Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I'm always somewhat confused about the usefulness of the F-22 and why it was canceled. We all know what the critics say about it, citing maintainability statistics that are shocking when not taken in context (the F-22 is still a new system, but isn't much harder to maintain than the F-15, which is only getting older). Others (like Robert Gates) tell us that the Raptor is a cold war relic, soon to be replaced with unmanned systems that won't put any pilots at risk. But the most surprising aspect of the F-22's demise was how little effort went into fighting the cancellation. The USAF and Lockheed have never ceased to crow about the plane's capability, yet barely a whimper of protest was heard when Obama used the Raptor as a bone to throw to his liberal base (the 2009 budget actually increased military spending). Why?

The purchase of a useful number of F-22s (say, around 300-400 with another 150-200 strike models) to completely replace the F-15 would have left the USAF with the need for fewer overall aircraft. That means that there would be fewer aircraft for officers to earn their brownie points in. This may sound like idle speculation, but the UK is facing a similar situation with the Royal Navy fighting some modernization efforts to cut the overall number of ships because it would mean fewer commands available for its officer corps. Hence, large numbers of escort/sub hunting ships with nothing to hunt or escort. It seems possible that the USAF, while willing to plug the F-22 for all its recruiting value, is reluctant to make full use of the plane at the expense of seats for fighter jocks. The F-35, offers the possibility of many more seats in the years to come, and when Gates held out the option of giving up a few hundred F-22s in exchange thousands of F-35s, it seems only natural that the USAF would let the Raptor go quietly into the dark.

Lockheed also made surprisingly little noise over the cancellation, and why should they? They had already milked the F-22's development phase for all it was worth, and a few hundred more planes at rate production wouldn't have made that much more money, especially with a congressionally mandated export ban. Gate's effort to stop production in favor of the F-35 opens up a whole new round of delays and fixes from which Lockheed can squeeze every last hour and dime.

We were told that the F-22 was too expensive, too outdated, and too fragile. However, it has become apparent the neither the F-35 nor the fantastic UCAVs we were promised will have any real cost or capability advantage over the Raptor, which was already a finished product yeas ago.

F-16.net Sponsor

Welcome to F16.net and thanks for contributing that interesting viewpoint. What you said does cover a full spectrum of issues worth contemplating even retrospectively. Fair commentary imho.

There are probably two angles to such a discussion (conjecture) related to such a thread: What shoulda, coulda, woulda been an alternative recapitalization strategy taking things in retrospect... and what should or could be an evolved, alternative recapitalization strategy going forward, based on whatever revisions we have to work with currently compared to even a couple years ago. imo.

I personally would have had no problem 5 yrs ago doing it over, with an implemented strat including around 350 spiral-upgraded F-22A (perhaps with the last 150-200 units being of an evolved, more modern architecture), followed on the same line (might have commenced by around FY15) by 150 or so FB-22 with naval Carrier operation capability. In that case, I would probably agree with your logic too that such a force structure could then have probably sufficed most cost-effectively going forward across the 'manned-tactical structure' requirements. The substantial savings could then have been reallocated imho to the UCAV dimension of the AF requirements being met. Such a manned + un-manned structure by say around 2025 (and retiring of legacy airframes), could be argued as have been a more cost-effective next-gen Tac-air capability. As far as the 'export' capacity is concerned then, that could have included spiral upgradeable F-16XL variants (including LO models) and your higher-end F-15SE++, etc.

It's all kind of useless rambling at this point of course, but the debate of; 'is there a more sound and more realistic alternative plan starting tomorrow', is a real headache to tackle and obviously a highly senstitive topic.

God speed.

It's pretty obvious that the F-22 has been a very problematic fighter from the beginning, mostly in regards to its then-advanced electronic capabilities causing massive slowdowns in development and delaying its introduction by many years. And many seem to forget that the Soviet Union broke apart almost right as the fighter came into existence... resulting in tremendous cutbacks and fewer who saw a need for a weapon against an enemy that no longer existed. The original plan for the F-22 was supposed to include ground attack and a carrier variant, but the cutbacks in development meant LM didn't have the luxury anymore of expanding the capabilities of the fighter or really plan ahead for computer upgrades or leaving room for future development. As a result, the F-22 in its current state is far less versatile at much beyond killing enemy aircraft and dropping 1K GPS guided JDAM's.

Probably the reason that the F-35 had done so well was that it was conceived ten years after the Raptor and that it was sold on being a 'much cheaper generation 5 aircraft.' And the JSF was constantly advertised for being as far beyond the F-15 and F-16 as the F-22, but at only a third the price. That $27-$35 million fighter with stealth features for all three branches just seemed too good to be true.

I myself have to admit that I was taken by the F-35. Despite its fairly modest performance, it seemed cheaper than hell compared to a Raptor... but as it got further along in development, they started making it into a replacement for the Raptor and driving up the price altogether. Now that they're throwing all kinds of new technology that makes it seem as far beyond the raptor as it was beyond the F-15, they're just following the same trend which doomed the Raptor from the beginning. They're being over ambitious and making the fighter too complex.

One of the worst things about producing only 187 Raptors is that any future upgrades are going to be expensive as hell and only benefit a very limited number of aircraft. The same thing goes for the 19 or so B-2's in service. So while the F-35 is favorable for R&D funding because you're expecting a few thousand of them, the Raptor is just being left behind.

What gets me is the people that state the fighters warfare systems 'used' to be advanced. Show me another fielded fighter that packs the processing power. Even in development Eastern fighters.

Another thing that is funny is how people seem to press that these combat systems or computers cannot be upgraded. Most of the main processing centers are modules that can be removed with ease. Rolling Eyes

As far as it being above the Raptor; the Raptor isn’t a mud mover, it is a pure bred air dominance machine. Using additions (large fighter) and wings it can move mud.

my 3 cents' (inflation) worth...

Things can often be more complex than they seem. Gates is certainly a big part of it, but he serves at the pleasure of those who appointed him. If he wasn't doing what they wanted, he wouldn't be there.

One of the reasons it's so expensive to do things with the Raptor is because it's so "custom". This is especially true for a plane more dependent on electronic processing than any aircraft before. Remember when it was designed and how much the computing world has changed since then. One of the early problems they ran into was related to the fact that Federal Government was simply no longer a driving force in most computing. They got told by the suppliers of a number of processors that the even the original F-22 program was not a big enough market for them to keep producing modules and processors, not just for the life of the program, but not eve for the life of the production run, and informed AF they simply wouldn't sign any long term contract unless someone put up a LOT of guaranteed money up front. Additionally, 90% of its software is in a language that is little used, making updates harder and more expensive. This didn't help. F-35 uses more commercially compatible and easily replaceable/upgradable systems in this regard.

It also didn't help that the F-22 was touted as an uncompromised air superiority aircraft. Frankly more and more people came round to the view that strike was needed with fighter capability as a secondary mission than pure air superiority.

F-22 had the misfortune to be born at the end of the Cold War, and those of a particular political bent saw it to be a fat target they could pluck for a "peace dividend" to fund their pet projects, usually not in defense. This took one a life of its own and has never gone away. It also didn't help that the plane had to grow up during the '90s when the prevailing political winds made it part of the well-foreseen Defense "train wreck" of the early 2000s.

It's not fair to say that AF didn't fight for the plane. They fought like mad against anything that even had a slight chance of threatening the project ("The US doesn't need a longer ranged AAM, the Raptor will be upon the enemy before they can even fire"). They made the mistake of going too public with their opposition, as well as indication to the press they would win their fight. You simply don't do that in DC. Ever notice how often you see when there's a policy decision that it seems the people on the line would not support there's a statement, "Military leaders agree...? Well AF crossed that "line" and establishing Who's In Charge also came into play. AF opposition essentially collapsed after Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Michael Moseley were fired Robert Gates. Although nominally it was because nuclear fuses were accidentally shipped to Taiwan, it probably isn't entirely coincidental that these two were high ranking vocal champions of the F-22, and this gave a perfect excuse to put in people who would "get with the program". ("Military leaders agree..."). The Writing Was On the Wall. Lockheed was sort of between a rock and a hard place. Publicly support one program too much at that point, and watch what happens to DoD's need for the other, potentially more profitable program.

And sorry, I don't buy the RN analogy at all. The size of the RN fleet is being totally budget driven and that the RAF has more pull (e.g. retiring the Harrier but keeping the Tornado).

AAAM, you said it. The Raptor's been very unlucky, sadly. It's a great aircraft, to that I can attest.

Couldn't they have replaced the electronics in the F-22 to make it more capable of future upgrades? It would have seemed a much less demanding task to take the majority of the F-22 airframe and redesign the avionics/computer systems to replace what they already have. The F-35 packs more computing/avionics/tactical systems into a smaller airframe... it would seem you could go a lot further with the Raptor. Certainly it would have been a tremendous task and would have cost billions in R&D, but how much more was it to design a whole new aircraft completely?

As far as we were concerned, the F-22 was bought and paid for before the choice was made to go for the F-35. I just think it would have made much more sense to go back and upgrade the F-22 to fulfill the JSF's 'fighter for the future threat' and invested for one last batch of generation 4.5 fighters with networking capabilities to get through the next 10-15 years. Then I would have taken proven technologies that are now being fitted for the JSF and set the fighter introduction for something like 2020-2025 range. Because as of today and at least the next decade, our fighter force with the F-22 and older F-16's/F-18's is still dominant. The longer you wait to implement the next generation fighter, the more technology will have evolved.

Unfortunately the F-22 was too far ahead of its time, but is now almost a technological dinosaur compared to less capable aircraft built in only the last decade. It had its flaws, but the airframe itself was definitely worthy of a suitable electronics upgrade to expand its capabilities well into the next century.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Unfortunately the F-22 was too far ahead of its time, but is now almost a technological dinosaur compared to less capable aircraft built in only the last decade. It had its flaws, but the airframe itself was definitely worthy of a suitable electronics upgrade to expand its capabilities well into the next century.

I think you mean electronic dinosaur. I don't think that the aeronautical technology that went into the Raptor's physical performance would be even today considered archaic.

After all this site is named after a 38 year old airframe that still does better than most newer planes in the air.

As to what's under the F-22 skin in terms of circuitry(for lack of a better word) that might well be a different story.

But IIRC, is not the military returning or thinking of returning to more specific MILSPEC guidelines for electronic hardware and software for various reasons as opposed to COTS stuff?

The Raptor just came into being at the wrong time. Period.

Right at the end of the Cold War, the world was joining hands and singing songs of love. The defense budget shrank... We bought a scant 20'sh B-2s as well. All during the 90s the airframes of the USAF began to decay, to where we are now, with flight restrictions galore. There was no need for a fighter with science fiction stealth and speed. The Clinton administration delayed the program, deliberately... Not wanting to seem too weak on defense he didn't outright cancel it, but its engineering development cycle was slowed.

Presto, today: its nearly 20 years since the first flight of the Raptor. Again, today, no one sees the need for the capabilities of the F-22. Swarms of fighters, slugging it out, seems rather far fetched to many, many politicians.

They do concede the USAF is in desperate need of new aircraft, but of the multifunction capability... more or less, they see the need to airframes with performance on parity with the legacy aircraft, but with cutting edge LO and electronic "warefare" capabilities.

To be honest, we only need about 300 Raptors to counter the a2a threats out there on the horizon, in coordination with the legacy airframes we have, and the emerging F-35.

The Raptor is an awesome platform, and with modern sensors and datalinking, a force of 300 would be worth 3 times as many F-15Cs.

But with the F-22, it became the far left's 800lb gorilla, and became their focus of attacks... until, now, there's so much blood inthe water surrounding it, that no one (politician) will touch on the idea of extending production. hence, for this reason, its dead. Unless a Ronald Reagan comes along and has the courage to revive it as was done with B-1A/B.

I predict a second generation built around F-35 lessons. You will likely see it within a decade.

@ Sewerrat: Not likely to happen. The Soviet Union was still a threat and they had the money to invest in such a project as the B-1b.

And yes, I should have said 'electronic dinosaur.' It may still be the killer shark of all fighters, but its networking and force multiplication features are limited. I really think that 250-300 was the right number, nonetheless. It at least would have been able to replace the F-15C, which really can't compete as an air superiority fighter anymore and costs marginally less than the raptor.

I guess I just see flaws in the F-22 and the F-35 which left them with so much untapped potential. An F-35's electronics on an F-22 would have been so remarkable. But it terms of practicality, it might have been better if the F-35 came first and then the F-22 later on.

Just where the hell is everyone getting off saying the Raptor's combat systems is out dated? It is anything but. It has the computer power to perform its task without issue. Any add-ons should use their own processors and the Raptor does have bus link-ins. I simply don't understand.
Gee, that 5 minute lag in throttle response when using the joystick and ECM at the same time.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

@ Sewerrat: Not likely to happen. The Soviet Union was still a threat and they had the money to invest in such a project as the B-1b.

battleshipagincourt (like the name):

Actually, the B-1B program was well before the Raptor. It was ordered in 1981, first flew less than three years later, achieved IOC about three years later, and production was complete less than seven years after program start , well before the YF-22 had even flown, let alone been selected.

Point is, you can say many things about the B-1B (A plane I happen to greatly admire), but one of them isn't that spending on it was in any way reflective of the time the Raptor was being developed.

FWIW, I for one think your points about networking and force multiplying are spot on.

Last edited by aaam on Jan 24, 2011 - 05:20 AM; edited 1 time in total

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Couldn't they have replaced the electronics in the F-22 to make it more capable of future upgrades? It would have seemed a much less demanding task to take the majority of the F-22 airframe and redesign the avionics/computer systems to replace what they already have. The F-35 packs more computing/avionics/tactical systems into a smaller airframe... it would seem you could go a lot further with the Raptor. Certainly it would have been a tremendous task and would have cost billions in R&D, but how much more was it to design a whole new aircraft completely?

Starting with the F-22 and B-2, processors and the aircraft have become so tightly integrated that the option of just pulling the avionics out and putting in something else isn't there anymore. Don't forget, except by using an emergency system to blow it off, there's no way to open the canopy except by the computer (when I used to watch Star Trek I always thought they'd never allow any computer to have that much control.--Boy was I wrong!). It's one of the thing we gave up to get the benefits we got. That's also why we can't put F-35 avionics in the F-22. Aside from their different purposes, they're too integrated and designed around their particular aircraft

chrisrt wrote:

Just where the hell is everyone getting off saying the Raptor's combat systems is out dated? It is anything but. It has the computer power to perform its task without issue. Any add-ons should use their own processors and the Raptor does have bus link-ins. I simply don't understand.

I think we are referring to what the Raptor has as to the current state of the art.
I understand the Raptor performs its tasks and I agree with that. It's about whether or not it has the best(i.e. size, speed, energy efficiency, memory,) systems to perform those tasks. Connectivity is I think a relatively new concept so maybe we can't fault the avionics designers back then. That being said inefficient is not the same as ineffective.

Like I said isn't the DoD looking to return to MILSPECS as opposed to cpurely COTS hard/software?

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Why is F-22 unwanted?