F-22 replacement search officially starts! , page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 10:01 AM by firepilot

Originally posted by Borys
reply to post by firepilot

Not if you're in Oz, where they still have another few more days left... *sob*

Its a sad thing, probably still the best low level strike/interdiction aircraft there is. I do not know of any plane that is faster on the deck

reply posted on 29-11-2010 @ 10:14 AM by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Pervius
...Maybe thats why they are talking about a F-22 replacement. It was like Windows Vista. Lots of flash and hype but when it was fielded everyone realized it wasn't what they wanted, cost too much, wouldn't work, and as quick as it was fielded they had to work on a replacement since it wasn't a good product.

No -- the F-22 is NOT like Vista.

By 2030, the F-22 will have had a service-run of a little over 20 years as the primary tactical fighter, which is about an average amount of time for an advanced tactical aircraft to be the primary plane in the arsenal.

It took 25 years to develop the F-22 -- the US decided they wanted a replacement for the F-15 in 1981, and the RFP went out in 1986. It's not at all unusual for the US to begin formally discussing the replacement of the F-22, and it's NOT an indictment on the abilities of the F-22.

Using your argument, the U.S. must have thought the F-15 was "not good enough" in 1981 when the discussions began on the replacement for the F-15 (for the plane that would become the F-22). At that time, the F-15 was in service for less than 5 years. However, the reality is that the F-15 will probably remain in service at least throughout this coming decade. In the same regards, the F-22 will probably remain in service well beyond 2030.

edit on 11/29/2010 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-12-2010 @ 08:12 PM by Aim64C

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

By 2030, the F-22 will have had a service-run of a little over 20 years as the primary tactical fighter, which is about an average amount of time for an advanced tactical aircraft to be the primary plane in the arsenal.

It can't be considered a primary tactical fighter with an entire arsenal below 200 airframes and operational readiness consistently below 70%.

The F-15 maintains service numbers above 600 with spare airframes "laying around" in some warehouse that only God and a few other individuals know their way around. There are more than a few interesting anecdotes about putting in the wrong 'part' number on a requisitions form and getting a whole damned aircraft delivered to the squadron. Whether whole or in pieces - they are out there somewhere.

It took 25 years to develop the F-22 -- the US decided they wanted a replacement for the F-15 in 1981, and the RFP went out in 1986. It's not at all unusual for the US to begin formally discussing the replacement of the F-22, and it's NOT an indictment on the abilities of the F-22.

This is true, to a degree. The fact of the matter is that the F-22 ran so far over budget and is not at all within the needs of the Air Force. What the (Ch)Air Force needs is a low-observable super-cruise strike airframe with loiter capability. The F-22 is -not- a strike airframe. It was purely designed as an air superiority fighter and has been expanded into other roles with limited success and practicality.

What the Air Force is going to be looking for is a medium bomber that can employ a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance with speed and loiter capability taking precedence over maneuverability (although, in this day and age, maneuverability of such a large frame doesn't necessarily mean compromising speed or loiter capability).

Smaller and more purposed designs (read: UCAV) can get into the furball and use datalinking to compensate for a lack of expensive mini-AWACs packages.

The F-22 was yet another victim of an identity crisis that occurred within the military following the fall of the Soviet Union.

reply posted on 2-12-2010 @ 06:48 PM by thebozeian

Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-15 maintains service numbers above 600 with spare airframes "laying around" in some warehouse that only God and a few other individuals know their way around. There are more than a few interesting anecdotes about putting in the wrong 'part' number on a requisitions form and getting a whole damned aircraft delivered to the squadron. Whether whole or in pieces - they are out there somewhere.

Really? Thats sounds interesting, perhaps you could expand on those anecdotes in another thread. I would be interested to hear about this. Could it be that a similar approach has been taken with the Raptor? After all 187 airframes is ridiculously low, perhaps there are more Raptor airframes laying around in modest numbers we dont know about.

LEE.

reply posted on 20-12-2010 @ 07:54 AM by Daedalus3

reply to post by Aim64C

Well. for starters, the program probably has an idea of what it absolutely needs to be better than: Anything the T-50 can come up with in the next 20 years. Until recently, there was no qualitative competitor to the F-22 and so a successor to it was restricted to the realm of improving the F-22 performance envelope, and breaking into new technologies (DEW, Man-Machine interface and interchangeability).
Now I'm not saying that the T-50 will be irrevocably superior to the F-22. It isn't even close to IOC (5 years away at best), but just considering the time frames these jets came out at (The T-50 coming on a good 10 years after the F-22), it suffices to say that the T-50 will attempt to exceed the F-22 in some (if not most) areas.

One area of extreme interest is ECM and ECCM against UAVs and UCAVs; something that the manned (and unmanned?) fighters of the future absolutely MUST be working feverishly now. The sun has not set on the manned fighter as yet.

On a separate note to all.. sorry could not parent this thread and it seems to have gone astray a bit. I was busy following up with other developments closer to home (MRCA and the FGFA multi billion dollar deals).

Will post on both some time this week. Big deals being signed early this week (In the vicinity of 30 billion USD) that will define air force strategy for the coming decades. Bears relevance to what will guide (the justification of funding at least ) for a 6th gen US a/c.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Daedalus3 because: typos..

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^