USAF To Request More F-22 Raptors

Recently Air Force Magazine ran an article in which Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne stated that the DoD will seek an additional 20 F-22A Raptor's from the current order of 183. Although he did not specify how many more (overall) F-22's the USAF would seek it looks like it will be more than this initial 20 but less than the 381 the USAF maintains it needs. Currently Raptor's are being delivered at a rate of 20 aircraft per year (until 2009), if the production line remains open for an additional 3-4 years thats a possible further 60-80 Raptor's.

Now that one of the F-22's biggest enemies is no longer in charge (Rumsfeld) it is possible for the USAF to make it's case both to the DoD leadership and Congress. Seeing as how the unit price continues to go down and the Raptor continues to impress people with its capabilities getting more of them might be possible. Many predicted this move after Rumsfeld resigned and I hope it comes through, personally I would be a lot more comfortable with 240-260 Raptors.

Air Force Likely To Seek 20 Additional F-22s

It looks like the Air Force will request at least 20 more F-22 Raptors, and the tide may be turning to get even more, service Secretary Michael W. Wynne told Air Force Magazine.

"The way the Joint Strike Fighter is going, we may yet need another tranche of F-22s simply to continue to bridge the gap and make sure the President has a fifth generation fighter line available for expansion if he needs it," Wynne maintained. The F-22 is being bought at 20 airplanes a year through 2009.

"It looks to me like that argument could take us at least into '10 and ... get you some deliveries in the '12-'13 time frame," he added. That would get close to overlapping the F-35 production at the current schedule.

Wynne confessed that, given the stellar performance of the F-22 in recent wargames, "I don't know what the total quantity required is," even though USAF has verified 381 as its hard requisite. However, he noted that he sees "a growing consensus that 183 doesn’t give you the breadth you might need."

Source

[edit on 3-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

I have mixed feelings about this, on the one hand it's great to have
advanced planes and stuff, but do we really need that many?

How much do Raptors cost a piece?



Oh, and how come we can never order things in 10s, I mean why 183,
180 or 190 seems like a better number.

Originally posted by iori_komei
...but do we really need that many?

Considering that the Raptor is being bought in significantly lower numbers than any previous main US fighter I say we don't have enough. The capabilities it brings are revolutionary and they ensure that we have an insurance policy when it comes to the future. Yes the Raptor is so advanced that it does not have to be fielded on a one to one basis (replacement) but there comes a point where having too few airframes relly inhibts your potential to wage war as you would like...

Originally posted by iori_komei
How much do Raptors cost a piece?

Currently due to a limited production run and bureaucratic mismanagement the fly away cost of an F-22 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 Million. The price is decreasing however and if we were to by more while increasing the yearly output the F-22 would get even cheaper, perhaps even under 100 Million.

Link

Originally posted by iori_komei
Oh, and how come we can never order things in 10s, I mean why 183,
180 or 190 seems like a better number.

It's just the way it works out, when you add on single additional airframes due to increased funding or when you have a set budget. Personally I prefer rounded off numbers too but in the case of the F-22 we need everysingle one we can get so I'm not complaining.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Ok, well that answers my questions.

I suppose I just thought that Raptors were so advanced we would'nt
need alot of them.

Well, yes and no, as I said before you don't need a huge fleet of say 750 Raptors for example but you also cannot have too few of them, and 183 is not enough. Consider the long term future, airframe losses, repairs and maintenance, training, testing etc... all of those will eat up precious few airframes. Then there is the fact that a single F-22 fighter cannot be at two places at the same time. If you're fighting a war on multiple fronts with a semi-advanced numerically superior enemy you will be very limited in what you can deploy.

With what the Raptor has shown, the more the better IMHO. You do need to factor in attrition in future planning as well.

Goes back to exposting the Raptor to select countries which lowers the unit cost and may allow the USAF to get even more than 200+ if this increased buy goes through.

How many Raptors do you think the US should order, WestPoint?

I suppose 183 sounds a lot, but when you consider how many, say, F-16s the US (apparently upwards of 2,500 at the peak) had then it isn't really that many.

Originally posted by Ste2652
How many Raptors do you think the US should order, WestPoint?

I think ~350 would suffice for any eventuality, given that we would have to take about ~30 for training and the rest for attrition, testing, demos, airframe losses etc... That would leave us with around 300 combat ready Raptors. Currently do to our limited buy of only 183 each F-22 squadron consists of only 20 Raptors (18 Active, 2 Attrition). Ideally each squadrons should have 26 jets, (24 Active, 2 Attrition). If we go by this standard 300 Raptors translates roughly into 11 active squadrons. This allows you to base a substantial number of F-22's permanently in many locations around the world and still have reserve squadrons ready for immediate and contingency deplyment from the CONUS.

Westpoint, you make a good series of points here. Personally I would rather see the USAF gain more than 350 Raptors, even if at the expense of F-35's. I would not be phased by a fleet of 500 as this would allow the aircraft to cover the A2A and A2G roles generously. This is particularly important in an environment where you have more than one regional conflict simultaneously, a la Iraq and Afghanistan.

One important point often over looked and which you haven't touched on is fleet hours. One of the consequences of having too few aircraft is that those you do have need to fly more hours. In peacetime this can be managed to a point, but in war time this becomes a headache, particularly post war. Suddenly you have a rapidly time expiring fleet of airframes. Post Vietnam the B-52D fleet had been worn out and needed retirement. For example this has been a driving factor in the argument for more C-17's and the need to replace wing components in the A-10 "Hog Up" program.

So in short the cost of having too few airframes can work out greater than the cost of having enough in the long run.

LEE.

Good points as well Bozeian, however I'm not too sure about what you mean dual A2A/G role? The Raptor can be configured for those roles mission by mission as the situation requires it. I don't think we will have dedicated units for one role or the other, unless of course I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize.

Anyway, about the airframe hours, true it will eventually become an issue compounded by few spare airframes (if any) and limited production parts, tools and supplies. However it is important to note that the F-22 was designed to have a long "shelf life" if you will, and be easy to maintain, repair and upgrade. Recent published sortie rates, mission completion rates and force readiness percentages hint at this. Also, the F-222 will simply not endue as much stress as other fighters due to it's design. It will fly "clean" most of the time and be free of stress produced from carrying external weapons on the wings and fuselage, this in turn will expand the service life of those two critical areas. Not to mention that maintenance and storage of the F-22 will be top notch because the USAF knows the problem.

Still though, I like you would not mind a fleet of 500 it just that it is not realist at all. I would only sacrifice so many F-35's for more Raptors as I view both systems extremely important.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

The configration of new PAK_FA seems to be more advanced than F-22
Pak_Fa image

Emile,

One, we cannot be sure that is what the PAK-FA will look like, it's just one of hundreds of CGI floating around.

Two, I fail to see what is so advanced about that particular design layout.

And three, what does that have to do with the thread topic?

I mean USAF should launch new generational fighter beyond F-22.
www.Photo-Host.org...
Here you can see because of widely seperated setting engine bay, PAK_FA will get bigger weapon bay than F-22 to carry more and bigger missiles.
The Ominidiractional Vectoring Thrust nozzle will give the PAKFA more agility than F-22.
Dosal fin all moving could be more efficient with smaller size so that reducing weight.
I am so worried about F-22 in next decade. The air show you given in another thread didn't show F-22 has much higher agility than current jetfighters.
USAF NEED LESS AMOUNT OF F-22 THEY HAS ALREADY ORDERED IF THEY REALLY WANT TO DESIGN NEW, IF NOT, THEY NEED MUCH MORE THAN THEY HAD ORDERED TO GET ADVANTAGE OF AMOUNT TO THE POSSIBLE ENEMY THEY WILL MEET.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I think ~350 would suffice for any eventuality, given that we would have to take about ~30 for training and the rest for attrition, testing, demos, airframe losses etc... That would leave us with around 300 combat ready Raptors. Currently do to our limited buy of only 183 each F-22 squadron consists of only 20 Raptors (18 Active, 2 Attrition). Ideally each squadrons should have 26 jets, (24 Active, 2 Attrition). If we go by this standard 300 Raptors translates roughly into 11 active squadrons.

WestPoint23,

Using your figures, I would say at least 454 should be in service! this shoud give us 4 additional squadrons. The reason I say we need four extra squadrons is that I believe that we should keep 1, 4-squadron wing on alert for NORAD. Call me old fasion but after 9/11 I'd feel safer if I knew US maintained on fighter wing of air defense alert at all times. The threat of terrorist and rouge nations has shown us that we can't afford to take air defense for granted.

Tim

Sorry Westpoint I thought I was being clearer than I was. Actually your point about the F-22 flying clean sort of provides the answer.

Given the limited weapon bay size I would judge it unlikely that the Raptor will fly with mixed loads, that is AMRAAM's and JDAM's for example. Therefore in many scenarios you will still need a dedicated Combat Air Patrol (CAP). This may not be an issue in Afghanistan but in a more complex environment like a hypothetical NthK conflict, the need to remain stealthy will necessitate dedicated roles. Of course this effectively divides your force, the only way to counter it is to hang ordnance off the external hardpoints and pay the penalty in the attendant stealth and airframe stress issues. And stealth is what this aircraft is all about, otherwise you may as well just build more F-15E's and forget the Raptor (and the F-35). Recent pictures I saw of F-16's operating In Nth Iraq on ground support showed them carrying Paveways, AMRAAM's and Sidewinder in mixed loads and there isn't any Iraqi internal A2A threat just the small possibility of Iranian incursion's across border. So even in lower risk Dday+ scenarios where F-22's are primarily operating A2G there will probably be a requirement for more than just self defence AIM-9X's. So you are back to either giving over one side of the main bay to a pair of AIM-120's and loosing half your JDAM/SDB load or you need a dedicated CAP. And don't think for a minute that the USAF wont use the Raptors for mud moving, strategic or tactical. When the F-35 starts to loose build numbers and the F-22's spiral development's show how good it is, it will find itself tasked with more than just the show pony air to air role. In fact I believe that any major reduction in the F-35 fleet purchase will virtually gaurantee that more Raptors get built (and my opinion on the F-35 program is no secret). So don't discount the possibillity of up to 500 F-22's coming off the line, you never know what might be around the corner.

Incidentally what is the projected airframe hour life of the F-22? I dont recall seeing it anywhere, and for that matter I don't know why I haven't thought about it before now ! I must be slipping with age

LEE.

I still do not think F-22's will be used in dedicated roles. In a high and mixed threat environment where A2G by the F-22 might be required (SAM's, ground targets, fighters etc...) a strike package of 12-16 Raptors with as many F-35's will suffice for any possible mission scenario. Less than one squadron of F-22's (16 Raptors) in two eight-ship groups with one group armed for primarily A2G with the other for A2A is enough firepower. Without even including the F-35 that offers you 64 SDB's, 64 AIM-120's and 32 AIM-9's, that's more than ample for any realist threat scenario. With the F-35 we can have even less F-22's in the fight and primarily equip them for A2A, the F-35 can take over most of the A2G capabilities the F-22 offers you. With the Raptors helping out the F-35 will be just as effective in the A2G role.

As for the airframe life of the F-22, well the primary benchmark is 20 years, (8,000 flight hours) however it has been tested for 16,000 flight hours (40 years). As I said before though, given that the F-22 will likely NEVER fly with external stores in actual combat (not an Afghanistan type of scenario) I suspect it's airframe will be relatively easy to maintain and service beyond 8,000 FH

F-22 Service Life Fatigue Testing Completed

[edit on 7-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by emile
Here you can see because of widely seperated setting engine bay, PAK_FA will get bigger weapon bay than F-22 to carry more and bigger missiles.

We do not even know what the final design of the PAK-FA will look like, let alone the dimensions of the wepaons bays. Even when we see the first prototype we will not know for sure what the final design will be (think YF-22, AA-1, X-35 etc...).

Originally posted by emile
The Ominidiractional Vectoring Thrust nozzle will give the PAKFA more agility than F-22.

Purely speculative, again we do not know what it's final design will be, nor do we know any possible specifications or flight test data (because it has not even been built yet!)

Originally posted by emile
I am so worried about F-22 in next decade.

Don't be, even the current F-22 would (and will) dominate in the next decade, let alone the future F-22 with all of it's incremental block and weapons upgrades. (Link)

Originally posted by emile
The air show you given in another thread didn't show F-22 has much higher agility than current jetfighters.

All irrelevant in combat, the F-22 has demonstrated the ability to maneuver in a configuration close to the one it will be flying with in combat. Internal A2A missiles only add about 2,500 pounds (insignificant) but more importantly they add no extra drag, stress and out of center mass. Lets see any other fighter maneuver like that with pylons, pods, missiles, bombs etc... hanging off the fuselage and wing stations. Also, the video I showed you was not even the full public demo let alone a show of what it is really capable off... If all that does not convince you, the ability to "kill" three "clean" Vipers (flown by highly experienced pilots) simultaneously in WVR ought too. I agree that we need more but the F-22 will not be outclassed anytime soon.

Still Emile, you did not mention the most important factors, weapons, avionics and stealth.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Ghost01
The threat of terrorist and rouge nations has shown us that we can't afford to take air defense for granted.

Tim

Arrgh!!! Sorry for the off topic post (I am interested by the topic though)

But it's Rogue!

Not rouge! Rouge is a shade of Red!

Or is a rouge nation a slightly commie nation, but not gone all the way? So instead of Pinko-commies, it's now rouge?



EDIT: Sorry for the impromptu spelling lesson, but I've seen it so many times misspelt on here that I cracked....

[edit on 7/5/07 by stumason]

Aww c'mon stumason!

'Rouge nations' has 'red-commies' written all over it!!

Wstpt23,

Everyone forgets that the F-22 DOES have 2-D TVC and this will obviously augment the agility of the a/c.

All manuevers in the vertical plane will be extremely heightened by this capability if the directional vectors are used in symmetry, i.e. both upwards or downwards(Climb rates, Dive rates).Similarly banking(turn radii) would be reduced as well.

We have seen that in this public display and I'm sure we'll see more in the future.

Though canards would for augment this movement further if use in symmetry(also adding to roll rates if use asymmetrically), the Raptor has the option of using the 2D TVC nozzles asymmetrically to extend the yaw rates and roll rates.

So 2D TVC isn't as bad as 3D TVC jocks make it out to be.
Esp since there's not much to gain in bleeding too much energy in super manueverability.
In fact I feel that until onboard point defense systems(DEW et al) become mainstream, 3D TVC supermanueverability will not be as effective as it can be. I believe that the 2D TVC on Raptor is pretty good, and the virtual 3D TVC(corkscrewed 2D TVC) on the Su-30 MKI is not far behind 3D TVC manueverability.

I have a question though:

The TVC on the raptor, is it directly controlled by the onboard hydraulic/pneumatic systems(electric power) or is it an offshoot of the energy received on fuel burning?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Ghost01
The threat of terrorist and rouge nations has shown us that we can't afford to take air defense for granted.

Tim

Arrgh!!! Sorry for the off topic post (I am interested by the topic though)

But it's Rogue!

Not rouge! Rouge is a shade of Red!

Or is a rouge nation a slightly commie nation, but not gone all the way? So instead of Pinko-commies, it's now rouge?

EDIT: Sorry for the impromptu spelling lesson, but I've seen it so many times misspelt on here that I cracked....

[edit on 7/5/07 by stumason]

Woops! Gotta slow down when I'm typing!

Rogue is the word I thought I had typed. Looks like I reversed the u and the g. See I can be creative, I'm comming up with "rouge" nations instead of "rogue" nations.

B.T.W. Thanks for the funny punchline!

Tim