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

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think that a competition could be put in place for a 5.5 or equivalent new build that they could require the use of the F-35's powerplant, radar, and as much of everything as possible in an air supremacy first airframe with thrust vectoring for less than restarting the 22. Get Israel, Japan, Korea, GB, as many people to sign up for orders as possible and the costs could be driven pretty low and would also drive down F-35 costs by being able to produce a larger amount of it's pieces as well. /Rant

I agree that restarting the F-22 seems too cost prohibitive without being able to match the AF's order with a foreign sale. 100 to Israel and Japan would give them security for years and drop our costs by a ton.

a reply to: FredT

1) NOT exporting the F-22 to select allies like Australia and Japan

There seems to be this idea among F-22 fans that only if it were available for export it would be a smashing success. In addition, rarely is the question asked if these countries would actually want the F-22.

Here is what Australian DOD said:

The capabilities of the F-22 were assessed but it did not meet Australia’s multi-role requirements due to its limited air to surface capability, noting also that US policy would not allow the F-22 to be sold to other nations.

www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/fadt_ctte/JointStrikeFighter/report.pdf

Australia is spending AU$14.5 billion on the F-35 (plus additional AU$2.6 billion budgeted as contingency) which includes F-35A aircraft, the support systems, training, weapons, and infrastructure, but not sustainment costs. Excluding contingency, this is AU$201 million per aircraft (72 aircraft). The increase in cost of the F-22 would probably place the price of each aircraft including the same to AU$350 to AU$500. For the same cost as our F-35A order we could get approximately 36 F-22's, a single role aircraft, of which probably only 24 would be combat coded.

This is of course, when at the moment:

Capability: Control of the air and strike

With the combination of Super Hornet, Wedgetail AEW&C and MRTT tankers, the RAAF now has a near state-of-the-art air combat capability that’s unmatched in the region. The addition of Growlers to the mix will further increase this potent capability.

www.aspi.org.au...

In fact, the biggest challenge that the Air Force faces is managing the changes that invariably come with a modernisation program of this size. Every new platform type or major system brings with it an overhead of making sure that the ‘fundamental inputs to capability’ (training, facilities, doctrine development and so on) are all in place. Moving to highly specialised types such as the Growler and Triton, and later the F-35, will also add to the overall workload.

That said, the Air Force is clearly doing a lot right. Its deployment into Iraq went remarkably smoothly, and it has since flown hundreds of combat missions. And, unlike previous coalition contributions, Australia’s strike fighter package has provided its own combat support enabling aircraft, allowing Australia to assist coalition partners. The force multiplier effects of the MRTTs and Wedgetails have been appreciated by coalition members—tankers and air-to-air refuellers are usually oversubscribed in aircampaigns. As well, the RAAF’s air safety record has been spotless for 15 years, representing a significant improvement on its performance in the decade or two before that.

www.aspi.org.au...

Capability shortfalls were listed as airlift, anti-submarine warfare and fuel supply vulnerability.

The nations with the closest capabilities in the region would be Singapore, whom operates some of the most advanced Strike Eagles in the world - but we have good relations with them.

a reply to: ZaneDog

F-22 and F-35 were built for different missions. Both are needed, but Congress asks only two questions: 1) What's the cost? 2) How many jobs will it bring to my state?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You know, forget it. I'm not going to do this argument again, and again.

You can't win with these people. As much of an F-22 fan boy I am... restarting production, heavy cost and it slows us from moving forward.

Just build me a dam F-42 if you're gonna waste that kinda money.

Better yet, stop wasting all this money in the first place and lower taxes.

originally posted by: Theprimevoyager

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You know, forget it. I'm not going to do this argument again, and again.

You can't win with these people. As much of an F-22 fan boy I am... restarting production, heavy cost and it slows us from moving forward.

Ironic statement. Now the MIC supporters have no comment on reruns for F-15s in an SE variant or F-18s in their variant.

That is 'moving forward' ? The moving forward comment translated is 6th Gens and their cost makes the 50 billion or so for the Raptor vs the at least one trillion for the two 6th gen variants look cheap.

What I find telling is the MIC supporters never post the actual, or at least known, stats on the Raptor or the down-side to only 125 combat ready Raptors for the next 20+ years.

One 'could' export a few or cut a few F-35s off the tail end of that run.

Cutting to the chase, we have old and obsolete legacy fighters, we have fifth gens which are the best in the world and we have hyped, non -existent technologies for a 6th gen. We have plenty of F-35s planned. So we fix and upgrade our best air superiority fighter in the F-22 and build more. Problem solved.

Laughingly, I only see it as an 'option'. The MIC crowd won't even acknowledge it as an option. Expensive? Sure. SO WHAT? Everything we do is 'expensive'.

The physical prowess of the Raptor with it's weaknesses addressed and fixed combined with the F-35s systems and whatever is sitting in the wings post-F35 technology-wise? A Monster. Comparatively cheap and fast. Who says only 194? Look at the F-35 numbers planned....the price per drops fast if more....just an option.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think it's more of a time wasted problem. Eventually the F-22 will run into a peer. It may be 15 years still until that peer is really operationally relevant but eventually the t-50 will come online. I don't buy into the chinese jets yet but we will see. Eventually though, some aircraft with achieve parity with the F-22. Why waste time when it is unlikely that there will be 125 5gen to fight against in the foreseeable future? Better off moving on and putting that 50b into the research that will spawn the next fighter.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The Raptor is old stuff. Just build a 5.5-6 gen using available tech, no experiments, to keep the costs under control. It will probably be cheaper than restarting F-22 production.

a reply to: moebius

The success of the B-21 early development has overhauled major programs like the PCA and future fighter programs. Flying risk reduction and demonstrators really helps to both keep costs down, and keep delays down.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: nwtrucker

The Raptor is old stuff. Just build a 5.5-6 gen using available tech, no experiments, to keep the costs under control. It will probably be cheaper than restarting F-22 production.

I fail to see the logic of that. The F-22 has already gone through the tech demonstrator-prototype-modification phase. What remains to be tweaked in the F-22 is already known and that any new 5.5-6 the gen. obviously hasn't with all those potential/inevitable 'unknowns'. Therefore, likely higher costs, in the long run.

I see the physical attributes of the F-22 combined with F-35+ systems as a workable option.

Unless there's some unknown factor here not being published, I have no alternative to assuming the cabal of the MIC and the mechanism of moving from the USAF career to the MIC has lead to huge abuses that most of the followers of this forum seem to avoid.

It is, after all, a factor in 'airforce programs'....Just saying

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: nwtrucker

I think it's more of a time wasted problem. Eventually the F-22 will run into a peer. It may be 15 years still until that peer is really operationally relevant but eventually the t-50 will come online. I don't buy into the chinese jets yet but we will see. Eventually though, some aircraft with achieve parity with the F-22. Why waste time when it is unlikely that there will be 125 5gen to fight against in the foreseeable future? Better off moving on and putting that 50b into the research that will spawn the next fighter.

It's seems a gray area. I can see what your saying and the logic of it. I can also, see only 125 units around to protect the F-35s and whatever hasn't fallen out of the air of the legacies as dangerous. I can equally argue that a 5.5 gen keeps China and Russia further back in producing a peer and buys time for tech development for a pure sixth gen.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Trump allows for both to occur, either.

a reply to: ZaneDog

Depends on the mission, they are not built for the same purpose.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Just an aside, it seems those in favor of the F-22 are making the same arguments we heard for 4th gen vs 5th gen that I recall back in the 90s and into the mid Oughts.

That said, I really wish we hadn't shut down the F-22 line. OTOH, a bit late, as in almost a decade late, for fixing it.

ah well.

a reply to: anzha

I wish they had built a lot more of them when they had the line up and running. They're great aircraft, but at this point, we can't afford $10B just to start up the production line, to do a limited run of aircraft. And they weren't going to authorize hundreds of aircraft, with PCA being fast tracked, and all the other things going on right now.

originally posted by: ZaneDog
a reply to: FredT

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

Many believe that the F-23 was a superior platform, me included.

Just need flying bombs that fly at treetop level, and hit exactly where small stealth drones and satellite's target. Much cheaper to put wings and guidance on flaying bombs with low level radar than building these aircraft.

It not a big deal if occasional bomb crash on a tree.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At this rate it would make more sense to design an all-new airframe that can take advantage of the quarter century's worth of advancements in manufacturing and component fabrication technology, rather than spent $250M+ on 1994's cutting edge A2A platform.

Part of me wonders if it wouldn't make more sense at this point to pull the curtains back on one of the -24 or -25 aircraft and use that newer A2A oriented design as the basis for an RCO procured interim gen 5.5 fighter to pad out the F-22's and replace the F-15's we sold to Japan, Korea, etc.

a reply to: C0bzz

I have no doubt all of that is true however, I assume that the AUS government is run much in the way of the US with each side crafting operational requirements that suit not only the actual needs of the country but rather the needs of parties and/or politicians as well to keep various political bases happy.

When the F-22 was in production there was interest from AUS and Japan for the aircraft. At least on the surface. It really made sense for both of them and it would have kept the line in production and lowered the unit cost so perhaps the USAF would have bought more.

Australia has decided the F-35 is the way to go at this stage while Japan will create their own 5th generation fighter in addition to getting the F-35

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Zaphod58

At this rate it would make more sense to design an all-new airframe that can take advantage of the quarter century's worth of advancements in manufacturing and component fabrication technology, rather than spent $250M+ on 1994's cutting edge A2A platform..

I agree but I have ZERO faith in the procurement system which lets face it has been a disaster for the most part: Zumwalt, LCS, The Ford which is looking like it will skip its shock trials, nevermind the ongoing issues with the arresting gear and EMALS, the KC-46 which seems to be back on track but the actual selection process was a disaster, the presidential chopper, the Comanche, it goes on and on.......

originally posted by: Xeven
Just need flying bombs that fly at treetop level, and hit exactly where small stealth drones and satellite's target. Much cheaper to put wings and guidance on flaying bombs with low level radar than building these aircraft.

It not a big deal if occasional bomb crash on a tree.

Develop some drones that can literally make the skies into a minefield and those big expensive planes will be obsolete.