It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Data On Restarting the F-22 Line Is Slowly leaking out and the news is not good

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I like many have been vocal that the Bush and Obama administration really dropped the ball by 1) NOT exporting the F-22 to select allies like Australia and Japan, but 2) should have produced more.

The tooling was supposed to be stored in the event that further production was deemed necessary. Over a year ago a report was commissioned to explore the cost associated with restarting the line. Apparently only a few will get to read it (I'm think McCain etc.) and based on the this article which says information has leaked out and its no bueno

If we bought 194 more F-22 the unit cost would be 200-216 per aircraft (137 from the previous batch)
Its unlikely to garner much support from Lockheed, the USAF,, and their congressional lobby because that would cut into F-35 production

Thats a alot of money at any rate and as the article points out they would more or less be building baseline F-22A's and perhaps not taking advantage of any advances.




posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Is there consensus to which is the better plane, F22 or F35?



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I've already heard that they're recommending restarting. Which would be stupid IMO. If they go with more F-22s, we can kiss PCA, and several other programs goodbye, or at least delay them a few years. They just conveniently said that some of the E-8Cs can fly into the 2030s, and they're extending 800+ F-16s to over 13,000 hours.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZaneDog
a reply to: FredT

Is there consensus to which is the better plane, F22 or F35?


Its not an even comparison. The F-35 was never built to be a pure air superiority fighter so it would depend on the mission.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Depends what they threw away..Maybe go through storage hangars to find jigs and templates.If designs and drawings are still available it can be rebuilt but at a cost.If not pull one apart and reverse engineer it.I follow a lot of the tech available to reverse engineer WW2 aircraft and it is doable.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah not at 200+ per plane. Although if the USMC is getting a 100 million dollar chopper it may not sound that outrageous.

Im not sure Aus/Japan would be willing to go in on a batch 2 either.

We would be better off seeing if we can partner with Japan on their 5th gen which



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Supposedly all of the tooling etc was preserved........



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
As much as I love idea of more Raptors, perhaps spending a fraction of the money and give the F-22's we have some of the proposed improvements that were dropped for budget reasons like lateral arrays a real helmet sight combo, etc etc



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Jesus.

And you'd think that now that they've started to pull up the F-35's skirt and show off what she REALLY has under there (watch the Paris flight demonstration), I'm shocked that they're still barking up this F-22 re-start tree when they could procure more F-35's at a rate of 3:1 for every dollar spent.

And I'm someone who absolutely LOVES the F-22.

A restart only makes sense for it'd be for up-engined birds with at least a similar avionics suite to the F-35. Especially for THAT sort of money.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

If you read the original estimate, which was based on all the tooling being in place, by now they'd be looking at at least closer to $300M an aircraft. Now, you have to replace the building to build them in, the tooling, the RAM application systems, and retrain the workforce.

Realistically, it's going to be ugly as hell if they go through with it.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

If dumbass John McCain is your saving grace, you're f*cked. That's just my .02



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I know they arent exactly the same intended use as a fighter, but the f35 looked very good at the air show. It had an effortless look to it in-air. And appartently it can do this with a full load of weaponry. The F22 is a sweet fighter, but at that cost, you might as well work on a new version. The f35 can hold it down for now. It was designed with todays fighting tactics in mind.

Hell, the next gen fighter might be a drone. Might as well get on it. It would be a total waste of resources to restart the f22 production.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
I like many have been vocal that the Bush and Obama administration really dropped the ball by 1) NOT exporting the F-22 to select allies like Australia and Japan, but 2) should have produced more.

The tooling was supposed to be stored in the event that further production was deemed necessary. Over a year ago a report was commissioned to explore the cost associated with restarting the line. Apparently only a few will get to read it (I'm think McCain etc.) and based on the this article which says information has leaked out and its no bueno

If we bought 194 more F-22 the unit cost would be 200-216 per aircraft (137 from the previous batch)
Its unlikely to garner much support from Lockheed, the USAF,, and their congressional lobby because that would cut into F-35 production

Thats a alot of money at any rate and as the article points out they would more or less be building baseline F-22A's and perhaps not taking advantage of any advances.


I have a different view of it. There's been many threads on this subject here on ATS and elsewhere. While I am no expert, by any means, I do have a 'healthy' distrust of the consensus minded experts of any gov't agency and especially the almost 'domestic' relationship between the USAF and the MIC.

The early information on the F-22's capabilities were far beyond the current levels on the purely physical attributes. Reading between the lines AND pilot interviews, both foreign and domestic, regarding the Raptor has lead to this brief summary:

PW F-119 actual thrust circa 40, 000 lbs giving it far and away the best T/W ratio in the world.

ACM capable at 65,000 ft.

Actual ceiling, if pressure suits are provided, 70,000-75,000ft

Super-cruise M2 at 60, 000 ft. ( One US pilot referred to the Raptor as the only true supersonic platform in the world. Military thrust-wise.)

Top speed flirting with M3. (obvious improvements required to avoid damage to coating, skin, etc.)

Highest deflection of any TV'd aircraft in the world, 20-22 degrees.

Add all these point up and the USAF has the best air dominance fighter BY FAR.

The only advantage the F-35 is in computing/systems and an edge in range. Put all those attributes into an upgraded F-22 and yes, the raptor at twice the cost IS better than two F-35s! Not even close.

Of the approximately 180 F-22 only around 125 are 'combat coded'. 125! The rest are training units.The sixth gens, even if started now, wouldn't reach IOC until an estimated 2039! 125 Raptors, upgraded or not will not be sufficient to cover all the F-35s in a combat package that far out.

Estimated cost, with production costs is 260 million per. No point pushing it to 300 Million merely to stress one point of view.

As far as Zaphod's issue with other programs being cut, it has no merit at this juncture as the 'real' budget and fight isn't until September and the potential for increased funding, especially if the F-22 is approved for a rerun in advance, is probable.

A 5.5 Gen F-22 gives assured air supremacy for years. it allow further development of technologies for the Sixth Gen. and pushes that humongous expense of the sixth Gens back a few years which also allows other programs to continue or even be moved up.

Of course, THAT isn't in the interest of the MIC, is it?......
edit on 21-6-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Sorry, I keep forgetting not to reply to the "I'm not an expert" people that know better than everyone else.
edit on 6/21/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Sorry, I keep forgetting not to reply to the "I'm not an expert" people that know better than everyone else.



Sorry, but that's a weak response in any measure to the data I put forth. P.S. the feeling is more than mutual.
edit on 21-6-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
You know, forget it. I'm not going to do this argument again, and again.
edit on 6/22/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
A question playing on my mind to those who are in the know on here. Would a new build F22 have an advatagevwith radar and see a Russian / Chinese plane before they would be able to see the US plane?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

To build another 194 airframes would be $50B. It would be $9.9B to build the production line, and $40B in procurement cost.

According the SecAF, they have no plans to restart the line.

www.military.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can I ask why they quit building the F22 in the first place, and how long ago was that?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

Congress and politics. The last aircraft was delivered in 2012.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join