F-22 Raptor Cut today?

[+Julhelm 266]

Todays reality: North Korea launches their "satellite" which can reach the state of Alaska.

Getting glassed in retaliation for vaporizing a couple caribou seems ample deterrent in itself.

[TheStig 39]

Getting glassed in retaliation for vaporizing a couple caribou seems ample deterrent in itself.

 

 

We in the states love animals. Seems like a justifiable response to me..

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

I hope whoever steps into office next resumes production. It reminds me of the B-1 when Carter axed it and Reagan made it possible for Rockwell to resume construction, production and procurement.

 

Carter cut the B-1A because it wasn't needed. Reagan brought it back as a political weapon to cause more production by the Soviets to ruin their economy, much like the SDI ruse.

 

When Carter cut the B-1A the bomber force was 3rd string in the nuclear triad, SLBM, ICBM, then bombers. The Advanced Technology Bomber (B-2) was far along in development, and we were in the middle of a pretty bad economic situation. Since the B-1 was just a stop gap measure for the B-2 and with ballistic missiles putting the bomber force out of the fight, it was cut.

(The B-2 would have been used for the counter force first strike mission of destroying the mobile/rail based ICBMs which were are biggest fear other than SLBMs)

 

The B-1B was then rushed into production and service, and it sucked balls. It had major avionics bugs, and tons of other problems that you would see in an aircraft rushed into production. Then almost immediately it was neutered by one of those START treaties making it unable to carry external weapons. From 1986 to the end of the Cold War it only served on limited nuclear alert and wasn't thought of very highly by Air Force brass.

 

Ironically it was an administration from the same party that made the B-1 worth a damn. Clinton is often criticized for his cuts to the military, but it was his administration that revived this aircraft and about 10 or 11 years after it was rushed into service it was actually a capable aircraft.

 

In an even greater twist of irony, the aircraft it was originally canceled for, the B-2, has turned out to be the one that is no longer needed, and the ability to say "look what we have" outweighs it's actual performance and effectiveness.

 

How does this relate to the F-22? Not really at all.

 

I think if we had about 200 F-22s that is more than enough.

[+Gepard 11,292]

The F-22 is a nice toy. Its true. But do you need it really? Its the same with the Eurofighter, is it really usefull in our time? I think no. What we need are planes like the A-10 or Su-25. Rough, ugly, but high efficient killers. We need helicopters, we need better and more reliable systems for the man on the ground. Because only the man with the rifle in the hand can hold and secure a territory. I think a lot of people should read the old book of General von Clausewitz. Perhaps they would not invest our money in expensive and senseless toys, but in usefull weapons.

If you see the decision in that way you will understand that the cut of the Raptor is the right way.

[MigBuster 2,884]

The F-22 is a nice toy. Its true. But do you need it really? Its the same with the Eurofighter, is it really usefull in our time? I think no. What we need are planes like the A-10 or Su-25. Rough, ugly, but high efficient killers. We need helicopters, we need better and more reliable systems for the man on the ground. Because only the man with the rifle in the hand can hold and secure a territory. I think a lot of people should read the old book of General von Clausewitz. Perhaps they would not invest our money in expensive and senseless toys, but in usefull weapons.

If you see the decision in that way you will understand that the cut of the Raptor is the right way.

 

 

Again the EF like the F-22 came out of a time when they were required to combat the USSR Jets - okay so perhaps they are not as needed - its easy to see what happens with hindsite - maybe we should have just stuck to the F-3s at least it would be a fairer fight if we had defend territory against a country with Flankers etc.

 

The EF can still be a pretty good CAS platform - will get to the scene a lot quicker than an A-10 and with PGMs its still gonna be accurate enough to help ground forces.

 

As for the F-22 - if you were an air force would you even bother starting anything against that?? and its been said already would the US be okay to fall behind if another country developed 5th Gen fighters first and took the lead - because they are being developed by others regardless.

[JediMaster 451]

But the F-22 CAN do A2G work, and as time goes on they'll be able to do more and more as the software gets upgraded.

 

The main thing to remember is right now the F-22 costs LESS than the JSF will. The first 2-3 dozen F-35s will likely cost $150m+ each because there will be no economy of scale. Not until we've already got hundreds in the air will they drop below $100m.

 

Also, the F-35 isn't in service yet! We've got what, 4 flying, 2 A's and 2 B's, of which I think only 2 of those are "production representative" at all?

While building 240 never looked like it would happen, I think we should have at least 200. As mentioned with the B-2s, if your "silver bullet" force is too small you risk losing it all in accidents like takeoffs and hangar fires.

 

The biggest issue is the F-22 is the only fighter we have right now, and the only plane other than the B-2, that we can send into SAM "hot spots" without fear of losing them all. FORGET enemy fighters, that's NOT the threat that will shoot them down, that's just the threat THEY shoot down.

No F-15 or F-16 or Super Hornet, no matter what upgrades it gets, is going to get as close to an SA-10 or higher as an F-22 can.

[tflash 3]

The good part is we now know that the F-35 is the way to go. It has a more open architecture and more versatile avionics.

[Caesar 305]

What I fear is that we're repeating history, getting fixated on the fight we're in now, rather than the fight we could be in in the future. For example, the Century-series aircraft and their contemporaries (F-4, F-8) were designed to fight an atomic war, because that's what was going to happen. Training got fixated on that as well (even more important than the aircraft themselves), and then we found ourselves in a conventional war involving missions ranging from MIGCAPs to CAS which did not work out well; the technology developed to either deliver nuclear payloads or intercept enemies with nuclear payloads, crewed by pilots who hadn't trained for that role in years, were far out of place in the skies over Vietnam.

 

In today's war, and against the current enemy, yes, UCAVs are very useful. The F-22 and F-35 probably aren't necessary to even bring in-country against the threats we're currently facing; the 4th gen fighters and heavy bombers we've been using have worked out fine. But, in the event that a new threat arrises, one which has the technology to bag our 4th-gen aircraft, like the SA-10 (which Jedi Master has pointed out) or better, we can expect to see parts of Bugs, Vipers and Eagles raining down from the skies. That "Toy" F-22 and F-35 may well be the only things keeping us from getting caught with our pants down, hitting high priority targets in SAM rich environments, or blasting the SAMs safely so our other bomb-trucks without the tech get on target.

 

Not happy about this news, but money makes the world go 'round, and cuts happen to the best of 'em.

[+malibu43 142]

What I fear is that we're repeating history, getting fixated on the fight we're in now, rather than the fight we could be in in the future. For example, the Century-series aircraft and their contemporaries (F-4, F-8) were designed to fight an atomic war, because that's what was going to happen. Training got fixated on that as well (even more important than the aircraft themselves), and then we found ourselves in a conventional war involving missions ranging from MIGCAPs to CAS which did not work out well; the technology developed to either deliver nuclear payloads or intercept enemies with nuclear payloads, crewed by pilots who hadn't trained for that role in years, were far out of place in the skies over Vietnam.

 

In today's war, and against the current enemy, yes, UCAVs are very useful. The F-22 and F-35 probably aren't necessary to even bring in-country against the threats we're currently facing; the 4th gen fighters and heavy bombers we've been using have worked out fine. But, in the event that a new threat arrises, one which has the technology to bag our 4th-gen aircraft, like the SA-10 (which Jedi Master has pointed out) or better, we can expect to see parts of Bugs, Vipers and Eagles raining down from the skies. That "Toy" F-22 and F-35 may well be the only things keeping us from getting caught with our pants down, hitting high priority targets in SAM rich environments, or blasting the SAMs safely so our other bomb-trucks without the tech get on target.

 

Not happy about this news, but money makes the world go 'round, and cuts happen to the best of 'em.

 

I think one of the key differences between what we're discussing in this thread and what happened with Vietnam, is that aircraft then weren't being designed at all with dogfighting or CAS in mind. We had to make due with what we had and wait for new designs/equipment to be developed and designed to adapt to the new situation.

 

With the current situation, we'll have F-22's and F-35's available should the need arise. And if we really needed more, it would be a matter of re-starting production vs starting the entire design/development cycle. I'm not say restarting production is as easy as flipping a switch, but it can happen relatively quickly if we need it to.

 

In other words we have aircraft built with future large scale conflicts in mind; we're just not getting WWIII quantities made up just yet.

Edited April 8, 2009 by malibu43

[censored 0]

if we really needed more, it would be a matter of re-starting production vs starting the entire design/development cycle.

 

Once production is shut down - it is over. The tooling to produce the major fuselage components will be scrapped, and the cost of reconstructing all of the tooling - and then recertifying production processes - would ensure that no one ever thought of building it again. These are not automobiles. The technology that goes into the manufacturing processes behind these warplanes is of a different order than what people experience in everyday life. That is the reason that these weapons cost so much.

 

As for whether or not Raptor production should continue, that really depends on whether or not you believe that the US will ever face an opponent that could contest the USAF and USN for air superiority. The Russians are planning to fly the prototype PAK-FA stealth fighter later this year - but it remains in doubt as to whether Russia can afford to build the airplane in any quantity. In terms of a likely scenario where the US could potentially be overwhelmed by an opponent with larger numbers of aircraft (and missiles), all of the talk keeps coming back to one subject: China, and the Taiwan Straits. Like Russia, China is also reportedly developing a stealth fighter (sometimes labeled as the J-XX). Unlike Russia, China has seen double-digit increases in its defense budget for every year in the past decade. Project that trend to 2020, keep in mind that the US can - at most - deploy only a third of its fighter force to any one theatre at a time, and ask yourself if you're feeling lucky.

[the norm 0]

i wouldent be suprised if the some of the few we have were to be used for the thunder birds.

[Erwin_Hans 6]

Once production is shut down - it is over. The tooling to produce the major fuselage components will be scrapped, and the cost of reconstructing all of the tooling - and then recertifying production processes - would ensure that no one ever thought of building it again. These are not automobiles. The technology that goes into the manufacturing processes behind these warplanes is of a different order than what people experience in everyday life. That is the reason that these weapons cost so much.

 

As for whether or not Raptor production should continue, that really depends on whether or not you believe that the US will ever face an opponent that could contest the USAF and USN for air superiority. The Russians are planning to fly the prototype PAK-FA stealth fighter later this year - but it remains in doubt as to whether Russia can afford to build the airplane in any quantity. In terms of a likely scenario where the US could potentially be overwhelmed by an opponent with larger numbers of aircraft (and missiles), all of the talk keeps coming back to one subject: China, and the Taiwan Straits. Like Russia, China is also reportedly developing a stealth fighter (sometimes labeled as the J-XX). Unlike Russia, China has seen double-digit increases in its defense budget for every year in the past decade. Project that trend to 2020, keep in mind that the US can - at most - deploy only a third of its fighter force to any one theatre at a time, and ask yourself if you're feeling lucky.

 

 

Nope.In my view,production can be rebuilded while new F-22 is needed.So,this won't be a loss of US air power.

 

And PAK-FA & J-XX. I haven't heared about too much about PAK-FA. But I heared some stories about J-XX.CAC/SAC is developing a stealth fighter---that is true. But J-XX won't be a big challenger in "the most powerfull fighter" for F-22.

 

And,we know that defense budget is in US $ counted.And we know that the exchange rate of RMB too US $.....That is a important reason why the growes so fast....And another reason..........You know PLAAF have many early J-7 in service even J-6?...these won't better than what US splashed in gulf war....Some of defense budget is costed in replaceing these old odds.......

 

And you mean Taiwan? didin't former "president" Shuibian Chen's brother[Tianfu Chen?]reisted a party called "RoC Communist Party" earlier?

[JediMaster 451]

You can build the airframe any time you want, sure. Maybe even the engines, which usually stay in production longer than the plane itself to satisfy demand for spares.

The issue is the avionics and to an equal extent the suppliers. Since aerospace production lines last so many years, they wind up using parts ONLY there. If the line shuts down, the suppliers stop making the parts. The F-22 uses processors that are obsolete now. They were top of the line when production started 10 years ago, but they're still using the same ones today! The F-35 will use current processors, but in 2020 when they're out in force those things will again be very obsolete.

Suppliers keep making things if there's a market for them. Shut down the line, no demand, they stop making them and throw out/convert the tooling to make them. Come back in 5 years and want more? Nope, sorry, we can't make them anymore!

Under the best scenarios you get things like the B-1B, U-2R/TR-1, or C-5B programs where a new variant of the plane based on the old design can be built years later. However, while the B-1A program was never in production, the other 2 had very simple avionics and such that were far more easily replaced than todays integrated designs.

 

So, to "restart" F-22 production would result in

1) the F-22B because it would be very different from a parts commonality standpoint and

2) extra costs for development and testing to get the new parts certified to work as well as the old, better if you're lucky

3) just plain higher costs because parts and labor will go up

 

In short, we can buy more F-22s now, or we can restart later, pay more for fewer, and take quite a while to get them.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

I'm thinking if there is a drastic need for huge numbers of F-22s then there will not be time to start production.while a very small chance now a large war with a nuke armed suedo-superpower (Russia,China) will for the most part be a war of you use what you got until it's gone,not much chance for replacements in a coldwar like situation.That being said some expansion of drones and counter insurgency tech is advised but to neglect conventional roles even if the situation is remote seems kinda near sited to me.Somtimes you just have to expect the worse and in these days a small counter insurgency operation can turn into a full blow war given the right(wrong) situation.I don't think there is a true right or wrong here we need them all...problem is money.I think the F-22 and F-35 should be kept in production but maybe at a slower rate and maybe even to save costs some airframes should be produced just for storage as attrition replacements and if need be used in war.At least in store costs of crews and maintenence will be much less.whats needed is a "modulare" stealth airframe that can be used for all missions being fitted out with lowcost high efficency engines and lowcost avionics/sensors for coin missions and training that can be swaped out for full blown engines and software to be used when the situation demands.Maybe in a few decades.

[+EricJ 4,244]

Yeah, but using a Chinook is like using a greyhound bus in the Indy 500. Not to mention how loud the Chook is. Apparently you can hear it LOOOOOONG before your stinger can see it. That in itself can't be good!

 

Yeah, give it two Apaches as escort, and you'll be fine

[+Dave 2,322]

Also the Chinook is still being built and upgraded. I see no reason why it couldnt get the CSAR-X job and do it well. Its the work horse in Afganistan, a proven true viable CSAR platform. Its the C-130 of the chopper world. Cost savign would be great while getting all the neat gadgets CSAR-X would of gotten.

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know how much a Chinook costs, but it has to cost more than smaller helos. I'd think we could get more for the same money if we went smaller.

[+Dave 2,322]

I don't know how much a Chinook costs, but it has to cost more than smaller helos. I'd think we could get more for the same money if we went smaller.

 

Well if you think about it though, the Chinnok is not that large. It looks large in pics but up close its not as big as you would think. I think it has the right size and power to get the job done affectively. It can carry enough troops if you need a CSAR in force, without having to bring additional choppers in as support. My main point it that is available, upgradeable and proven.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

My main point it that is available, upgradeable and proven.

 

My sentiments exactly...

 

 

...about the Blackhawk.

[+Dave 2,322]

My sentiments exactly...

 

 

...about the Blackhawk.

 

The Blackhawk is also another fine example, its only draw back is its small load capacity and its power. It works much, much better in supporting special forces and ASW than in the CSAR-X role. Do not mis understand me though, it can do the CSAR role and does it well, but the Chinook is a much more viable platform for that dedicated role.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

As someone that has done actual CSAR missions in both the Crashhawk and the s**thook, s**thook is far superior in this role. Of course it is all dependent on METT-T.

[+Dave 2,322]

You might have to explain what METT-T is to some of our lesser informed people.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

You might have to explain what METT-T is to some of our lesser informed people.

lol I don't think I want to know.

[+Jarhead1 27]

M=Mission

E=Enemy

T=Terrain

T=Troops

 

T=Time

Edited April 10, 2009 by Jarhead1

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

M=Mission

E=Enemy

T=Terrain

T=Troops

 

T=Time

Thanks. Include weather and you got, The Mailman.