USAF warms to the idea of an upgraded F-22 line.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes it will be two platforms but they're one platform for separate services. So saying that restarting the F-22 will be cheaper than building two sixth gen is disingenuous.

Kindly do NOT call my post disingenuous. You posted "they will be separate aircraft" in response to my post regarding F-35 issues.

So which is it? Two variants analogous to the three of the F-35? Or two separate aircraft as you posted!!! If two separate aircraft then they have two separate development costs.

Sheesh

a reply to: nwtrucker

Once again, it's two aircraft, one for each service. That means that the money is coming from two separate budgets to develop them. They have two separate development costs that will come from two separate budget locations. So the Air Force is paying to develop ONE aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Ah, you talking Air Force. I'm talking tax-payer....

a reply to: nwtrucker

And how is it any different this time than for every single aircraft developed if you look at it this way? Every single modern aircraft developed, except the F-4 and F-35 had separate development costs. This is no different than any other time.

a reply to: Zaphod58


What's different is the cost. Big time. Beyond argument. Hugely larger than F-14s or F-4s.

I don't think you could call me a peacenik by any stretch. We cannot afford two 6th Gen aircraft. We don't have the economy for it anymore. Period.

You can take this to the bank....the military will NOT get funding for two. No way!!! I'd get on the horn to protest it to my Rep., myself!

I assume this two separate developments is well known in Congress and goes a long way to explaining why the F-22 restart is being looked at.

It also explains why the Air Force is also looking at it closer. They know damn well they are likely to lose out on any 6th gen under this scenario and the F-22 restart in much better than nothing.

a reply to: nwtrucker

There is no choice. Either the military advances, or someone else does. It's that simple. Developing one aircraft means that you regulate the other to using 40+ year old fighters by that point, which means you've just made them effectively useless in a fight.

Restarting the F-22 is at best a stopgap to delay developing a new fighter and will gut just about every other program the Air Force has to have in the next 15 years. Not needs, not wants, MUST have. By developing a new fighter, for both services, you delay having to pay those costs until after other necessary programs are well underway or almost complete.

So it boils down to either effectively eliminating the fighting ability of one service, turning one into essentially a fighter only force that will quickly lose the ability to move those fighters anywhere, or develop new aircraft that will be useful and effective for decades to come.

a reply to: Zaphod58


You completely ignored the points I made. Sobeit. We shall disagree. I will take the stop gap. I will fight two 6th gens.

As you say, it will take a number of years even for that stop gap. There's time before that for your other needs to be addressed. To some degree anyways.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I didn't ignore anything. They're more expensive, yes, but, again, look at the status of our forces and then look at how almost every other nation has closed the gap or surpassed is in various areas.

If you want the Navy to have air power they need a new fighter beyond the F-35. Having a force made up entirely of F-35s would be both insane and stupid. Nothing currently flying, besides a stealth aircraft, will be capable of getting through a modern air defence system within 10-15 years. That renders the Hornet fleet useless until the stealth aircraft have a chance to wear them down. So you end up with carriers that have Hornets sitting on deck capable of doing very little.

The difference between the F-22 and a new aircraft is that a new aircraft won't have anything to pay for until after the RFP drops, which buys three years minimum before you pay a dime, and then you only pay a relatively low amount for engineering costs. You don't pay any really large amounts until you select for the prototypes, which buys 10 years. Restarting the F-22 line would involve up front costs, and you will be paying in 2-3 years which means almost immediately taking money from other programs.

a reply to: nwtrucker


Arguing about the economy is pointless because it constantly fluctuates up and down. The fact that it's been doing relatively well for the past few years despite Obama's socialist agenda is quite an accomplishment. There is no reason to think that the US can't afford two 6th gen fighters. The military is actually quietly looking forward to next year when one of two hawk nominees are president. Do you think it's coincidence that the AF is actually looking into this and ok with it at the same time the regime is about to be replaced? They know they'll be able to afford more next year. They'll get funding for whatever the Pentagon says they need. The whole economy is biting at the chomps for a new president.


As for how much each fighter cost.. the only reason they cost so much is because of the uncertainty caused by program cuts and things like the threat of sequestration. If the DoD would actually stay at initial commitment we'd be seeing much cheaper prices for advanced stealth aircraft. If there were 5 million Ferraris rolling off the line every year do you think they'd still fetch 250k? They intentionally made several thousand instead to keep their price high.

The F-22 is multi-role right or is it considered a fighter with a complementary AG capability?

Does the Navy have the space on a carrier to have a bomber and a fighter?

Will the airforce put all bomber requirements on the B-21 and perhaps a replacement CAS should the F-35 not cut it therefore develop a pure thoroughbred fighter?

Just trying to work out where the synergies are lost, Rafale seems to be an aircraft which didn't lose much being 'navalised' from the start, not sure about the F-35a and c.

a reply to: Caughtlurking


Since when has there been any 'up' with our economy? That economy is the engine behind our military. Which I fully support, obviously.

Now Ford is building a plant in Mexico and GM an assembly plant For their Cadillacs in China. Forget the lost high paying jobs and tax base, those are the mechanisms which built our military equipment in times of war. Yes, we may get a President with a heavier hawk mandate...I hope we do. There's only one candidate that knows we need our economy back first. That's not an overnight process.

We could even go all F-35 with upgrades for a long while on our carriers! That takes care of the Legacy issues of the F-18s.

We had better face the fact that we are flat out unable to service the 'traditional' mandate of two full wars and a regional conflict concurrently. Maybe when we had 50% of the world's manufacturing ability...and jobs and tax base.

That is gone! It will NOT be coming back to anywhere those levels no matter who becomes President.

Maybe even the F-22 restart isn't going to work either. Perhaps just continued upgrades for the F-22 with MORE F-35s all around...

Then there's the energy weapons knocking on the door.....cough, cough. The 6th gens becomes obsolete facing space borne energy weapons.(At a guess) The technology doesn't sit still just because a specific fighter isn't being developed. We have DARPA and a whole bunch of Corporations moving our technology forward as we speak. Much can be incorporated in the form of upgrades.

I do know this without reservation, there is no way in hell the taxpayer is going to stand for two 6th Gens....multiple trillions of dollars...Congress isn't gonna buy it. Period.

a reply to: nwtrucker

But once lasers become the norm,next gen stealth either cipounteres lasers targeting ot creates laser Defensive Aid...

Just an expensibe cycle that hopefully spawns cur s for cancer.

Except in a he case of my colleague, but pray those lumps are aggressive and terminal the nasty bitch.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Finding a fighter sized platform from space is going to be extremely difficult at best. As good as optics are, they can only get so good before you hit a wall. And something that small is going to be at the limit of that if not beyond it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

Finding a fighter sized platform from space is going to be extremely difficult at best. As good as optics are, they can only get so good before you hit a wall. And something that small is going to be at the limit of that if not beyond it.

I can't argue that point. Yet,those same fighters have to land....then it becomes a whole lot easier when they're on the ground parked....

a reply to: nwtrucker

That's always been their vulnerability, which is why so many European nations practice dispersing to remote locations and roadways. Lasers aren't going to suddenly end the need for fighters or other aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

That's always been their vulnerability, which is why so many European nations practice dispersing to remote locations and roadways. Lasers aren't going to suddenly end the need for fighters or other aircraft.

I would have thought that's more to protect from GPS'd missile attacks. Or when a traditional base has been rendered 'unusable'. Considering every square inch of the U.S. has been 'GPS'd, it's safe to assume the same applies to potential enemies land mass as well. As long as there is space borne observation, taking them out is only slowed a bit by dispersal of the units, I would think.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The RAF could use a few squadrons of F-22's since Russia have been playing games with our air space.

Plus the RAF been hit pretty bad with cuts which is a disgrace as our Airforce is our first line of defence and is what saved the UK in WW2! Next to our navy the RAF is one of our most important assets. Especially in the modern era were the one who country’s air superiority controls the battle field. Long as we have a superior air force to our potential rivals we are safe from conventional military action.

The army cuts fine. They are the last line of defence which if your at that point your have probably lost, Really they are only really useful in offensive deployments. Rather have a small but extremely well equipped and trained army of 80,000 than overstretch for 100,000+ when it’s not really needed in times of peace. And they can be expanded quickly in an emergency as troops are quick to train.
With air force and navy you can’t expand them quickly. They take time to build. We need to have a large fleet and Airforce always ready.

a reply to: crazyewok


I like your assessment. Many nations could 'use' some f-22s. Afford them is another subject.

Assuming the F-35 goes the same route as the F-22, to wit, from a 'waste of money' to a really superior and effective platform might not the F-35 serve? After all the F-22 is likely more an attacking platform than a defensive one. (Not that it's not capable as a defending one.)

a reply to: nwtrucker
I gather the F-35 and F-22 are for different roles and both have their uses.

I get the idea the F-22 good for offensive role but a good dog fighter is also needed defensively.

Remember it was fighter to fighter fighting and the versatility of our air force that decided the UK fate back in 1940 and it was the fact the UK ruled the air above the Falkland’s that stopped the invasion there and won the islands back.

Anyway future conventional attack on the UK will start with a air war. The ability to intercept and shoot down any attacking craft is paramount. The Typhoon we got are good and they could go toe to toe with what Russia or China could currently throw at us but in 10 or 20 years times? And unlike the army 10,20 or even 50 years is how you need to plan your air force and navy as what you build now is what going to be used then.

As for afford them? Well the UK funded and good chunk of the F-35 and is the second largest buyer so if it can afford the F-35 then it could afford the F-22. Plus can you really put a price on your own country’s defence? And to be the airforce and Navy are the core of that defence.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's the same principle. And space based weaponry still has the same problems it's always had, seeing, targeting, and firing through that much atmosphere.