RIP F-22

[TheStig 38]

So is the Su-30MKI. Just not a good target for the F-15 though.... India proved that one.

[+Dave 2,319]

So is the Su-30MKI. Just not a good target for the F-15 though.... India proved that one.

 

No they didnt. For the 100th time. The F-15's were aggressors playing and not playing as USAF planes. The media hyped that one up. Been a bunch of threads on this.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

SU-27 is still a POS.

 

So are 30 year old Eagles with stressed wings...

 

 

So is the Su-30MKI. Just not a good target for the F-15 though.... India proved that one.

 

Yeah, Dave's right. During exercises with the RAF and the US, the MKI weren't allowed to use their radars, fire control and I think, their IRST, but I could be wrong about the last one. I don't have the article with me. There were strict parameters the MKIs had to fly in. It was in that context that the results were published, but this rarely got a mention in defense news.

[+Dave 2,319]

So are 30 year old Eagles with stressed wings...

 

But still have never lost in A2A combat.

 

 

 

Yeah, Dave's right. During exercises with the RAF and the US, the MKI weren't allowed to use their radars, fire control and I think, their IRST, but I could be wrong about the last one. I don't have the article with me. There were strict parameters the MKIs had to fly in. It was in that context that the results were published, but this rarely got a mention in defense news.

 

It was the same on both sides. We didnt use the AIM-9X, helmet mounted site, or AESA radar. Both were playing with hands tied behind their backs.

[eraser_tr 29]

So what, it was a guns only turning fight?

[Rambler 1-1 9]

Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced. There haven't been any real air to air battles in some time that a modern F-16 or F-15 with a well-trained pilot couldn't handle, but air to ground fighting is always in need of the latest technology.

 

Perhaps it would have been a better idea for Lockheed to apply the air to air capabilities and technology from the F-22 into a variant of the F-35. That would provide the U.S.A with a compitent aircraft that is relatively affordable and flexible, and the commonalities between it and the strike variants would make spares avaliability and maintenance easier.

 

I'm still against the cancelation of the F-22, but maybe there is a better, more reasonable way to provide a new fighter.

[MigBuster 2,876]

Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced. There haven't been any real air to air battles in some time that a modern F-16 or F-15 with a well-trained pilot couldn't handle, but air to ground fighting is always in need of the latest technology.

 

Perhaps it would have been a better idea for Lockheed to apply the air to air capabilities and technology from the F-22 into a variant of the F-35. That would provide the U.S.A with a compitent aircraft that is relatively affordable and flexible, and the commonalities between it and the strike variants would make spares avaliability and maintenance easier.

 

Well no it came out of the cold war into a world where its too advanced for everything else - but it was still right to make it - gives an advantage any AF would kill for - acts as another deterent because of that. + its probably also a case of putting the US back at the top - the rest of the world had caught up since the F-16/15 came along and started releasing jets of similar capability.

 

I'm Pretty sure the F-35 does have F-22 tech - however to get F-22 performance and stealth it needs an airframe like the F-22 - and probably a couple of engines.

[eraser_tr 29]

Did a tiny bit of research. They only made 64 F-117s, compared to 187 F-22s. And with less than 100 airframes the nighthawk had a ~25 year service history. It was a very specialized aircraft, but then again, so is the F-22. If only used for what the F-117 was, we've more than doubled the inventory of aircraft with stealth capability and can operate in the day without sticking out like a sore thumb.

[+Typhoid 231]

I'm Pretty sure the F-35 does have F-22 tech - however to get F-22 performance and stealth it needs an airframe like the F-22 - and probably a couple of engines.

 

not quite. The F-22 has about 1/10th the signature of the F-35 (at the unclass level)

 

 

 

"eraser_tr -

Did a tiny bit of research. They only made 64 F-117s, compared to 187 F-22s. And with less than 100 airframes the nighthawk had a ~25 year service history. It was a very specialized aircraft, but then again, so is the F-22. If only used for what the F-117 was, we've more than doubled the inventory of aircraft with stealth capability and can operate in the day without sticking out like a sore thumb."

 

completely different mission. Although the USAF expanded the F-22 role to include strike and developed the SDB (right decision in trying to expand the airframe count to lower the unit price to something pallateable), the F-22 primary mission is still air to air. With the reduced buy, the USAF will likely not be able to afford to task the extremely limited number of F-22's in air to ground missions. The F-117 only had to do selected strike missions on a very limited target set.

 

So we will end up tasking, and losing, greater numbers of F-35's (and their pilots) with ten times the signature on high value/highly defended targets. (Or use greater numbers of cruise missiles or eventually UCAV's).

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

So we will end up tasking, and losing, greater numbers of F-35's (and their pilots) with ten times the signature on high value/highly defended targets.

 

That may be true, but it's not like we're talking about the RCS difference between a SAAB Gripen and a B-52 here. It's more like the difference between gnat and a small marble. And then it depends on what kind of radar is trying to detect them and so on...

[rotarycrazy 4]

Did a tiny bit of research. They only made 64 F-117s, compared to 187 F-22s. And with less than 100 airframes the nighthawk had a ~25 year service history. It was a very specialized aircraft, but then again, so is the F-22. If only used for what the F-117 was, we've more than doubled the inventory of aircraft with stealth capability and can operate in the day without sticking out like a sore thumb.

 

The use of the F-117 and the F-22 are completly diferent, and the enviroment today is completly diferent too, not to mention in the future

[+Typhoid 231]

That may be true, but it's not like we're talking about the RCS difference between a SAAB Gripen and a B-52 here. It's more like the difference between gnat and a small marble. And then it depends on what kind of radar is trying to detect them and so on...

 

true enough, its all relative. But the fact is that the F-35 will be more detectable than the F-22 and will be tracked by fire control at greater ranges than the F-22, but less than the F-15, F16 and F-18. The F-35 will take losses that the F-22 will not.

 

question - how many F-35 shootdowns will it take to justify further F-22 fielding?

 

---------------

 

I have tracked B-52's before and thought my radar receiver was going to be driven into overload.....

 

[tflash 3]

Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced. There haven't been any real air to air battles in some time that a modern F-16 or F-15 with a well-trained pilot couldn't handle, but air to ground fighting is always in need of the latest technology.

 

Perhaps it would have been a better idea for Lockheed to apply the air to air capabilities and technology from the F-22 into a variant of the F-35. That would provide the U.S.A with a compitent aircraft that is relatively affordable and flexible, and the commonalities between it and the strike variants would make spares avaliability and maintenance easier.

 

I'm still against the cancelation of the F-22, but maybe there is a better, more reasonable way to provide a new fighter.

 

I agree with this view. Very sad that F-22 production is halted, it always means a loss of skills and knowledge and hard times for dedicated workers. Speeding up F-35 seems the logical thing to do now. Lessons are learned from the F-22 program that will make the F-35 better. The real issue today is the delay of F-35; anything that can help getting it faster "online" is very welcome. That is the positive side of the FY 2010 budget, seems to me.

 

And if Kim Jong-Il shows up, there are still 187 Raptors eager to kick some ass.

[+Typhoid 231]

"Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced."

 

which is why it was modified for air to ground and the Small Diameter Bomb was developed to go with it.

 

fact is, the F-22 is a much better strike aircraft than the F-35 will ever be.

 

that is why its cancellation is an Obamanation that I hope we never have to suffer for.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

To be honest, given all this, I'd be surprised if the F-15 production line doesn't continue (if it hasn't been stopped already) to produce advanced Strike and Stealth Eagles. Something's gotta be done about it due to the age of the existing aircraft. And producing more F-35s isn't going to fill the 'high' role in the US's 'High/Low' mix, especially when there's a viable alternative available.

[TheStig 38]

"Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced."

 

which is why it was modified for air to ground and the Small Diameter Bomb was developed to go with it.

 

fact is, the F-22 is a much better strike aircraft than the F-35 will ever be.

 

that is why its cancellation is an Obamanation that I hope we never have to suffer for.

 

 

I think we are reaping what we sow. A full compliment of F-35s to satisfy our armed forces will not happen until 2020. We will need the F-22 in a lot more ways than they think right now. Keep your fingers crossed; hopefully there will be Raptors in the 2011 Defense Bill.

[+Brain32 265]

OK I'm really getting sick of all this F-22 whining so let's take a look at number of advanced combat aircrafts other countries posess:

 

Russia(if that even matters as I don't see many planes fighting after we take several thousands of nukes detonated over our heads):

 

Su-34 - 10 built as of 2008

Su-35 - 12 built as of 2008

Su-37 - 2 prototypes

Su-27SM - 24

 

MiG-35 - 1 prototype

MiG-29M - on order?

MiG-29SMT -see MiG-35

 

China:

Su-30mkk - 134

J-11 - 120

J-10 - 120

 

Woooow I'm trembling, sheer horror, forget the F-22 you guys need F-222 that will cost about 222 bilion dollars to fight of this enormous force that has no wish to fight anyway

 

Seriously if you love wasting money, I'll be kinda' short in September soooo

[FastCargo 412]

Brain32,

 

It's simple...the idea is not to barely win, it's to completely dominate the skies. If that means more F-22s, then so be it.

 

Advanced tech only takes you so far. You still need numbers.

 

And keep the discussion rational folks...lets not start getting into snide remarks.

 

FC

[+Brain32 265]

Well it seems you guys are enjoying this panic, I probably miss out on the true reason, not being familiar with politics in USA, but rest assured I'll stop trying to calm you down as that seems to be unwanted...

On a final note I'll just add that I have serious trouble believing USAF would "barely win" it's competition even completely without the Raptors, maybe I think too highly of them, you guys are much closer to the real state of things so I'm sure you know much more...

[JediMaster 451]

You're looking at today. That's nice, but it's not the point.

The F-15 first flew over 35 years ago. We're still building them, brand new, for forces around the world.

The B-52 first flew in the 50s. It was "replaced" by the B-1, but we still have B-52s on the front line.

The B-1 first flew in the 70s. It was "replaced" by the B-2, but we still have B-1s on the front line.

 

What's going to replace the F-22? Not the F-35, wrong design. Usually you stop building one generation when you start designing the next (if you look, F-15C production actually stopped around the time the ATF program started in the late 80s).

If you think we won't have F-22s still flying in 2050, think again. We may still have Super Hornets then!

We built hundreds of B-52s in 15 years, of which around 50 are still in service. We're building 187 Raptors...how many will still be in service in 2050?

 

Don't talk about a hypothetical UCAS which may never come, we're talking about building TODAY what has already been paid for in R&D and literally only costs us parts and labor now vs spending a ton more money for R&D on a new (unpiloted) plane that may be cancelled.

 

So for all those wondrous numbers about what other countries have TODAY, what will they have in 2040, when all we'll have are 180+ (if we're lucky we've lost less than 7...not) Raptors and a larger number of less stealthy, less capable, less expensive F-35s.

 

 

 

One last thing that people CONTINUE to ignore. We don't need F-22s just because "they" have J-10s. They could have MiG-21s and 23s only for all it matters. What counts is do they have old SA-6s still, or are they using modern S-300 and S-400 and whatever else SAMs in 2040? Just because our F-15s can beat their whatever-they-are over OUR airspace, what about if we're fighting over THEIRS? Remember the F-22 has officially been given the F-117s mission, so it will be sent in where the F-35s can't even be sent to take out SAMs (because you always will send an F-22 before a B-2).

We're paying today for our security for decades to come. Don't think it's so easy to restart F-22 production in 20 years when we're going to "need" them, because it won't be and it will be too late then. We paid for F-22 development during the 90s when we had the money to spare. The country is now broke until 2050 pretty much, so we need what we can get.

[FastCargo 412]

Also, speaking about UCAVs, everyone seems to think they are cheap.

 

They are most definitely NOT cheap, especially if you're designing one from scratch. And they still have significant limitations and vulnerabilities that aren't talked about too much.

 

FC

[shotdown 8]

Well, the question is what will happen to the money. Will it be spent as promised; to further and speed up the F-35 program? Or will it end up elsewhere, not helping anyone.

 

Knowing politicians i wouldn't be surprised if it ended "invested" in Las Vegas.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Well said, I hope after fixing up this procurement system, we can go back to building more. Another thread one of the military guys here (I think it was USAFBLT) talking about the system and if we had the current system in WW2, we'd be flying spads.

 

I've told the story about engineering drafts and serial numbers for floppy disks a few times already. Given the iconic $400 hammer (or $70 for a floppy) compared to a Craftsman hammer for $3, if we fixed up the system so that $700 hammer costs a normal market price (or at least close to it after whatever specifications) Imagine how much that same system is inflating aircraft! Imagine getting raptors at $15m each. How sweet would that be?

 

Unfortunately, to get the system under control and reform it, these kinds of things need to be done, however painful.

 

Movie: Independence Day.

Setting: U.S. President walks inside Area 51.

 

President Thomas Whitmore: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?

Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?

 

So yeah, you gotta fund that which doesn't exist or isn't there somehow, right?

 

In any case, wether F-22 or no F-22, my hope is that they just get a production line re-opened for the A-10...

[JediMaster 451]

The A-10s are being converted to the A-10C as we speak, they're not going anywhere. Also, we tend to lose a lot fewer of those, in peace and combat, than you might expect!

[+Brain32 265]

With this kind of export policy: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...per-hornet.html

 

...I would look for problems outside of presidents office.

 

200 mil.$ for one SuperHornet?!?!?!?!?