AF Chief Hints at Retiring the F-22

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

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3057
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 May 2021, 01:57

@alloycowboy-

Because it's got supercruise ability, can deploy SDB at greater standoff ranges, and because it flies at an FL where F-35 cannot. Honestly, F-22A serves a niche nothing else does and probably won't until NGAD. Will allies get access to NGAD? Probably not.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7227
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post16 May 2021, 03:11

milosh wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:They didn't get enough to properly retire the F-15A and C fleet. So now they're trying to tourniquet the on going issue by using the F-35 (though very capable was never meant as a next gen air superiority) and a brand new version of F-15EX


Maybe they plan to speed up NGAD? NGAD using same engine as F-35 and probable quite similar electronics (we can look at it as two engined F-35) would be lot easier on logistics then F-22 is so even though it would cost a lot to develop and buy on long run ~400 NGAD could even cost less to operate then ~200 old F-22.

So I retiring 200 F-22 and reducing F-35A for lets say 200 planes, while getting 400 NGAD doesn't sound bad at all.


Of all the worlds fighters, its always the hypothetical ones that perform the best.

h-bomb wrote:[
Exactly what aircraft do we have capable of the low speed - high maneuverability of the A-10? The prolonged loitering near troops to provide CAS,


this has been done to death in other threads, but every other air arm in the world, including the US Marines somehow manage to provide CAS without A-10s. the Army has been offered the A-10 and declined as have the Marines.

There's more to CAS than what people think, and depending on the situation different aircraft have different advantages, in some situtations A-10s are downright disadvantageous. Knew an A-10 pilot, she had good stories, she has bad stories. Turns out that "go so slow" feature is good when you're there, but not so good when you are trying to get there and hearing people get killed over the radio. For some reason that never gets mentioned in the brochure. The bottom line is A-10s are about useless in many many scenarios especially the high end fights. Thank god they upgraded them with Targeting pods and NVG compatibility or it would be a sunny weather daylight only attack airplane to this very day.

the SIGHT of the A-10 out weights the threat of being bombed.


that's a new one. I didn't know even seeing one was more lethal than an actual bomb. We must save a lot of money on bombs that way.

Airshow spectators must die in droves at its very sight, before we rush them to the safety of active bombing ranges that is.

I knew it was ugly, but never Medusa level ugly where its very sight spelled the end.



Unlike the F-15/16/18/35 the A-10 cam efficiently flow low and slow to perform the "Sandy" mission that no supersonic aircraft will ever be able to perform. I would love to see a fully loaded F-15E(X) escorting a HH-60.


Me too! F-15EX would carry more ordnance, have a 2nd seater to manage them, carry far more fuel, be more effective at night and bad weather, have more ordnance options, while being able to protect them from Air Threats and probably have some EW magic to help form other threats as well.

I would love to see it indeed. Good call.

madrat wrote:I'd want a Tier 1 ally to have access to the leasing of F-22A at strategic strangle-points. Australia? The UK? Italy? Japan? Israel?

Keeping them operating in the hands of a close ally puts further pressure on strategic foes. The allies would likely find their dual-use nature to be quite handy.


yeah, we'll just explain that the worlds most well funded air force couldn't afford them, and watch all those nations above that have been under fire for the F-35 purchases just gobble em right up. Just make sure to fill the F-22 internal bays with gold, or some other inflation-free precious metal, because boy they're gonna need it
Choose Crews
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 868
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post16 May 2021, 17:08

madrat wrote:@alloycowboy-

Because it's got supercruise ability, can deploy SDB at greater standoff ranges, and because it flies at an FL where F-35 cannot. Honestly, F-22A serves a niche nothing else does and probably won't until NGAD. Will allies get access to NGAD? Probably not.


The F-35 can Super Cruise as well, but unless you are intercepting a cruise missiles you aren't going to use that feature because it sucks to much fuel. The F-22 does have a sevice ceiling 15,000 feet higher then the F-35, but that altitude might be out of limits for the SBD's.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7227
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post16 May 2021, 21:07

I'll once again add the fact that NGAD has amazing special sauce that can only be used to invent NGAD in the hundreds, on a short time line, for a fraction of the cost of all pervious aircraft, but none of those things can apply or fix any aircraft currently in use. Would love to see some NGAD magic sprinkled liberally through the US Military, but this is very specific stuff.

That's unceasingly interesting.
Choose Crews
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1370
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 May 2021, 21:15

alloycowboy wrote:
madrat wrote:@alloycowboy-

Because it's got supercruise ability, can deploy SDB at greater standoff ranges, and because it flies at an FL where F-35 cannot. Honestly, F-22A serves a niche nothing else does and probably won't until NGAD. Will allies get access to NGAD? Probably not.


The F-35 can Super Cruise as well, but unless you are intercepting a cruise missiles you aren't going to use that feature because it sucks to much fuel. The F-22 does have a sevice ceiling 15,000 feet higher then the F-35, but that altitude might be out of limits for the SBD's.


F-35 can supercruise? Source? LockMart representative or representative of AF which use F-35?

Btw I don't think SC is must have but it is surely nice to have, but only if you have enough fuel to use it for any meaningful period.


NGAD as we know will have lot of fuel and at least two F135 so there will lot of thurst, so long duration super cruise could be real deal with NGAD.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post16 May 2021, 22:30

Today's F-35 have no serious threats let alone future more advanced versions. So, retiring the F-22's until the NGAD honestly makes a lot of sense.........


IMHO
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3057
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post17 May 2021, 00:46

I'd rather keep F-22A and retire F-15EX's and pre-Block4 F-35A.
Online

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3828
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post17 May 2021, 01:53

alloycowboy wrote:
madrat wrote:I'd want a Tier 1 ally to have access to the leasing of F-22A at strategic strangle-points. Australia? The UK? Italy? Japan? Israel?

Keeping them operating in the hands of a close ally puts further pressure on strategic foes. The allies would likely find their dual-use nature to be quite handy.



@Madrat, why would American allies want the F-22 as opposed to the F-35. The only advantage the F-22 has is that it has a slighty faster supersonic dash speed and slighty better maneuverability. But for the most part the F-35's sensors, computers, and networking on the F-35 pretty much negate any really world advantage the F-22 offers.

The sensor/computer gap will be a lot narrower after the MLU, so for a pure A2A mission it could still be very appealing.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 May 2021, 03:59

alloycowboy wrote:
madrat wrote:I'd want a Tier 1 ally to have access to the leasing of F-22A at strategic strangle-points. Australia? The UK? Italy? Japan? Israel?

Keeping them operating in the hands of a close ally puts further pressure on strategic foes. The allies would likely find their dual-use nature to be quite handy.



@Madrat, why would American allies want the F-22 as opposed to the F-35. The only advantage the F-22 has is that it has a slighty faster supersonic dash speed and slighty better maneuverability. But for the most part the F-35's sensors, computers, and networking on the F-35 pretty much negate any really world advantage the F-22 offers.



The US would never sell or lease used F-22's. When it could build and sell new F-35's.......
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 May 2021, 04:01

Actually, I expected the USAF to retire the F-22 post 2030. Yet, for it to be discussed this openly. Just shows how tight they expect future US Defense Budgets to become!

:shock:
Offline

block4

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 04 May 2021, 08:26

Unread post06 Jun 2021, 23:21

F-22 Sunset is currently at least verbally to commence 2030, which would imply (hopefully) that first tranche of combat coded NGAD would achieve IOC by 2030. Which would imply a pretty rapid development program probably kickstarting FY23, if not aggressively started already which would be classified, in order to place production lot buy orders by FY27 at the latest?

Either way, it would be pretty incredible if the entire F-22 force structure was completely retired and replaced w/NGAD before existing block 50/52 F-16 were fully retired and replaced with a clean-sheet cheap economical F-16 replacement. Contemplate the F-22 fleet being developed, produced, operated and retired within the scope of said late model 50/52 F-16s entire sustained operational service as being anticipated now.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1794
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Jun 2021, 05:49

The oldest F-22A would be ~24 years young in 2030. RAAF F/A-18A will be ~40 years old when those leave service. IIRC F-35 is to have a 50 year service-life. But USAF needs NGADs in 2030 because ... er, ... because it will be both more capable, and way cheaper with no software issues at all, and will be able to defeat a capability which still won't exist until long after NGAD is shafted by the head of USAF in 2047 to make way for something even more capable and far cheaper ... with zero software issues.

I would like to know what's in the $39 billion USD hidden USAF budget as that's ~48.7 billion AUD when converted, and that 'miscellaneous' budget sucker is about 35% bigger than our entire national defence budget this year for every ADF service combined. Presumably it's not for building houses and bus shelters? However, USAF is gonna pretend the A-10C is a 'fighter' and keep it in service forever, and eliminate that stinky F-22A.

Great-power confrontation logic is like that, a boondoggle can have much higher priority than real air power.

No need for the F-22A as the A-10C "Ground Sloth" can kill a mach 2 J-7, at 57,000 feet ... the, um, ... like, 54-year-old ... um ... crappiest fighter which PLAAF still operates ... the poor buggers.

At least they didn't get stuck with the F-22A.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7632
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Jun 2021, 06:57

element1loop wrote:The oldest F-22A would be ~24 years young in 2030. RAAF F/A-18A will be ~40 years old when those leave service. IIRC F-35 is to have a 50 year service-life. But USAF needs NGADs in 2030 because ... er, ... because it will be both more capable, and way cheaper with no software issues at all, and will be able to defeat a capability which still won't exist until long after NGAD is shafted by the head of USAF in 2047 to make way for something even more capable and far cheaper ... with zero software issues.

I would like to know what's in the $39 billion USD hidden USAF budget as that's ~48.7 billion AUD when converted, and that 'miscellaneous' budget sucker is about 35% bigger than our entire national defence budget this year for every ADF service combined. Presumably it's not for building houses and bus shelters? However, USAF is gonna pretend the A-10C is a 'fighter' and keep it in service forever, and eliminate that stinky F-22A.

Great-power confrontation logic is like that, a boondoggle can have much higher priority than real air power.

No need for the F-22A as the A-10C "Ground Sloth" can kill a mach 2 J-7, at 57,000 feet ... the, um, ... like, 54-year-old ... um ... crappiest fighter which PLAAF still operates ... the poor buggers.

At least they didn't get stuck with the F-22A.


If, the F-22 is retired early. The two main reasons would be it's high cost and tighter US Defense Budgets'


As for the NGAD don't expect to see it much before the late 2030's.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3312
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Jun 2021, 13:31

“The oldest F-22A would be ~24 years young in 2030. RAAF F/A-18A will be ~40 years old when those leave service. IIRC F-35 is to have a 50 year service-life. But USAF needs NGADs in 2030 because ... er, ... because it will be both more capable, and way cheaper with no software issues at all, and will be able to defeat a capability which still won't exist until long after NGAD is shafted by the head of USAF in 2047 to make way for something even more capable and far cheaper ... with zero software issues.“

:thumb:
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3057
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Jun 2021, 22:52

Retire 3 A-10 for every 1 Raptor.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], wrightwing and 8 guests