-22? No It wont have the power plant.
Will it become a major threat to JSTARS, Tankers, AWACS,?
Yes. And the irony is the F-22 is less equipped than the F-35 at tracking stealth targets.
It doesn't have to get in a furball with F-35s or F-22s. It just has to kill support assets.
A F-22 with IR cheek arrays would be ideal for tracking down leakers, and cruise missile carriers.

Well the F-22 won't be fighting alone, it will be part of a highly integrated combat cloud. Basically the F-35 will act as the brains while the F-22 will be the brawn.

in the USAF the F-35 will act as sensor nodes creating a clear picture of the battle space, feeding the few F-22 hunter killer teams with valuable S.A. that they cannot collect themselves.

If they see a VLO target, the F-22s have the option to Salvo fire or get close knowing that they have both the missile payload to ripple fire Slammers or the performance should the fight develop into a classic phone booth fight.

The F-35s on the other hand can mop up everything else that the Raptors left behind.