More F-22's could really happen?

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post27 Sep 2017, 16:10

charlielima223 wrote:The specialized machining, tooling, and tech manuals are safely and securely stored away somewhere in the Sierra Army Depot...


There are difficult supply chain issues. Lockheed had, who knows, 100 subcontractors? Then those subcontractors have subcontractors and so forth. Some subcontractors are now out of business. It would be much better to just build more F-35s or upgrade existing F-35s faster.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 Sep 2017, 17:38

talkitron wrote:There are difficult supply chain issues. Lockheed had, who knows, 100 subcontractors? Then those subcontractors have subcontractors and so forth. Some subcontractors are now out of business. It would be much better to just build more F-35s or upgrade existing F-35s faster.


I know this is an issue, but I don't think this is major, a lot of small sub contractors have come and gone over the F-15's life but it is still going strong.

I think the lack of any export markets severely shortens the life of any aircraft. Once you don't export, the line shuts down, parts become harder to come by, they become more expensive, maintenance cost can rise, upgrades are harder to do.

F-14 and A-10, are some examples. There are exceptions though like the B-52, B-1 and B-2.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 538
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 01:17

zero-one wrote:
talkitron wrote:There are difficult supply chain issues. Lockheed had, who knows, 100 subcontractors? Then those subcontractors have subcontractors and so forth. Some subcontractors are now out of business. It would be much better to just build more F-35s or upgrade existing F-35s faster.


I know this is an issue, but I don't think this is major, a lot of small sub contractors have come and gone over the F-15's life but it is still going strong.

I think the lack of any export markets severely shortens the life of any aircraft. Once you don't export, the line shuts down, parts become harder to come by, they become more expensive, maintenance cost can rise, upgrades are harder to do.

F-14 and A-10, are some examples. There are exceptions though like the B-52, B-1 and B-2.


So if you want more F-22s so bad then what's your proposal?
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 04:44

talkitron wrote:
There are difficult supply chain issues. Lockheed had, who knows, 100 subcontractors? Then those subcontractors have subcontractors and so forth. Some subcontractors are now out of business. It would be much better to just build more F-35s or upgrade existing F-35s faster.


In some ways the F-22 Raptor was a national effort. F-22 Raptor had contractors and subcontractors across more than 40 states and created 95000 jobs. So it would seem that finding contractors and subcontractors wouldn't be much a problem. The real problem would be political, economical, and bureaucratic. Where is the money going to come from? With over 2000 F-35s planned for the future US military and 6th gen technology in the (somewhat) near future, would the F-22 still be an operational necessity? Where would this new production facility be located?

I would make a conjecture that had we have gotten the desired number of F-22s, it would have paid off in the long run.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 04:51

Time and money required to restart F-22 production isn't worth it with 6th gen on the way. Should've bought more, we didn't, now we have to deal with it.
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 05:04

zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I already answered that. The USAF needs 1763 F-35s, >100 B-21s, KC-46, etc.... more than 194 more Raptors. None of the allies are gonna give up F-35s, to buy F-22s.


Yeah well Japan is pushing with her F-3 after they were declined the F-22 sale despite being approved for F-35s. SKorea also has her KFX program despite having F-35s. Turkey also has theirs. I don't know, I'm not sating the F-35 isn't good A-A,

I just think opening it up for export and sharing the $40B cost with other allies to get maybe 5 additional squadrons for the USAF will be a lot better than nothing at all. And no F-35 buys will be cut, they'll still get the 1,763 they want



There's no free lunches. They'll lose F-35s if they buy F-22s. It'd be over 5 years before the first would roll off the assembly line. The F-22 isn't that much better at A2A, that the trade off is worth it. Better to invest in the follow on to the F-22. The Russians and Chinese won't have any 5th generation aircraft till the 2030s, by then we'll have over 1500 F-35s, compare to a few squadrons of Su-57s/J-20s. There is NO need to restart F-22 production. The F-35 is superior to the threats, and Block 5 F-35s will be even more of an over match.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 13:15

disconnectedradical wrote:So if you want more F-22s so bad then what's your proposal?


Well I've been posting it for some time now, but I'm still glad you asked.

So its no secret that the USAF wants additional Raptors. Only problem is, its estimated to cost $40B to restart the line and
build 194 additional Raptors.

Money is the only real issue, the $40B will cover the creation/restoration of the tooling for the production line, creation of the antiquated computer boxes or maybe the creation of new ones, getting new contractors. etc etc.

Problem is the USAF doesn't have an extra $40B lying around in a room somewhere. And by 2030 the advantage the Raptor has enjoyed may diminish. So 6th gen....

but heres my proposal,

40B for 194 Raptors? Open it up for Export, Its not so much better than the F-35 anyway so why ban it in the market.
Get 5 of your most trusted and riches allies, (i.e. Japan, SKorea, Germany, UK, Israel) each gets 20 Raptors for $5B,

The US gets 94 Raptors for around $15B, enough to field an additional 4 or 5 operational squadrons.
While being produced, the upgrades and maintenance cost for the existing 180+ fleet may also go down since the line is hot.

Where do they get the $15B?
Okay no free lunches,

1. dump the F-15C 2040 program,

2. Permanently retire all Eagles (not Strike Eagles)

3. delay the 6th gen program, since that will use existing technologies, you can allow those technologies to mature further before being implemented.

4. And if needed, as a last resort, go for a flat 1,700 F-35A buy, dump the 63, its just 63 planes for 94 Raptors.

You might still have to add 2 to 4 billion but thats a lot smaller than the $40B on the estimate.

Okay, I'm done ranting, its just such a great plane to end up the way its ending up now, upgrades are hard because the fleet is small, deployment is scarce because the fleet is small, spare parts production is hard because the fleet is small....sheesh make the fleet bigger.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1676
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 18:15

F-35 nearly as good as the Raptor air to air? Where is this coming from, other than someone's opinion?

If those two met, the F-35 would be at a distinct disadvantage insofar as speed, weapons load and altitude. You can argue it has better sensors/SA, stealth etc but the Raptor can literally dictate the terms. And if things don't look good for it it can dis-engage/re-engage on more favorable terms.

I have no doubt the F-35 is a good air to air platform. But people are starting to get carried away with its capabilities. The F-22 is far better in the air to air realm. The F-35 is far better in the air to ground realm.

It's just a shame Gates made such a short sighted decision. We've got plenty of upgrades to the Raptor to keep it ahead of the competition though, so for that we should be thankful.

But please - let's not overplay the F-35's cards.
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 18:29

mixelflick wrote:F-35 nearly as good as the Raptor air to air? Where is this coming from, other than someone's opinion?

If those two met, the F-35 would be at a distinct disadvantage insofar as speed, weapons load and altitude. You can argue it has better sensors/SA, stealth etc but the Raptor can literally dictate the terms. And if things don't look good for it it can dis-engage/re-engage on more favorable terms.

I have no doubt the F-35 is a good air to air platform. But people are starting to get carried away with its capabilities. The F-22 is far better in the air to air realm. The F-35 is far better in the air to ground realm.

It's just a shame Gates made such a short sighted decision. We've got plenty of upgrades to the Raptor to keep it ahead of the competition though, so for that we should be thankful.

But please - let's not overplay the F-35's cards.

The Raptor is superior in BVR vs 4th generation aircraft. Against 5th generation aircraft, the F-35 has EOTS/EODAS, which provides superior situational awareness, so it's less clear which platform is superior. In.WVR, the F-35's spherical engagement capabilities are superior to thrust vectoring/raw power. The F-35 would provide an F-22 pilot a pretty big challenge. It can't sneak up, from an advantageous position, and surprise the F-35. The F-35 could sneak up on an F-22, though.

Now....if the F-22 gets AIRST, cheek arrays, HMS, and upgrades to the AAR-56, that changes the calculus.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 18:52

Okay just to make things clear, I am a pretty firm believer that the F-22 is far better A-A platform than anything (including the F-35) by a pretty big margin, hence the "export ban".

My only evidence, though shallow, is still authoritative. It's simply that all people in the know (i.e. Gen. Mike Hostage and other AF brass) has said that the F-22 is the better A-A platform

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/3/
General Mike Hostage wrote:The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat.


We don't know everything about the F-22, Maybe it has something that we don't know and is undisclosed. Again take the article below as you want it, but a lone F-22 beat 8 F-15s, all equipped with HMCS and 9X at WVR.

https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/
two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. One of the Raptors ground-aborted, so the second jet took off single-ship as fragged. The engagement started beyond visual range and finished within visual range, with the Raptor killing all eight of its opponents before any were able to even get a shot off.

“I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing,” said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at the time. “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”


i've had a pretty long debate with respected guys here about this article, they simply can't believe that 9X equipped fighters can get beaten by a lone Raptor in a phone booth. so their conclusion, the article was fake, there was no 9X or their was no HMCS. Thats a debate for another day.

Point is, if this is true, the F-35 may not be able to use DAS to it's full advantage or 9X, it may have to resort to taking a boresite shot at the 6 o'cklock position or maybe even go to guns against a Raptor.

despite that, I still believe the F-35 is the 2nd best A-A platform by a wide margin. Now if you think about it, if the 2nd best platform is a long way off from the Raptor, then that export ban just makes a lot more sense.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6967
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Sep 2017, 20:52

The main driver for the F-22 ban was not "capability", but lack of any built-in export controls (ie anti-reverse-engineering tech) when it cam to it's avionics.

Also, the comparison to the F-16 to F-15 relationship is a little misleading since each of those has the same basic family of avionics. They each had a radar of similar tech and had access to the same sensors & weapons (LTP, IRST, JHMCS, etc).

That being said, the F-35 has access to more sensors (EODAS & EOTS), more features (HMDS & 3x the capability to ID a threat) than the F-22 does.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post29 Sep 2017, 05:37

zero-one wrote: ft



i've had a pretty long debate with respected guys here about this article, they simply can't believe that 9X equipped fighters can get beaten by a lone Raptor in a phone booth. so their conclusion, the article was fake, there was no 9X or their was no HMCS. Thats a debate for another day.

Point is, if this is true, the F-35 may not be able to use DAS to it's full advantage or 9X, it may have to resort to taking a boresite shot at the 6 o'cklock position or maybe even go to guns against a Raptor.

despite that, I still believe the F-35 is the 2nd best A-A platform by a wide margin. Now if you think about it, if the 2nd best platform is a long way off from the Raptor, then that export ban just makes a lot more sense.


True or not, the F-15s didn't have DAS or 360 degree spherical engagement capabilities, so it's irrelevant. The F-22 will be superior in situations where it can use it's speed and altitude, to provide extra kinematic energy to its missiles. In other situations, the F-35 has a lot of advantages. Superior situational awareness, superior NCTR, and quite possibly superior stealth. An F-35 will not be a walk in the park, for an F-22 pilot (and certainly not for an Su-57/J-20 pilot.) The fact that the F-35 is so capable, combined with numerical superiority, there is simply no pressing need to divert funds to build F-22s. The strike capabilities are more urgent, than any lack of air superiority. That's why the USAF has no interest in pursuing that. They know the current mix will be more than sufficient, till the 6th generation replacements come on line. F-35s have been getting 20:1, 24:1, etc.... kill ratios, while outnumbered 3:1, and the Red Air regenerating 4x. This is against opponents that in many cases have AESA, IRST, JHMCS, AIM-9X, and DRFM jammers.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Oct 2017, 10:38

SpudmanWP wrote:Also, the comparison to the F-16 to F-15 relationship is a little misleading since each of those has the same basic family of avionics. They each had a radar of similar tech and had access to the same sensors & weapons (LTP, IRST, JHMCS, etc).

That being said, the F-35 has access to more sensors (EODAS & EOTS), more features (HMDS & 3x the capability to ID a threat) than the F-22 does.


Well in this context it isn't misleading at all. Gen. Mike Hostage is telling us flat out that the F-22 like the F-15 is the King of air to air combat while the F-35 like the F-16 is very dominating but just not in the same league.

What did we want him to say, that the F-22 would kick the F-35's butt in air combat all while he is pushing the DOD not to cut his F-35 procurement budget.

Gen. Hostage isn't the first to say this, basically anyone in the know (Lockheed employees including Billy Flynn if I remember correctly) has said that the F-35 shouldn't be compared to the Raptor in Air to air because its simply not fair, the F-22 is tailored for A-A while the F-35 isn't
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Oct 2017, 17:26

It's also been said that the F-35 was designed to be second only to the F-22, in A2A (and it will enjoy numerical and qualitative superiority over adversaries.)
Last edited by wrightwing on 02 Oct 2017, 05:24, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post01 Oct 2017, 20:30

zero-one wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Also, the comparison to the F-16 to F-15 relationship is a little misleading since each of those has the same basic family of avionics. They each had a radar of similar tech and had access to the same sensors & weapons (LTP, IRST, JHMCS, etc).

That being said, the F-35 has access to more sensors (EODAS & EOTS), more features (HMDS & 3x the capability to ID a threat) than the F-22 does.


Well in this context it isn't misleading at all. Gen. Mike Hostage is telling us flat out that the F-22 like the F-15 is the King of air to air combat while the F-35 like the F-16 is very dominating but just not in the same league.

What did we want him to say, that the F-22 would kick the F-35's butt in air combat all while he is pushing the DOD not to cut his F-35 procurement budget.

Gen. Hostage isn't the first to say this, basically anyone in the know (Lockheed employees including Billy Flynn if I remember correctly) has said that the F-35 shouldn't be compared to the Raptor in Air to air because its simply not fair, the F-22 is tailored for A-A while the F-35 isn't



Zero-one..... I think your missing the larger pictue here which is the advancement of missile technology is basicly going to negate the F-22 super manuverability advantage.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-i ... 1704889474
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests