F-22 Raptor.

#1
gsvol

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
10
#1
The Lockheed Martin F-22 production line is dead, dead, dead. The US Air Force won't buy any more and foreign customers can't by any more. The age of Raptor production is over; long live the Lightning II.


Or, is it?

F-22%20UAE%20exercise%20credit%20DOD-thumb-560x372-57280.jpg
 
#2
#2
As badarse as the Raptor is, it simply isn't worth the cost when the F-15 can currently blow anything out of the sky and is undefeated in air-to-air combat. The next generation MiG's and what not is mostly hype IMO.
 
#4
#4
rjd970 said:
As badarse as the Raptor is, it simply isn't worth the cost when the F-15 can currently blow anything out of the sky and is undefeated in air-to-air combat. The next generation MiG's and what not is mostly hype IMO.
Click to expand...

The F-15 is getting a bit long in tooth, it's a great interceptor but in mock air battles the F-22 has a 100% win rate vs all comers, including the F-15.

BTW, we are taking F-15 and F-16 squadrons out of service with the caveat that they will be replaced by the F-35 which is not in production, behind schedule and very very costly. (A lot more costly than the F-22 and probably not as good although the multi-purpose aspect is the main selling point.)

We have also just sold some of our most advanced F-16s, smart bomb technology and drone aircraft to Pakistan, supposedly to fight the Taliban.

The Russians are selling some of their latest, (supposedly comparible to the F-22) to India. (can't say how much of that is hype.)

At any rate the muslims want back the Kashmir. (and all other places they have deemed to have been conquered in the past.) We'll see how that plays out.
 
#5
#5
The F-15 has a 100% win rate vs. all comers, in real combat, is what I am saying. The F-15 is old, but with the recent technology advances it is more cost effective to upgrade the current fleet of F-15 with advanced avionics and radars. Don't get me wrong, the F-22 is stout, but the cost of the technology isn't really feasible. In this time of military cutbacks, it is the best option for a cut right now with the Air Force.

The F-16 is outdated. They are cheap and not really used for air-to-air escort/intercept anymore. They are glorified bomb haulers at this point. Pakistan or whoever having those is not a threat in the least. What we should be worried about is the F-15's we are selling to Saudi Arabia.

Trust me, the Russian stuff is all talk. In real combat those things will fail. They have major power issues and their stealth technology is withcraft. I would say they are more comparable to the new F-15 silent eagle (stealth version of F-15), but probably still not as good. They put all their research into maneuverability, which against advanced radar and long range missiles is completely useless. Up against a F-35 it wouldn't even be a fight and the Russian/Chinese stuff would dead before it even knew it was in an engagement.

The F-35, while being mulit-purpose, is still 3 different aircraft basically. It is only joint in name, which is where alot of its production and cost issues come into play.
 
#6
#6
I think the F15 is a fine bird, but the average airframe time of those are very very high. They are going to need to be replaced and within the next 5 years.
 
#7
#7
You would be surprised what upgraded avionics, radar, and weapon systems buys you in terms of effectiveness. And it is a lot cheaper then building a new bird. I've seen much of the relevant data and it is surprising what the solution looks like when cost and effectiveness are factored together.

I think the F-22 program should continue as a R&D program to reduce the cost of technology, but putting it into production right now just doesn't make sense.
 
#8
#8
No matter how much avionics upgrades and such you do, it doesnt help the fact that these birds are getting old airframe wise. Much like the FA18 A-D's, they are having to drastically cut back flight hours to save airframe time because they dont have anything in production yet to replace them. There are only so many airframe reworks that they can do until they have exhausted every ounce of time the airframe was designed for.
 
#10
#10
A little blurb on the subject:

[FONT=arial,verdana,helvetica,sans serif]Aging Airframes in Perspective[/FONT][FONT=arial,verdana,helvetica,sans serif]The US Air Force is operating the oldest fleet it has ever fielded in its 60-year history. With an average age of a quarter of a century, Air Force airplanes are costing more to maintain than ever before and these systems are increasingly less combat effective as evolving technologies around the globe are meeting and surpassing their capabilities. The structural challenges we have seen in the F-15A-D fleet dramatically illustrate that we can only push these aging airframes so far before they simply fail. The Air Force Association takes this situation with extreme seriousness and continually advocates for Air Force modernization and recapitalization on Capitol Hill, within the policy community and the media. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,verdana,helvetica,sans serif]To help put this aging airframe issue in perspective, we recently matched the various dates when aircraft from the Air Force fleet officially entered service (Initial Operating Capability) with the events that were occurring during those same respective years. On a first glance this comparison is amusing. However, upon a second look it is clear that we face a very serious situation and must do everything possible to address this critical issue. As one Air Force senior leader recently remarked, “It was kind of funny...in a nostalgic way...to fly the same jet as 2-star that I flew as a butter bar. I'm finding it difficult to see the humor in my one-bar son flying it.”[/FONT]

For whole story

http://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_2-11-08.asp
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
You think some of those F15's are old, try looking at the active F18 A/C fleet and most of those airframes are older than most on this board.
 
#12
#12
The F-15 E/F strike eagles aren't as old, and if Boeing wins the contract to build the silent eagles the production line stays alive. F-15's are an old design, but can and still are being built for foreign customers. Anyway you cut it, it is life-cycle cheaper to build upgraded F-15's then F-22's.

I still say don't completely do away with the F-22, but at best they should drastically cut the number ordered, if not completely stop production and turn the program into an R&D initiative.
 
#13
#13
BearCat204 said:
No matter how much avionics upgrades and such you do, it doesnt help the fact that these birds are getting old airframe wise. Much like the FA18 A-D's, they are having to drastically cut back flight hours to save airframe time because they dont have anything in production yet to replace them. There are only so many airframe reworks that they can do until they have exhausted every ounce of time the airframe was designed for.
Click to expand...

Tha't's why we should keep the F-22 line in production, maybe at drasticaly reduced rates but keep it going until an alternative of some sort is available. :good!:
 
#14
#14
rjd970 said:
The F-15 E/F strike eagles aren't as old, and if Boeing wins the contract to build the silent eagles the production line stays alive. F-15's are an old design, but can and still are being built for foreign customers. Anyway you cut it, it is life-cycle cheaper to build upgraded F-15's then F-22's.

I still say don't completely do away with the F-22, but at best they should drastically cut the number ordered, if not completely stop production and turn the program into an R&D initiative.
Click to expand...

You can always get discussion on this topic, (if not perhaps recent Balkan history, I guess many people find it hard to admit they have been completely duped.) :)

I pretty much agree with you.

Notice what Rand's study said about cost per unit if we shut it down completely and then restart it vs keeping it in production, (in limited numbers.)

Tell me more about those 'silent eagles.'
 
#16
#16
Here's what I've got to say about this.

If you are going into a gunfight, you don't want the second fastest gun.

:)
 
#17
#17
MWR said:
Here's what I've got to say about this.

If you are going into a gunfight, you don't want the second fastest gun.

:)
Click to expand...

Well you don't want to take a knife to a gunfight either. :p
 
#18
#18
You pretty much don't want to bring anything less than a gun to a gunfight, if you think about it.
 
#20
#20
gsvol said:
You can always get discussion on this topic, (if not perhaps recent Balkan history, I guess many people find it hard to admit they have been completely duped.) :)

I pretty much agree with you.

Notice what Rand's study said about cost per unit if we shut it down completely and then restart it vs keeping it in production, (in limited numbers.)

Tell me more about those 'silent eagles.'
Click to expand...

PICTURES: Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features-17/03/2009-Washington DC-Flight International

It is basically a poor man's version of the F-22, but it has near the same effectiveness (I'm assuming) at a much reduced cost (again, assuming).
 
#21
#21
#22
#22
IPorange said:
Seems like it is missing several key features of the f-22 in the stealth department...
Click to expand...

With the conformal fuel tanks, internal carriage, and the right treatments you can get pretty close. If they are saying fifth generation it is pretty good.

I would think the big trade-off would be the degraded flight envelope. I seriously doubt it has the range or supercruise capability of the raptor, and I would be willing to bet it doesn't have the thrust vectoring as well.
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
PICTURES: Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features-17/03/2009-Washington DC-Flight International

It is basically a poor man's version of the F-22, but it has near the same effectiveness (I'm assuming) at a much reduced cost (again, assuming).
Click to expand...

Which would you rather have in the sky?
One F-22 or two F-15SEs.

One 22 costs less that two 15s. (unless we stop production completely and then restart it on down the road.)

Looks good:

boeing-f-15se.jpg


This should be good for Boeing and one of my children works for them, so that's good.

Since this is primarily designed for export sales, that shouldn't affect the F-22 production for our own USAF.

Out of curiosity, what is the projected Navy replacement for the F-18??
 
#24
#24
gsvol said:
1. Which would you rather have in the sky?
One F-22 or two F-15SEs.

One 22 costs less that two 15s. (unless we stop production completely and then restart it on down the road.)

Looks good:

boeing-f-15se.jpg


This should be good for Boeing and one of my children works for them, so that's good.

Since this is primarily designed for export sales, that shouldn't affect the F-22 production for our own USAF.

2. Out of curiosity, what is the projected Navy replacement for the F-18??
Click to expand...

1. Depends on the mission profile and threat. Certainly the F-22 fills a gap, but the question is how big a gap and at what cost. I could see a squadron of F-15SE (or even current legacy upgraded F-15's) with support aircraft (jammers, tankers, etc) still being cheaper and just as effective as using a squadron of F-22's by themselves. It is just a matter of what you want to trade. Using the F-22 alone should certainly still be on the table, but the cost-benefit is the limiting factor. In a perfect world with unlimited funding, yes, the F-22 is the best option.

2. As of now, I believe the Navy 2020 architecture is to replace the F-18 mission with a mix of F-35's as interceptor, and UCAS's as bomb haulers. The use of UCAS to do the D3 (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous) missions is the added benefit of using two platforms to conduct the mission the F-18 currently does as a single platform. Not completely sure about all that because the DoD holds that pretty close to the vest, but it seems like the direction they want to go.
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
1. Depends on the mission profile and threat. Certainly the F-22 fills a gap, but the question is how big a gap and at what cost. I could see a squadron of F-15SE (or even current legacy upgraded F-15's) with support aircraft (jammers, tankers, etc) still being cheaper and just as effective as using a squadron of F-22's by themselves. It is just a matter of what you want to trade. Using the F-22 alone should certainly still be on the table, but the cost-benefit is the limiting factor. In a perfect world with unlimited funding, yes, the F-22 is the best option.

2. As of now, I believe the Navy 2020 architecture is to replace the F-18 mission with a mix of F-35's as interceptor, and UCAS's as bomb haulers. The use of UCAS to do the D3 (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous) missions is the added benefit of using two platforms to conduct the mission the F-18 currently does as a single platform. Not completely sure about all that because the DoD holds that pretty close to the vest, but it seems like the direction they want to go.
Click to expand...

1. Let's say you wanted air superiority over Iran, Taiwan or Kashmir or even Alaska for instance and you couldn't get air carriers near enough to be effective, (for whatever reason), I don't think the F-15s could accomplish the mission. Perhaps with disposable fuel pods. At any rate we seem to have unlimited funding these days for most everything else.

2. They must be planning on using the F-18 for several more years, I doubt the F-35 will be in production for quite a while, if ever. Looks like the F-22 could be carrier based and cost considerably less than F-35s.

You would still need something for D3 work but after just a few hours the F-22 can eliminate enemy aircraft, radar and anti-aircraft sites. (At least that's my understanding of F-22 capability without reviewing.)

I wasn't familiar with the UCAS (I guess the latest of which is the XB-47) so I looked it up.

Article on testing.

It's sort of a 'technology is moving so fast it's hard to settle on one set of factors and put it into production.'

I'm not impressed with either payload or sustained air time or range. Call me old fashioned but I hate to see us get totally away from manned aircraft.

When it comes to drones Israel recently announced their newest drone (not feasable for carriers), it has a 24 hr sustained flight time, huge payload with wings about the size of a 707 and is 79' long. (wonder what the mullahs have to say about that?)

From March 4, 2010, yesterday:

The Boeing Company today announced that it has been awarded an $11.4 million contract to supply Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions (Laser JDAM) to meet the U.S. Navy’s Direct Attack Moving Target Capability (DAMTC) requirement.

Thanks for you knowledgeable feedback, like the DoD gives a hoot about what I think anyway. :p
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top