F-22 Raptor Cut today?

[TheStig 38]

Someone tell me I'm hearing things? Gates said today that the Raptor line is stopping at 187?!

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

Raptors limited to 187 (and for reference, as of 2007 the USAF had 550 F-15C's in active service and another 145 in ANG service, how do they expect 187 F-22A's to replace that I have no idea).

 

F-35 production accelerated, no change in order. (Production acceleration brings it back to 2006 level.)

 

Alaska Missile Shield canceled. (right after North Korea's rocket launch?)

 

2nd ABL canceled.

 

DDG-1000 canceled after two ships.

 

Presidential helicopter replacement canceled, even though they say they need a new one.

 

KC-X competition restarts in the summer, but some of what Gates said leaves me concerned. Basically saying, we'll making the rules, and if they complain to the GAO who cares. Doesn't really seem right.

 

There was more stuff but that was the stuff I remembered. Lots of people are going to lose jobs thanks to this, that's for sure.

[TheStig 38]

How can we have adequate defense of our country without the latest technology? Pretty crappy that we are blowing billions (err trillions) on bailouts, banks, and garbage spending as to re-equiping our military to deal with 21st century threats.

 

I know that history has proven production can be restarted (i.e. Carter's B-1 cut and Reagan's B-1 recovery), but what about the Raptor? Can this even be restarted?

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

Well, Congress and the Lobbyists will still have their say. I'd hope that the F-22 line will remain dorment at least. With only 187 birds I can't imagine they've left themselves much leeway for airframe replacements. Accidents can and will happen after all. They keep discussing the cost of the F-22 without considering that the development phase provided a lot of new information and technology for future projects. This is why I think its unfair to include development costs in the airframe costs. At least give companies credit for investing in the future.

[+DoctorQuest 107]

I understand some of the logic in that we have been fighting two wars in which an aircraft like the F-22 really does not have a role to play. We are getting more use out of drones and choppers, for instance.

 

Yes, from a "I love airplanes" perspective I hate to see the F-22 die but I'll have to admit I'm not sure where it fits in today's conflicts. The F-35 might just be a better use of our money.

 

The bottom line is that this defense budget is STILL bigger than last years.

[GwynO 16]

It does suck that cost is so often cited as the major block to the cutting edge (at least publicly known) military tech advances. But we are all eating the proverbial economic **** sandwich and will be for a few more years. Hopefully, by spending the trillions upon trillions needed to keep the global economy on it's knees long enough for it to pick up again, then eventually there will be a resumption of the programme. Who knows, maybe they will be even better in the future, whatever happens, I seriously doubt they would completely destroy the programme as they did the TSR.2

 

I hope one day the UK will have a carrier force and something good to put on them, when we afford them. Worth remembering regards F-22 project is the lessons learned by the fall of the USSR, when you have a choice between military spending or economic stability... choose economic stability or you won't have a country left to defend.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Kopis n Xiphos

[Icarus999 70]

I understand some of the logic in that we have been fighting two wars in which an aircraft like the F-22 really does not have a role to play. We are getting more use out of drones and choppers, for instance.

 

Yes, from a "I love airplanes" perspective I hate to see the F-22 die but I'll have to admit I'm not sure where it fits in today's conflicts. The F-35 might just be a better use of our money.

 

The bottom line is that this defense budget is STILL bigger than last years.

 

That is what they are focused on, today's conflicts, that has been a problem we have seen over and over, short memory's and the lack of imagination to visualize probable future threats.

There is no shortage of excellent fighters out there that will run circles around the F-35 (from what is publicly known about it's capabilities) and the f-15 fleet is getting pretty old.

This is a bad... bad decision mark my words.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

That is what they are focused on, today's conflicts, that has been a problem we have seen over and over, short memory's and the lack of imagination to visualize probable future threats.

There is no shortage of excellent fighters out there that will run circles around the F-35 (from what is publicly known about it's capabilities) and the f-15 fleet is getting pretty old.

This is a bad... bad decision mark my words.

 

The US will be fine. Tactics, training, strategic capabilities etc. are all factors you seem to be discounting. Those fighters (in small numbers as well) that "will run circles around the F-35" have to get to the merge first. Then they have to get an advantage on pilots that probably have more flight hours in a month than they do in a year.

 

Just something to consider.

[Hokum 0]

The F-22 is ideal for home defence, where it can be supported and maintained. The F-22 probably has sufficient numbers to keep any enemy aircraft away from the states.

 

Its not an aircraft you want to be throwing about in iraq or afganistan. Its probably best to use up the flight time in old models doing that.

 

As for the F-35, i dont like it (nothing personal) never have.

 

What is needed by the UK and US is an A-10 replacement, and as much as i like the hog the airframes have to have some time on them now and the F-35 is not a replacement for that, no matter how much they say it is.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Hokum

[zmatt 2]

That is what they are focused on, today's conflicts, that has been a problem we have seen over and over, short memory's and the lack of imagination to visualize probable future threats.

There is no shortage of excellent fighters out there that will run circles around the F-35 (from what is publicly known about it's capabilities) and the f-15 fleet is getting pretty old.

This is a bad... bad decision mark my words.

 

I agree, we always prepare for yesterday's war. Not for tomorrow's. There will always be wars between nations and there will always be a need for things like the Raptor, the guy who invested in it will come out on top. You can tout pilot training as much as you want but there is a point when the technological gap becomes too much. Our Pilots are good, really good, but they aren't super human. It's the same kind of thinking that got us into the air situation in Vietnam. They thought guns were dead and big fast interceptors would rule. Now they say fighters are dead and cheap robots can do it. I doubt the cost of life will be as large since its robots we are talking about, but the kick in the face will be just the same. Next time we go against a country with a decent military we will be wishing we had those extra raptors.

[hhf 0]

F-22 and F-35 are pure waste of money.

 

US militaries should think about weapons, offering a better relation of costs and effects. And further - much more money should be invested in avoiding military conflicts.

 

Look at the astronomic costs of Iraqi war. Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted to destroy a countries infrastructure and to cement the instability in this

 

region and the hate to the invadors. High tech weapons cannot fight the poverty and political crisis in the far east - today less than ever before. 

 

Useless weapons like these are the monument of an antiquated strategy of foreign politics and nothing more.

 

 

 

Don't misunderstand me: I like military aircrafts (though I'd more like to see the YF-23 instead of the F-22 in duty) from a technical and flying fascination.

 

But in today's reality, their purpose and use should be completely be rethought. 

[+ST0RM 145]

It's common knowledge that I'm not a huge fan of the Raptor. It's A-to-A ability is nearly unmatched (the Typhoon does pretty darn well) but it still lags behind in the A-to-G role. In today's limited budget, that should have been a larger priority and it hasn't. 187 jets will do fine.

 

The F-35. Another jet that I feel is not needed. Gone are the days of a large force on force conflict. Surgical strikes are the key. We've got Preds and Reapers doing great work. Combined with the Raptors above who advertise their ability to "kick the doors down", the UAVs can go in and hit the stragglers. The money would be better spent on additional F-15Es and the newer Blocks of F-16s. The UAE paid for all of the R&D for the Block 60, so why didn't we grab some? The F-16CG Block 40/42 jets are 20 years old and the AFRes/ANG are just now getting "new" Block 30/32s.

 

Gates has killed the CSAR-X competition and VH-71 program. The MH-53 retired in 08, leaving the HH-60Gs to soldier on with the CV-22. Guys, the -60s are also 20+ years old and were only bought as a short term airframe. Plus the CV-22 still has several limitations due to the tilt rotor design that a conventional helo can only do.

 

After all is said and done, the USAF took it in the nuts, while the Navy is going to do pretty well. They still get their new carriers (1 every 5 years), a few of the new class of DDGs, plus they want to reopen the DDG-51 Burke class ships, the new SSBN to replace the Ohios and more Super Hornets.

 

I hope they plan on making those Super Hornets full time tankers, because ours are nearly tapped out.

 

-S

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

They only made about a hundred B-58s before their numbers were cut just as quickly. That plane was one that could impress folks. If they need an F-15 replacement for a hot no-rules airwar, they can start building Lockheed F-12 or NAA F-108, or more current and far more advanced derivatives of them.

[MigBuster 2,861]

F-22 and F-35 are pure waste of money.

 

But in today's reality, their purpose and use should be completely be rethought. 

 

Totally disagree - both were conceived to fight in a cold war scenario but the R&D and dev work was carried out from the 80s and you probably dont know this but the YF-22/23 were actually flying in 1990 - and even though the USSR fell apart then it would have been pretty naive and pathetic to think about cancelling such projects in an uncertain world - particularly when the US could easily afford to do it and needed to replace the ageing legacy fleet - also the Soviets had already developed the SU-27 / Mig-29 /MiG-31 which put them on par or better with current western fighters.

 

The F-22 is in service now and no one can match it so therefore its a pretty flippin good deterent - after all who said it should be a fair fight??. Good modern Russian SAM systems are relatively cheap but very effective against 4 - 4.5 gen fighters - so as a tin pot dictator i might be able to deter any one from my military by buying loads and doing exactly what the hell I like - so if they invade a friendly country do you just threaten to nuke them or ignore it completely - whats the solution there?

 

I know it wont solve world poverty - but im afraid the money and power in this world is in the hands of politicians so nothing ever will!!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I think the poaster was to some degree, saying, we install the tin pot dictators...lol.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

F-22 and F-35 are pure waste of money.

 

Maybe, maybe not. The F-22 is one helluva plane, but when it's cost is about the same as a contemporary frigate, you can't seriously expect to more than a couple hundred total to be serving. I think the JSF idea was the way to go, applying the stealth/sensor fusion technologies to a multirole platform while not having to develop the technologies from scratch, which is what the ATF/Raptor program pretty much had to do. Now, if a second generation Raptor specialising on combining lowering the cost of the production/unit price with the upgrades needed to stay competitive on the market, the USAF would find themselves in a much cozier position than now with the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" methods of cut backs they're facing to fund the program (well, not now I guess).

[Shaolin 0]

I think the poaster was to some degree, saying, we install the tin pot dictators...lol.

 

Wasn't that the CIA's "hobby" for decades?

[+Dave 2,318]

It's common knowledge that I'm not a huge fan of the Raptor. It's A-to-A ability is nearly unmatched (the Typhoon does pretty darn well) but it still lags behind in the A-to-G role.

 

Totally disagree Jeff. The Holloman F-22's are pure A2G birds.They replaced the F-117 there for the reason of doing the Nighthawk's job, better faster and more of a payload. And can fight its way in and out if need be. However the F-22 is way overpriced and that is what gets it killed. We need the F-35's to replace the F-16's that are getting up there in years. F-35 will not replace an A-10 in its role for as good as the A-10 does it. They can say it will replace the F-35, but we all know better.

 

Having said that, Jeff is right, the AF got kicked in the balls. We need new tankers, C-5's need to be replaced (I can tell you that for a fact) our F-15's and 16's are getting long in the tooth. Something must be done but hell if I know what it is.

 

I do agree with something Gates said though. We need to quit thinking in large engagements and start thinking about more fights we are in now. Small skirmishes, battling insurgents etc. (Yes we need the capability to fight a big war if need be) but the focus should be what I said earlier. More specialized units etc.

[Chaser617 0]

The Question I have would it be less expensive to build an 'advanced' variant of the F-15 than continue the path that we have for the F-22, that has been the suggestion I've seen and part of me wants to say 'no' because I honestly do not know if Boeing even still has all the tools and dies for the Eagle. I've also heard about re-opening the KC-10 production but again, I don't think that's even possible, for the same reason above, the production line simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

The CSAR-X really has stumped me. This seems like a project that is in line with fighting insurgency campaigns because, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't CSAR helo do fairly good 'swing' duty as special operations aircraft?

[MigBuster 2,861]

The Question I have would it be less expensive to build an 'advanced' variant of the F-15 than continue the path that we have for the F-22, that has been the suggestion I've seen and part of me wants to say 'no' because I honestly do not know if Boeing even still has all the tools and dies for the Eagle. I've also heard about re-opening the KC-10 production but again, I don't think that's even possible, for the same reason above, the production line simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

Um - Have you not seen the F-15 Silent Eagle?

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=38352

Edited April 7, 2009 by MigBuster

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

The CSAR-X really has stumped me. This seems like a project that is in line with fighting insurgency campaigns because, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't CSAR helo do fairly good 'swing' duty as special operations aircraft?

 

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!

[Roopod 0]

Todays reality: North Korea launches their "satellite" which can reach the state of Alaska. The US responds by cutting development of their missile defence shield in Alaska. While Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, and Russia are either developing, expanding, or modernizing their nuclear weapon capabilities, the US vows unilateral elimination of theirs. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

 

As to cuts in military modernization programs? The F-22 would have actually saved money over time by elimination of other expensive older aircraft required to do the same job. Over time it would have saved money by lowering the number of aircraft needed to do the same job. Which was one of the goals for its procurement. This doesn't save money; it only scores political points. Which is why these programs are being cut for politically expendient reasons and not financial ones. This 44th President has already promised to spend twice the amount that all preceding 43 Presidents had already spent, combined. So don't think this is to save money. I don't find my strength in ignorance.

[TheStig 38]

Um - Have you not seen the F-15 Silent Eagle?

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=38352

 

 

Yea but it's radar cross section is still larger than a Raptor. Heat signature is HUGE still on it too. Lockheed's creation is for export to countries that one some stealth technology on their aircraft. It is nowhere near as advanced as an F-22.

 

We are making a huge mistake here in the long run cutting a plane that will give us service until at least 2030.

Edited April 7, 2009 by TheStig

[MigBuster 2,861]

Yea but it's radar cross section is still larger than a Raptor. Heat signature is HUGE still on it too. Lockheed's creation is for export to countries that one some stealth technology on their aircraft. It is nowhere near as advanced as an F-22.

 

We are making a huge mistake here in the long run cutting a plane that will give us service until at least 2030.

 

 

The SE is not that cheap either - I dont think its a viable option myself.

 

2030 - id hope its a lot longer than that - the F-15/16s could be about till 2025 apparently

Edited April 7, 2009 by MigBuster

[TheStig 38]

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.