Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

Modified the topic's title so to reflect a better relevancy to this forum.

I do agree with the jist of the message.

The PAK FA has a lot to prove and will be a long time before it proves a lot of things. Sure, it has borrowed a lot from the F-22, YF-23, F-35 and the Flanker series designs. Some may have not believed we would ever see a "PAF FA". But the reality now is it exists, albeit in a VERY EARLY form. When it will get to a final and operational weapon system is again, going to be a long time. But at least a starting point is made.

Regardless how stealthy the PAK FA turns out to be, I have little doubts it will be better than anything the Russians have fielded before because this prototype at least follows certain rules of stealth unlike anything before it (thanks to them taking a good hard look at our designs). If they start loading it with good avionics, sensors and weapons (especially if the Russians get financial and technical help from India and maybe China), it cannot be overlooked as a viable threat to 4th Gen fighters and a more difficult target to engage.

The F-22 was designed and built just for (potential) threats like this. Threats that Gates said should never mind us because he doesn't foresee a shooting war with Russia or anyone else other than in the Middle east anytime soon. Threats which we apparently will never face because these technologies would never be exported or transferred in any way, shape or form.

187 F-22s is enough to sustain operations. 187 F-22s is enough to handle anything, including two geographically seperated wars or conflicts.

Yeah right...

F-22s prematurely capped at 187?

Hell yes it is!

Premature why? There are no threats today that don't fall well within the the capability of the current DoD force structure to deal with and with considerable margin. PAK FA isn't anything more than a YF-X equivalent, considerably less advanced than the F-22/35 and not likely to enter service until well after 2015 and much more likely closer to 2020. By then the F-22 will be decades old and the F-35 in service in considerable numbers. The USN will also be on the latest block upgrade to the Super Hornet. It's also likely that the F-22 follow on is already being designed considering the HUGE black budget. There is no basis for the assertion that the F-22 was capped prematurely. And that doesn't even begin to touch the F-22's design limitations and flaws that make it very difficult to integrate new technologies and keep through life support cost reasonable.

RIght now the priority needs to be on maintaining a traditional warfighting capability in proportion to actual threats while at the same time not losing focus on the current wars we are in and increasingly likely to get into with asymmetric and non-state threats.

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

There are no threats today that don't fall well within the the capability of the current DoD force structure to deal with

Today's current threats are NOT the basis on which USAF is assessing how many F-22 and F-35 should be part of tomorrow's force structure... I'm pretty sure most are aware of this. Yet, if this hypothetical example being stated were today's DoD protocol for deciding force structure, then of course 1,763 F-35A replacement fighters would never have been the still Official, ' must have' Office requirement?

By 2020...

Quote:

By then the F-22 will be decades old

True... part of the valid argument for additional, longer-term-deterrence, block 35 F-22 (beyond the 85).

By 2020...

Quote:

the F-35 in service in considerable numbers

The number is completely speculative at this point, as the program is fluid and uncertain. Hopefully USAF will have 250+ Combat coded jets deployed by 2020 in various stages of IOC to FOC (to replace most existing F-16 (and some F-15) air defense and strike squadrons today).

Quote:

It's also likely that the F-22 follow on is already being designed considering the HUGE black budget.

BYW, out of curiosity... what is FY11's proposed huge USAF black budget?? While it would be fanciful to ponder secretive, Black, Air Force super weapons being developed at will and produced always one step ahead... this is unfortunately Myth and is hardly a sound argument against producing more F-22 - i.e., 'because a secret replacement is likely being developed'... Sorry, but not likely.

Quote:

RIght now the priority needs to be on maintaining a traditional warfighting capability in proportion to actual threats

Maybe fair strategic thinking 3-5 yrs ago... but in fact, the 2010 QDR now alarmingly and quite unfortunately counters this apparent misnomer. The QDR states that the Threats and potential adversaries - in an uncertain future - will be of FAR more lethal and capable nature than in the 1990s.

Hence, an 'uncertain future' is not a good time to be suspending your most capable, modern, predictable operational systems already in production (those of both next gen and evolved legacy systems) and implementing the entire recapitalization gamble on developmentally uncertain, unsustainably expensive and indefinitely immature R&D systems; while existing deterrence rapidly dissolves.

[quote="geogen"]

Quote:

Maybe fair strategic thinking 3-5 yrs ago... but in fact, the 2010 QDR now alarmingly and quite unfortunately counters this apparent misnomer. The QDR states that the Threats and potential adversaries - in an uncertain future - will be of FAR more lethal and capable nature than in the 1990s.

Of course threats are becoming more lethal. Airplanes are expesive. Advanced SAMs and AAMs are a thousand times less costly and are produced by the thousands. . . . Tis why we need every advantage in our airplanes, such as supercruise, and all aspect LO. Even pod'able laser scramblers for the heat seaker bunch of rockets. We don't need an air force tailored to light bombing runs with a silver bullet force to contend with the bad guys air superiority fighters, and for hunting down those pesky cruise missiles that the other guys DO have in numbers, and for safe guarding tankers and awacs. Our true air superiority fighter situation is grim. Maybe not for the threats that we will encounter in 6 months, but cetainly less than 10 years. With the pop-up SAMs too, the swarms of F-16s flying caps are awfully juicy targets. But then again, we'll use our non-stealthy and one glowing hole fighter force do sead too.... Why have a stealthy supercruiser do those missions? Makes too much common sense so lets shut down the -22 line and wait 8 more years before we get a quantity of slow LO airframes on the flight lines for sead.

sewerrat wrote:

Airplanes are expesive. Advanced SAMs and AAMs are a thousand times less costly and are produced by the thousands. . . .

That's not true. It's exactly the opposite.

sewerrat wrote:

Why have a stealthy supercruiser do those missions? Makes too much common sense so lets shut down the -22 line and wait 8 more years before we get a quantity of slow LO airframes on the flight lines for sead.

I think you give too much credit to the supercruise ability. Being VLO is much more important.

GeoGen you keep equivocating about the threat matrix over the next decade on behalf of the F-22 without ANY logical or rational support for your case. It’s why the DoD is doing exactly the opposite of what you and others here suggest. That’s because they, like I, are using real world data in their analysis. If you can show a threat matrix where the current force through 2020 would be insufficient and how this PAK FA revelation alters that calculus in anyway, then we have something to discuss. Otherwise this is the same tired and failed argument that suffered the wrath and wisdom of SecDef Gates red pen. At this point there is very little difference from PAK FA and Su47 – Mig 1.42 - YF-22 – YF-23 – X-32 – X-35 in terms of time to IOC/FOC at which point the F-22 will be over 10 years past IOC. The F-22/35 and F/A-18E/F fighter force structure will still greatly overmatch PAK FA through the next decade and beyond until their respective followons arrive.

BTW, the Pentagon openly admits to spending $56 billion on black budget items in FY2010. In other worlds, more than Russia’s 2009 defense budget.

-DA

Quote:

There is no basis for the assertion that the F-22 was capped prematurely. And that doesn't even begin to touch the F-22's design limitations and flaws that make it very difficult to integrate new technologies and keep through life support cost reasonable.

1) Original requirement was for 700+. A few years later it stood a bit south of 400. And now the number is 187. I think the assertion that the F-22 was capped prematurely is pretty much fact.
2) I find it hard to believe that the F-15, F-16, and F-18 could all be slowly upgraded during their lifetimes and yet an aircraft that was designed 20+ years after these cannot integrate new technologies as they come along. I won't debate you on life support cost because that has obviously been through the roof, but get your facts straight. The F-22 was designed with growth potential in mind - all modern military aircraft are. And the reason is it makes no sense to invest millions if you're going to use the same technology throughout the life of the aircraft.

Tinito_16 wrote:

Quote:

There is no basis for the assertion that the F-22 was capped prematurely. And that doesn't even begin to touch the F-22's design limitations and flaws that make it very difficult to integrate new technologies and keep through life support cost reasonable.

1) Original requirement was for 700+. A few years later it stood a bit south of 400. And now the number is 187. I think the assertion that the F-22 was capped prematurely is pretty much fact.
2) I find it hard to believe that the F-15, F-16, and F-18 could all be slowly upgraded during their lifetimes and yet an aircraft that was designed 20+ years after these cannot integrate new technologies as they come along. I won't debate you on life support cost because that has obviously been through the roof, but get your facts straight. The F-22 was designed with growth potential in mind - all modern military aircraft are. And the reason is it makes no sense to invest millions if you're going to use the same technology throughout the life of the aircraft.

It's only a fact on fanboy websites. At the DoD where decisions are being made it is a laughable and deadly assertion that has cost us dearly. After learning the the hard way the SecDef and staff are working to clean up the procurement mess.

If as you say you cannot believe it it's only because you are not familiar with what it takes to integrate systems into combat aircraft or economies of scale. The F-22's just "look" alike. Under the hood there are basically 3 variants flying around. Upgrading and integrating them to the same standard is both physically and financially prohibitive. Their awesome flight performance aside Lockheed really screwed a great plane up if the intent was mass production.

-DA

Tinito - True, the F-22 was not intended as, nor initially produced/acquired to be, a 185 jet program (with only 85x block 35 capable Raptors). If this was known, Program/DoD would have likely reconfigured the base aircraft's spiral development/growth with more compatibility from design phase (at least for the block 30 and 35), rather than the indeed very expensive, 'post-program kill' standardization solution underway.

Likewise, the F-35 program was not designed to be canceled after 200 LRIP a/c, as an example, whereas if this were to be the case then upgrading the existing block III F-35 jets to eventual block V would also be cost prohibitive but still necessary (e.g., addressing Thermal management, airframe life extension, additional hardware, electronics, comms, airframe and software changes to the block III) and Additional block 35 procurement (the modern oriented model). 60-100 additional block 35 F-22 units would have therefore precluded the necessity to address the block 30/35 commonality issue to the degree necessary today.

For disclosure, I'm personally critical of the F-22 Program as many are and did not even favor its original selection, but it's the USAF's modern air-superiority deterrence which has been procured and deployed to fulfill (to replace F-117 and gradually the F-16CJ and F-15A-D... until significant, hypothetical F-35A squadrons achieve 'FOC' status, completing the recapitalization of remaining F-15C/D units now, as well as the fast retiring F-16 and other strike platforms).

DA -

Quote:

...keep equivocating about the threat matrix over the next decade...

Sir, the changing, far more lethal and capable threat matrix as it is now being updated in the QDR, as I'm sure you have read, would apparently be based on assessments themselves, per DoD's trends which have recently been underestimated. Now how this relates to F-22 procurement and premature cancellation and DoD/USAF's greater recapitalization planning would of course impact the capability and ability to 'counter-balance' and deter such developing threats.

Quote:

show a threat matrix where the current force through 2020 would be insufficient

The central issue being: what will compose USAF's FOC, tactical force/deterrence structure in say 2021? Well, regardless of the exact, albeit far greater 'Threat Matrix' variable being realized in 2021, the USAF's capacity to strategically counter it and maintain balance of power will... contrary to certain Fanboy and flawed leadership assumptions, be solely dependent now on a highly risky and uncertain F-35A recapitalization gamble (given no predictable and stable F-22 continuation, or new build 4.5 procurement)!

Do you understand that USAF could very likely be procuring only 40, maybe 45 max F-35A/yr, by default, starting in FRP? Is it likely that block IV will see equal or even greater delays in achieving IOC as block III are now estimated? What could USAF's FOC, combat operational F-35A force structure consist of in 2021 taking into account further negative factors than originally expected? What will credible F-16 force consist of in 2021? 0 is plausible?

Truly, these are very plausible, Threat-Matrix-multiplying realities which are simply NOT part of the overall defense calculus in Congress and DoD today, yet which absolutely need to be...

Regarding USAF 'black/classified projects', I concede that FY10's apparent $12b total RDT&E appropriation is more than I was aware of... and the greater Defense wide Classified projects of which is arguably a significant part of questionable mil. spending (at least requiring more transparency for select Congressional scrutiny), I agree with you on this..

But... to then leap to your argument that 'there is likely a F-22 replacement being researched', as support to terminate Raptor procurement and stay the course w/ JSF program... I'm sorry, but No, that's not sound, seriously.

Might there be some advanced concept studies being conducted for far-off Tactical-based technology, contingencies and doctrine, both manned and unmanned? Of course.. however, if you really insist on using it as an argument, then you could even better argue classified Research is 'likely being conducted' on a Naval F/A-XX (theoretically available sooner than an eventual F-22 replacement), so why not USN (and even Marines) just stick with modernized Super Hornet blocks and simply get a far superior F/A-XX 6th gen in 15 yrs from now.. I don't think you are going to be arguing that.

Respects.

Quote:

If as you say you cannot believe it it's only because you are not familiar with what it takes to integrate systems into combat aircraft or economies of scale. The F-22's just "look" alike. Under the hood there are basically 3 variants flying around. Upgrading and integrating them to the same standard is both physically and financially prohibitive. Their awesome flight performance aside Lockheed really screwed a great plane up if the intent was mass production.

DA, I've covered this before. I looked up plenty of articles in the internet and also have Jay Miller's book. Plenty of the articles I have read are critical of the F-22, some because of costs, others because of maintenance/reliability issues, but NONE whatsoever said anything about the plane being hard to upgrade. Sure, the first few lots might be a little different than the configuration ultimately settled on, but by and large, we CAN upgrade the aircraft. The issue has nothing to do with how hard it is to upgrade and EVERYTHING to do with where the money should be spent now, especially given the economic crisis. Clearly, we have to get the F-35 up to speed because we don't have the safety net of Operational-capable F-22's in production anymore.

double post

the russian t-50 has a lot of similar lines as the YF-23 AND F-22 and i know that when the 117a was shot down in yugoslavia they handed the stealth to the russians they are just copying our tech as usual Very Happy

Tinito you haven't covered anything. You don't understand the differences within the F-22's and yet you're claiming that they are easy to upgrade on the bases that legacy fighters have been. That should tell you something all by itself.

Geogen you typed all of that and yet you still don't understand the reasons why the F-22 numbers have been reduced by the last 4 administrations and why professional military leaders actually support that. Moreover you are just plain misinformed about the F-35 and it's certainty among other things.

I asked of you one simple thing. On what bases are you able to say that the current fighter force through 2020 will not be able to adequately deal with threats. Admittedly I know the answer to that question but I was curious to drop in and see if people had learned anything about that. It seems that the forums and blogs are just as misinformed as always and very few actually understand the business of war and how to look at it from the systems level.

To the last poster. Any similarities between PAK FA and YF-23 other than that both can fly and vaguely resemble each other end right there. The PAK FA is a Russian approach to LO aircraft and isn't nearly as advanced as an ATF or a copy of an F-117. It's much more like Silent Eagle or Super Hornet.

-DA

DA, I covered this before with you precisely. I'm not going to go over it again. You can say all you want, but let's get someone who actually works on the bird to tell us and you will see the problem isn't that upgrades are difficult, it's that there isn't enough money to go around. I do agree that the money should be and is better spent somewhere else right now (specifically on our efforts in Afghanistan), what I don't agree with is your assertion that the F-22 is hard to upgrade. It is not. End of story.

Tinito you don't understand it well enough to have covered anything "precisely". Thanks for not debating it further because all that would do is confuse things even further for others who like you do not understand the engineering processes and expense involved with supporting what is in effect 3 different types of F-22. That doesn't even touch the structural issues. It's not just plug and play. We aren't talking simple ECO and viola! This would require new builds.

-DA

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Russian Stealth Fighter and premature shutdown of F-22