Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Dear redbird87 and checksixx,
The 2 of you probably has no idea on maintaining aircrafts fleet and real combat situation where resources are scarce? Where do you think the cash comes from to buy the highly overpriced F-22/35 and to keep them flying. Tax from your earnings, revenue, etc. Because the F-22 is highly overpriced sold to air force at cut throat price and also due to economic downturn. If you are that ignorant to check what happen to people around you, sure you don't mind dumping billions into the less practical, less reliable F-22 phasing out all F-15s in one short.

If Mc"D did not wind up and they won the competition back then, how much do you think the F-23 would cost today? It might turn up cheaper as Mc"D seems to be more ethical and honest in business. Just too bad, the military got monopolized by Lockheed (due to connection) making it the sole supplier so what else, they sell stuffs at exaggerated price, add in tons of not necessary gadgets to give you luxury feel but would require more maintenance. Do you really think the F-32 is not a good aircraft? Not to forget that Boeing/Northrop actually placed more effort in R & D and wanted to push further but due to lack of time, they could not get the proper F-32 that they wanted into competition and had no choice but to use whatever they had to present. Do you think this is fair? If the F-32 were chose just to replace the F-16 and F-35 to replace the Harrier and F/A-18, Lockheed probably sell the F-35 at cheaper price due to competition.

I would look further on how the NATO and allies countries with limited resources handle the overpriced cut throat maintenance F-35s. You'll need conventional F-22 and F-35 variant, not just stealth alone. Looking at feasibility, it is just not practical to use stealth F-22 and F-35 to perform CAS. Country like US, it could still do so but smaller countries like Spain, Italy that don't own that many attack helicopters, Tomahawks, etc, do you expect them to have limited to 4 AGM/Bombs to take on larger invading force?

F-16.net Sponsor

LoL...your right Jayraptor....my years of working with F-22's on the flight line at Langley pales in comparison to your knowledge from the internet and video games. Next time hit 'pause' and you won't keep typing "F-32" over and over.

Again...I'm not even going to waste time tearing apart your posts...they are too far out there. Needless to say that many on here have real world experience about what we speak about...and this isn't just another board where a bunch of kids talk about jets.

Checksixx, I suspect the J-man may not be a 13 year old...more like 9 bwahahahaha....or he is smoking some real good s*** Razz

. J-Man made my day...comedy gold. You should check out his gems on the other thread. Just a few things before I go...McD is more honest and ethical??? Says who...you??? McD (now part of Boeing) was a corporation and they need to make profits as well. If they were in Lockheed's dominant position, do you think that they would not take the opportunity to squeeze as much profit as they can from their products? Get real buddy. And in your scenario why would Lockmart be more competitive if the F35 is just replacing F/A 18s and Harriers...the USAF contract does not matter to Lockmart then, infact the F35 will be more expensive as less units/aircraft will be build and Lockmart has to recoup their R and D cost/expenditure and make a profit by charging a higher price per aircraft. Here we go again....."conventional" F22s and F35s.....wait a minute, just add eternal pylons to the F22 and F35, wow, what a revelation. If you are talking about a silver bullet force of F22s/F35s and a main force of new build Gen 4++ fighters, that makes more sense (financially as well) than a force of "conventional" and "stealthy" F22s and F35s. Oh yeah, the last time I checked, the F22 was a very practical aircraft, especially in the air to air arena, so practical that it frustated adverserial F/A 18, F15 and F16 pilots a lot!!! As for reliability, I will defer to those who have actual knowledge of maintaining the F22.

jayraptor wrote:

Dear count_to_10,

The stealth panel layers is just like Chobham armor. Do you know that Americans do not build chobham armor for their M-1 Abram tanks but instead, their turrets were transported to an outskirt area in UK (forgot the town's name located in countryside) to fit. Reason being the British kept the secret formula on the composite material so tight that US could not replicate the Chobham armor at the time being. Challenger 2 is already using gen5 whereas M-1A2 is fitted with generation 3. The same thing should apply to the stealth panel layers for NATO countries. Maybe the UK would have to rely on Americans to patch any damaged panel layers to make money, Americans get their chance for lil' revenge.

You do realize that the reason you can't find any accurate information on that is that it is classified, right?

If there is conventional non-stealth but low RCS F-22s selling at affordable price, do you think the US allies would consider EF2000, Rafale, F-15/16/18, Mig-35 or Su-27/30/33/35. Would you buy conventional low RCS F-22 to replace the aging F-15s and F-16s that have been flying more than 20 years with lots of patched up work done to keep flying?

Can't deny that the F-22 and F-35 are advanced fighter ahead of any other fighters but does it mean we are not allowed to question anything that is negative/adverse? Ever wonder WHY the US MOD would want different manufacturer/contractor to supply fighters for the air force, marine corp and navy? Mc'D F-15 and GD F-16 for air force, Grumman F-14 and Mc'D F/A-18 for the Navy? Reason is to prevent monopoly and competition makes things better. Less chance for them to cheat.

They should have stick to the old plan and by today, you will see the F-23 and F-32 with the airforce, F-35B with marine, F-22 navalized and F-35C with the navy. If you wanted to say the F-23 could not turn better than the F-22, isn't the F-14 less maneuverable than F-15? Besides, the F-15 has large radome to house the large AWG-9 radar to launch AIM-54. Standard stealth F-22 weighs 80,000lb in max takeoff. Conventional low RCS F-22 without internal bay and stealth panel layers will be much lighter probably at 72,000lb allowing it to take off from carrier and land. Conventional F-22 that carries external weapons serving as weapons platform could carry enough long range AIM-54C, AIM-120 and Meteor underwing and under fuselage to defend the fleet from long range bombers and deadly cruise missiles. F/A-18 and F-35 don't have the speed whereas F-22 without stealth panel layers, they'll remove the speed limiter allowing it to fly above Mach 2.5 which seems possible with the powerful engines.

So guys, what would it be? Does this make you change your mind and agree that the MOD should reinstate Boeing/Northrop F-32 and see how well it'll go? Ever wonder if A-10 and B-1B are phased out, does it mean Fairchild and Rockwell will have to wind up?

J-man, just an important point......a F22 without radar absorbent material/structures and limited to carrying external stores is not low RCS....not low enough to be really tactically advantageous. And you will have the disadvantage of extra drag from the external stores. If you want to go down that route, you may as well buy more F15s with upgraded PW F100s. Getting rid of the internal bays will not the plane lighter (its just air in the internal bay) unless you change the internal structure of the plane which will incur the cost of designing and testing (load and fatigue testing) the new internal structure which not a very cost effective way of doing things.

What does this fantasy about redesigned and dumbed down coatings on F-22s (both of which are never going to happen) have to do with selling F-22s to our closest allies?

redbird87 wrote:

What does this fantasy about redesigned and dumbed down coatings on F-22s (both of which are never going to happen) have to do with selling F-22s to our closest allies?

This is a non-starter for a number of reasons, and stealth coating isn't really one of them. The stealth (RAM) coating on the F/A-18E/F has durable and exportable RAM, and so does the F-35.

The custom avionics of the F-22 is out of production, and the semiconductors used in them are also out of production. Also, the avionics doesn't have anti-tamper protection to the same level as the F-35. Anti-tamper protection was one of the biggest issues, a long with the cost of the jet that stopped exports.

The PW F-119 may be in limited production for fleet replacement if needed. Future availability is unlikely.

The biggest problem with even saying "lets export the F-22" is that it would complicate F-35 export sales, and countries like Australia have already delayed planned purchases.

The F-35C has a longer range than the F-14D Tomcat, surprisingly. Realistically, the main features of the F-22 compared to the F-35 is Thrust vectoring and super-cruise. The F-22 has a lowest RCS of any jet flying today. The range is quite impressive too. Is that enough to justify spending at least $50bn + $150m per copy for a 5th gen air superiority fighter for our export customers?

About the only option that would make sense is if the Navy F/A-XX became a 5.5th gen interceptor to save costs, and they exported that jet once in production.

jayraptor wrote:

Reason is to prevent monopoly and competition makes things better. Less chance for them to cheat.

Besides, the F-15 has large radome to house the large AWG-9 radar to launch AIM-54.

Conventional F-22 that carries external weapons serving as weapons platform could carry enough long range AIM-54C, AIM-120 and Meteor underwing and under fuselage to defend the fleet from long range bombers and deadly cruise missiles. F/A-18 and F-35 don't have the speed whereas F-22 without stealth panel layers, they'll remove the speed limiter allowing it to fly above Mach 2.5 which seems possible with the powerful engines.

So guys, what would it be? Does this make you change your mind and agree that the MOD should reinstate Boeing/Northrop F-32 and see how well it'll go? Ever wonder if A-10 and B-1B are phased out, does it mean Fairchild and Rockwell will have to wind up?

-In order from the top of your quote-

I'm sorry...less chance to 'cheat' at what exactly??

The F-15 radome is not big enough to house the AWG-9 radar not to mention after F-14D conversion, they switched all Tomcats to the APG-71 radar anyways.

F-22's as they are right now are capable of carrying external weapons. The AIM-54 series hasn't been in production for YEARS.

There is no 'speed limiter' but rather a speed limitation...but its due to the canopy limits, not the airframe.

Your argument definitely does not change my mind...there is no 'MOD' here...

Boeing/Northrop have never developed anything called the F-32. Perhaps you mean the YF-23 which Northrop developed with McDonnell Douglas? Boeing was teamed with the YF-22 camp FYI.

The Fairchild company you know, has not produced US military aircraft since 1984. All A-10 related items are primarily handled by Boeing.

Rockwell...same deal...Boeing took all the US related aviation assets they were producing in the mid-90's.

No fighter in service can do more than Mach 2.5 safely and reliably.

The Russian MiG-25 interceptors will damage their engines going above mach 2.5, and the MiG-31 is about the same.
According to various reports, even the 'routine' Mach 2.8 limit results in high engine wear, and insanely high fuel consumption.

I'm not sure the F-22 engines could handle beyond Mach 2.5, excluding skin and canopy limits.

Last edited by jayraptor on Aug 20, 2012 - 09:55 AM; edited 2 times in total

Hi Mk82,
Lower grade than the expensive stealth panel layer is the radar absorbent material used on F-16 and rumored to be more extensively on Rafale and EF2000 as per their claim. Sources I got tell that the internal bay would add weight to the aircraft, not sure whether accurate but seems correct theoretically. The F-22 design is more aerodynamic than the F-15, Lockheed could easily redesign the conventional F-22. The F-15/16/18 are deemed obsolete mainly because they could not out turn the Mig-29K/33/35 and Su-27/30/33/35 from Russia, also the Rafale and EF2000 from Europe. Even the Mirage2000 could easily outperform the F-15/16/18 in tight turns.

Hi neurotech,

The F-35C indeed has better range than the F-14, but could it fly as fast in terms of emergency. Like the F-22, it is electronically limited to Mach 1.6+ to prevent damage to stealth layer. There's 1 forumner that posted image of F-22 having damaged stealth layer on the nose radome, wonder how much is the repair? Does Lockheed has warranty on that like our cars?

It is not necessary that the F-22 must fly at Mach 2.5, it could be Mach 2.2 or Mach 2.3 and if have to, even risk damage the engine to fly Mach 2.5 in time of emergency to destroy incoming bombers before they could attack friendlies. The F-15E max T/O weight 81,000lb could still fly max Mach 2.5, same goes to the heavy F-111. Redesign conventional F-22 should be able to do better. Selling the F-22 is not ideal, then conventional F-35 alone would do. Just like back then, F-14/15 are not allowed for sale but still there's exception for very VIP client. Only F-16s.

Dear all,

Another What IF. If the Syria conflict escalated into full scale war with coalition after Syrians gave the green light to UN to call for peacekeeping force, do you think the US will send in the F-22? Heard Syria has a dozen or more Su-30MK with them today together with sophisticated air defenses, long range Mach 6 S300 (SA10)batteries and advanced mobile pantsir (SA-22). Su-30MK promotional package allows you to choose the R77 or R-27AE or both minimum for the air to air missiles. Depends how much you are willing to pay. Russian weapons are actually tested and proven via their SAMs and also air to air missiles used in Iraq and Serbia war. Sources said Russia manufacturers get constant feedback from their customers in all sorts of war. Even from Hizbullah and Iraq insurgents using the RPG29 and AT-14 Kornet. The feedback and results are use in developing better seeker and warheads.

Wonder they could fend off the deadly Tomahawk TLAMs that would destroy its supply line, strategic targets and airbases before they could even put up a fight. Iraq and Serbia lost their capabilities to put up fight as they got paralyzed by long range standoff weapons. Will the UN impose arms embargo on Syria where Russia will not be able to deliver weapons supply and parts to Syria at all? Hope I don't get removed, this is just a WHAT IF situation since there are civilians getting killed in Syria everyday.

Dear CheckSixx,
Any company that monopolized the entire market would have much opportunity to cheat buyers in terms of selling their products at cut throat price and reduce the reliability/durability so that the parts won't last that long forcing people to repair more often. There is no one else the buyers to turn to, would you even worry pissing off few customers? Nope. Example, Georgia that angered Russia, do you think Russia will still sell spare parts and weapons to Georgia? No, and they could only turn to US and EU then gradually phase out the remaining Russian weapons when parts running out.

Since Mc'D already winded up and bought by Boeing, that is why I put Boeing instead of Mc'D since younger generation might have forgotten that name. The AIM-54 is a large missile, too fat to fit in the internal bay. The same goes to Meteor BVRAAM, don't think you could squeeze that in neither. AIM-120D, if they wanted to fit the Ramjet, it will not fit as well. If fitting this missile externally on F-22 and F-35C would forgo stealth anyway, isn't it more feasible to have cheaper conventional variant?

US aircraft designation takes directly from the protoype. X-32 would be labelled F-32 should it entered production, as per X-35 became F-35 today. X-29 and X-31, if they entered production, they will be F-29 and F-31 respectively. Ever wonder why the numbers jumped from F-22 all the way to F-35? This is why, even prototype that did not make it already claimed that designation.
F-17 = YF-17
F/A-18
F-19 = F-117
F-20 Tigershark
F-21 = small numbers of IAI KFIR C2/7 owned by US
F-22 = YF-22
F-23 = YF-23
F-29 = X-29
F-31 = X-31
F-32 = X-32
F-35 = X-35

Looks like most aircraft manufacturers already winded up and absorbed into larger survivors. But still, it is still not impossible to revive the X-32 into F-32 program. Do you know Boeing has buyback aka trade in for their customers. If I have a fleet of F-15s and F/A-18s with me, Boeing has this deal of trade in and allow me to buy the F-32 at discounted price comes with few packages to choose from. If I have to buy from Lockheed, not sure whether they have such deal? Or I will have to sell the old aircrafts to other countries with approval from US, which country is allowed. Example, Netherlands selling their F-16AMs to Bolivia (not sure Bolivia or another South America country) to make way for new fighters. The X-32 is not a perfected production model as Boeing/Northrop intended to make major modification on the airframe to add in more stuffs. If there are F-32 and F-35, at least there are options to choose from. Would you love to have choices?

Martin-Marietta X-24A (spaceplane; no F's)
Benson X-25 (was a gyrocopter; no F's)
Schweizer X-26 Frigate (glider plane; no F's)
Lockheed X-27 Lancer (LWF; highwing and LERV version similar to the F-104)
* http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml
Osprey Aircraft X-28 Sea Skimmer (aerial policing seaplane; no F's)
Grumman X-29 Polecat (FSW; sweet looking F-5 replacement)
Rockwell X-30 NASP (spaceplane; no F's)
Rockwell-MBB X-31 (TVC and extreme STOL aka <400ft to 35ft altitude)
Boeing X-32 (JSF prototype)
LockMart X-33 Venture Star (spaceplane; no F's)
Orbital Sciences X-34 (spaceplane; no F's)

jayraptor wrote:

The F-35C indeed has better range than the F-14, but could it fly as fast in terms of emergency. Like the F-22, it is electronically limited to Mach 1.6+ to prevent damage to stealth layer. There's 1 forumner that posted image of F-22 having damaged stealth layer on the nose radome, wonder how much is the repair? Does Lockheed has warranty on that like our cars?

I've seen the photo, and the answer would be quite expensive to repair, probably in the Class C ($50K to < $500K) repair cost. I've never seen a skin repair per se in a F-22 make Class A ($2m+) although a RAM panel going into the engine did result in a $1m+ (old Class A threshold) repair.

Almost all military jets don't have a warranty per se. They are made to perform to specifications, per the contract. There have been rare instances when manufacturer has replaced jets, or made repairs at no cost to the customer (US or FMS etc). Typically, there is a contract modification to pay for the specification change.

jayraptor wrote:

It is not necessary that the F-22 must fly at Mach 2.5, it could be Mach 2.2 or Mach 2.3 and if have to, even risk damage the engine to fly Mach 2.5 in time of emergency to destroy incoming bombers before they could attack friendlies.

Highly unlikely, as even in extreme emergency, to wreck a $150m jet when there is relatively few combat coded F-22s available to start with. Not to mention a F-22 can shoot down a bomber from a long way out with AMRAAM. During combat operations, they have CAP (Combat Air Patrol) aircraft on mission, so its likely a hostile bomber would be well detected before the need to wreck a F-22 on a single intercept.

jayraptor wrote:

The F-15E max T/O weight 81,000lb could still fly max Mach 2.5, same goes to the heavy F-111. Redesign conventional F-22 should be able to do better. Selling the F-22 is not ideal, then conventional F-35 alone would do. Just like back then, F-14/15 are not allowed for sale but still there's exception for very VIP client. Only F-16s.

The F-15s were exported to Israel and other countries early on, and are still available for export, if the customers want an interceptor. The F-111 was exported to Australia. The big difference is that US Congress banned the F-22 from export. That means not even the US President or the Defense Secretary could make exceptions. Sec. Gates was okay with selling F-22s to Australia, but Congress wouldn't allow it. This is all on wikipedia.

jayraptor wrote:

Another What IF. If the Syria conflict escalated into full scale war with coalition after Syrians gave the green light to UN to call for peacekeeping force, do you think the US will send in the F-22? Heard Syria has a dozen or more Su-30MK with them today together with sophisticated air defenses, long range Mach 6 S300 (SA10)batteries and advanced mobile pantsir (SA-22). Su-30MK promotional package allows you to choose the R77 or R-27AE or both minimum for the air to air missiles. Depends how much you are willing to pay. Russian weapons are actually tested and proven via their SAMs and also air to air missiles used in Iraq and Serbia war. Sources said Russia manufacturers get constant feedback from their customers in all sorts of war. Even from Hizbullah and Iraq insurgents using the RPG29 and AT-14 Kornet. The feedback and results are use in developing better seeker and warheads.

Wonder they could fend off the deadly Tomahawk TLAMs that would destroy its supply line, strategic targets and airbases before they could even put up a fight. Iraq and Serbia lost their capabilities to put up fight as they got paralyzed by long range standoff weapons. Will the UN impose arms embargo on Syria where Russia will not be able to deliver weapons supply and parts to Syria at all? Hope I don't get removed, this is just a WHAT IF situation since there are civilians getting killed in Syria everyday.

Their is unconfirmed reports they have F-22s standing by for use in Syria. There is effectively an arms embargo on Syria. Russia may still go against US/NATO embargo, and its unlikely the US would directly engage Russia to stop arms shipments. Russia has vetoed the UN Security Council resolutions for Syria. Russia also has a base in Syria.

Thanks madrat,

That explains the skipped numbers from F-23 up to F-35. The US aircraft designation concept stays. Prototype YF and experimental X aircrafts would be labelled F-xx should they make it into production models. The list that you provided complete the sequence. The X-35 is placed 2 numbers behind X-32, Lockheed either register the designation late or begin building their prototype late.

Hi neurotech, good morning, you are early today.

Demand vs price concept, products that are rare will be pricey. Same goes stealth panel layers, it won't be cheap at the moment. For US allies that operate the F-35, they'll have to purchase from middleman plus shipping cost eventually increase the spare parts cost. Imported from the USA. Only if there's defective parts, manufacturers would make recall, example, India's Su-30MKI that experienced radar issue, the Russians offered free.

There are protocols and regulations for US military to adhere to. Where a war is not declared, they are not allowed to shoot unless they breach certain distance. When the carrier fleet is on its way passing through Suez canal for example or other countries where it needs to dock will be at its most vulnerable. If AIM-120C7 has max effective range 60Nm, few Tu-160s probably armed with with Kh-55 (AS-15 range 1300Nm) nuclear warheads approaching the carrier fleet at less than 300Nm away. The F-22 will definitely engage max throttle to shoot down the Tu-160 at all cost. Would not want to risk shooting incoming cruise missiles in fear of nuclear detonation. Russian missiles might not have safety measure like Americans where a normal missile that missed target would detonate or nuclear warhead will not detonate if it did not reach target.

F-15 was at first not allowed for export but only later to Israel and no one else. Saudi Arabia and Japan were only granted clearance later. The F-22 is still highly classifieds, the Congress will be reluctant to sell when it is still new. Probably only later when PAK-FA T-50 and J-20 are confirmed stealth capable posing serious threat to US allies.

Will Syria spend everything they have to rake in whatever latest weapons together with spares parts + packages Russia have before the arms embargo is imposed? During emergency, rather than waiting for the factory to manufacture the ordered weapons, Russia is willing to sell existing used Su-27/30/34 with R-73/77/27 in their Air Force inventory. The same goes to Army and Navy. War is bad but in fact it does help in science and technology advancement if latest weapons are deployed. We'll surely see F-22 vs Su-30MK should Syria goes to war. The S-300 batteries, the Tomahawks and other stand off missiles would do the jobs. Pantsirs will be reserved for fighters and AH-64s. Syria will have to hide everything underground to survive long range missiles attack. They must park their Flankers underground in secret bases with special access to surface airfields (that don't look like airfield but flat land) and not airbase based on Iraqis war experts that had battered by Americans.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

should usa export f 22 to trusted allys.