Thread: F-22 successor question

What about the F-15SE? It has internal weapons carriage like the F-22, its not a start from scratch frame which means less costs and boeing has footed most of the R&D bill already, and not forgetting that it is atried and tested platform already.

The arguement it is an old frame does not cut it really, the Super hornet is just a class of its own compared to the hornet, so why not the Eagle? Besides, a frame can be a hundred years old but if it still does the job effectively why should it be dropped? We still have the B-52s roaming around don't we?

The Super Hornet and old Hornet are not the same airframe.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

CSAF and SECAF disagree, not to mention CJCS and SECDEF. so...when you got both military and civilian side in both the service and the wider armed forces thinking 187 or 191 is enough, i'd say i'd take their view.

Thats not what CSAF/SECAF said...what they said was that its too expensive, and this will have to do.

jimmy,

Thats not what CSAF/SECAF said...what they said was that its too expensive, and this will have to do

expense was only one part of the reasoning. the other two reasons, and in my mind more important part, are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041202268.html

based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment.

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

The first of those two is inconclusive. All it says is they're taking another look at it...which doesn't even matter, because the results are going to be different every time you perform a study like that. Besides, they say that 243 aircraft is a "moderate risk force." Meaning we won't always be able to use them for the tasks we need to accomplish. THAT means a few other things: first, we're going to have to expose less capable systems to higher threat areas (probably meaning casualties and aircraft losses), also it means a conflict will be prolonged because specific operations will have to be spaced out over more time. Instead of launching 3 strikes a day with Raptor support, maybe we can only get one or two. And that was at the 243-aircraft level. We're not even getting THAT many. That's more than two full squadrons worth separating the "moderate risk force" from what we're actually getting.

The second is complete fluff. The F-22 program has absolutely no bearing (aside from money) on F-35 production. They are not built in the same plants, building F-22s doesn't detract in any way (except funding) from building F-35s. The few subcontractors that are involved in both programs have plenty of capacity for both...F-22 production has always been low-yield enough to be a virtual non-factor compared to the juggernaut that is the F-35 program (well, since the initial 700+ order was brought back into reality). Nor does it have any bearing on 6th gen development. Frankly, if they haven't already started some initial work on the 6th gen design requirements, then leadership has completely dropped the ball already.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

The second is complete fluff. The F-22 program has absolutely no bearing (aside from money) on F-35 production. They are not built in the same plants, building F-22s doesn't detract in any way (except funding) from building F-35s. The few subcontractors that are involved in both programs have plenty of capacity for both...F-22 production has always been low-yield enough to be a virtual non-factor compared to the juggernaut that is the F-35 program (well, since the initial 700+ order was brought back into reality). Nor does it have any bearing on 6th gen development. Frankly, if they haven't already started some initial work on the 6th gen design requirements, then leadership has completely dropped the ball already.

Yes, I also interpreted the statement on the F-35 as a statement about money issues. One of the blogs at Aviation Week has a quote from Schwartz made after the Washington Post statement. Apparently he still thinks 243 is the military requirement.

"Two hundred and forty-three is the military requirement as articulated by the United States Air Force,"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told an audience hosted by the National Aeronautic Assn. today. But, "Nothing is free ... If it is more F-22s, what is it less of?"

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Who's Flankers can reach the United States?

Seems like some of our allies should be investing in "Flanker Killers" instead of us buying F-22s to protect their interest.

So the F-35 isn't a Flanker Killer? So the Eurofighter isn't a Flanker Killer?

Im sorry but in the RFP it doesn't say "design an aircraft that is inferior to the flanker in range & manauverability".

The Flanker is the proverbial boogyman. It's right up there with Bunyips, flying unicorns & the return of the Battleship. In 60 years time, when Russia develops the "Su 2653" based on the Su 27, and the West is on it's 10th gen fighter people will still be saying "But it doesn't have the range or manauverability of the Flanker, we're gonna die".


When a flanker unit comprehensively wipes the floor of an F-35 unit at Red Flag, then I'll believe the hype, until then it's utter cr@pola.