Successor to F-22 by 2025

**Chunder** · 02 Mar 10, 08:37

It isn't an E-3, but wedgetail is a 737 based platform. Correct me if Im wrong but some consoles can be multi functioned now. It is just as much a function of range as operator fatigue... Edit - Time on station is 9 hours, which is basically the same as the JASDF E-767.

**LGB** · 02 Mar 10, 10:05

The 30 year air plan has a lot of assumptions vis a vis the F-35 that are clearly wrong. Flight testing is extremely far behind- with 7 months left in the current FY they've flown around 30 of 1,200 flights. IOC has been pushed back to late 2015 (meaning 2016). Dr Carter just moved full rate production out to November 2015 in his Feb 24 memo.

To attempt to deal with the flight test program they are going to buy one additional test aircraft and transfer 3 LRIP (which would have gone to IOT&E). The F-35 will certainly realize additional delays for a variety of reasons, beyond those that appear when they actually get significant flight testing done, that is if LM can actually figure out how to build them.

In any case the 80 a year is projected for USAF F-35A's only. How much an F-35 turns out to cost is entirely open to debate but it will be north of $100 million and this is going to negatively impact how many are built.

Problems with JSF might also impact when the USAF begins funding F-X. Personally I would not let LM participate.

**Chogy** · 02 Mar 10, 14:57

That mission doesn't require split second reactions, etc etc. If a Reaper picks up on a possible target, there are human analysts who make the decision to strike or not, the machine itself doesn't. With its mission, that's fine. You have the time to do that. Air combat doesn't necessarily have that kind of time. It literally is an environment where waiting a few seconds (to accommodate latency inherent in a remote-controlled system) IS the difference between getting schwacked and being the winner. The other alternative is some sort of AI or giving the aircraft the ability to fire based on a simple yes/no ID matrix...that there's no WAY the US will go that route anytime soon. Maybe someday we'll be able to field something along one of these lines...but not now, and not anytime soon.

Well said Jimmy and thank you; I grow tired defending manned aircraft, especially for air to air, but also for traditional fluid CAS roles. There is a world of difference between a Predator buzzing along for hours and eventually picking up a lone target to smack, and a flight of A-10's strafing armor or enemy positions in close contact with friendlies.

I find the F-22 timeline to be pessimistic. Our current fighter fleet was designed in the 70's, operational in the 80's, and has been going strong since, over 30 years. And we see the development timeline for potential opposition lengthening, not shortening.

Money should be spent on improving current designs, less so for new designs.

**TopHatter** · 02 Mar 10, 15:12

Originally Posted by Jimmy

In any case, it's so far off the Air Force isn't even looking at a replacement yet. The airframes are still solid, there are hundreds of spare engines, and money is scarce, to say the least. The E-3 is going to be around for a long time.

Thanks for the rundown Jimmy, I was thinking 787 at first but then I thought "Is she big enough?".

**highsea** · 02 Mar 10, 23:10

Originally Posted by Jimmy

...The other alternative is some sort of AI or giving the aircraft the ability to fire based on a simple yes/no ID matrix...that there's no WAY the US will go that route anytime soon. Maybe someday we'll be able to field something along one of these lines...but not now, and not anytime soon.

We've been experimenting with that since the late 70's. DARPA had a YF-16 that could perform a sort of automated ACM, but the pilot still designated the targets from within the cockpit. Basically he used a cursor to pick primary and secondary targets, and the jet would fly an evasive/setup maneuver and make an attack on the target's beam.

Problem for full automony was with NCTR back then- we were still relying on counting fan blades. Today it's a little different, we have NCTR based on radar imaging and range profiling, and it's more reliable. Whether we actually used it would be a political decision rather than a technical one.

Technologically it's do-able today, you could have a "mother ship" or AWACS platform designating the targets from standoff ranges based on NCTR data, and the UCAV could fly a pre-programmed attack profile.

Not arguing it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's technologically feasable to have (at least) some level of unmanned fighters. But I tend to see it as more of a "denial of airspace" mission than anything else.

**scorefour** · 02 Mar 10, 23:27

I still remember when the F-22 program was launched, we were told that that it incorporated technologies that no other country was likely to get until the 2040's. IOC was reached in 2005 and already we're talking about a replacement.
Does the US have something far better up their sleeve or do they think that PAK-FA has already caught up?

**Jimmy** · 03 Mar 10, 01:13

The AF is well aware of how long the F-22 took to be in service. The program was started in 1981. F-15Cs weren't even halfway through their production run (there are tails from 1986). Even starting now, I think 2025 is insanely optimistic. I'd be surprised at an IOC before 2040, unless LM and Boeing get yanked back in line.

**highsea** · 03 Mar 10, 02:03

^^^ What did Boeing do wrong?

Super Hornets were and are being delivered on time and on budget. The F-22 wingsets were delivered on schedule, All the new F-15's have been on schedule AFAIK.

The delays on Wedgetail and tankers weren't all Boeing's doing, but they took the heat because they were the prime. But most the problems came from the subs- Northrup, BAE, Aeronavali.

Heck, Boeing yanked two 767 frames back to Witchita because they just sat for 2 years in Italy.

**Jimmy** · 03 Mar 10, 02:11

They may not be the worst offenders, but they have the same problems as the other companies. Aside from the tanker fiasco (which I realize they took more flak than they earned), most of their stuff that I've seen is smaller-scale. I've seen enough at my level that I can't say I like them as a company very much. They have no problem screwing us over.

**highsea** · 03 Mar 10, 02:31

Well the tanker deal they were the screwees, imo. McCain was in bed with EADS, and tell me one Defense contractor that doesn't have former DOD acquisition people working for them.

Boeing spent a billion dollars of their own money and over ten years of consultations with the AF on developing the KC-767, only to get shafted by politics.

They have a 50+ year history of supporting the USAF and providing solid and functional platforms for the mission.

Lockmart is a different story- they lowball every bid and triple the price later.

But Boeing has operated above board in practically everything they've done, from missile defense and space launch to fighters to E-3 to Chinooks to the tankers.

And those spares are always there- I was building KC-135 landing gears in the mid-90's, 30 years after Boeing had stopped building the airframes. And I had 5 years worth of forgings in the warehouse.

I don't know how they screwed you over, but I would first look at the acquisition process itself if I wanted to find a problem.

**Jimmy** · 03 Mar 10, 06:17

It's mostly on the support side...not really something to go into details here, but over a beer I'd rant a bit.

**highsea** · 03 Mar 10, 17:30

Originally Posted by Jimmy

...not really something to go into details here, but over a beer I'd rant a bit.

Well if you're ever in Portland, send me a PM and I'll buy the first round.

**Stitch** · 03 Mar 10, 18:51

Originally Posted by highsea

Well the tanker deal they were the screwees, imo. McCain was in bed with EADS, and tell me one Defense contractor that doesn't have former DOD acquisition people working for them.

Boeing spent a billion dollars of their own money and over ten years of consultations with the AF on developing the KC-767, only to get shafted by politics.

They have a 50+ year history of supporting the USAF and providing solid and functional platforms for the mission.

Lockmart is a different story- they lowball every bid and triple the price later.

But Boeing has operated above board in practically everything they've done, from missile defense and space launch to fighters to E-3 to Chinooks to the tankers.

Agree with you on the tanker deal, I think they got a raw deal; I was actually glad to see them appeal the DoD decision on the procurement of the A330. I think the KC-767 will be a more flexible platform requiring fewer special support systems than the EADS offering. Italy and Japan already operate the type, so I believe there will be a less protracted integration process if and when the USAF purchases it.

Originally Posted by highsea

And those spares are always there- I was building KC-135 landing gears in the mid-90's, 30 years after Boeing had stopped building the airframes. And I had 5 years worth of forgings in the warehouse.

Five years? Really? That's a lot of cash laying around. I understand that landing gear forgings are very expensive due to the high quality required to make them reliable. With other aircraft parts, you might be able to get away with a slightly inferior product, but not the landing gear; it's gotta be perfect, or it doesn't go on the plane.

**highsea** · 03 Mar 10, 19:09

Originally Posted by Stitch

...Five years? Really? That's a lot of cash laying around. I understand that landing gear forgings are very expensive due to the high quality required to make them reliable. With other aircraft parts, you might be able to get away with a slightly inferior product, but not the landing gear; it's gotta be perfect, or it doesn't go on the plane.

Correct. These were 15-5ph stainless forgings, they weighed about 250lbs a piece. IIRC it was about $5 million in raw forgings in the warehouse. The finished part was pricey, I don't want to say how much here- it would make Jimmy's blood pressure go up...

But it had about 24 hours of roughing, then heat treat, then about 16 hours of finishing, then jig boring, then aluminum-nickel-bronze bushings, then hand finishing and paint, final inspection, etc.

That was a pretty mundane one, you should have seen the A-6 wingfold locks. I started with a 600lb. forged block of titanium, when it was done you could pick it up with one finger. There wasn't a single surface or feature on the part you could call flat or straight or square.

**Chunder** · 04 Mar 10, 02:49

Highsea: I suspect Boeing spent a Billion in developing the 767 more than out of goodwill - in that it made commercial sense to offer the 767 platform from a line that is/was basically dramatically curtailing production at that point.

Eitherway, politics or not, Apart from JASDF & Italy the competition has gone through the procurement processes of at least 3 countries and won - 2 of those have no political interest in either platform. One of which is about to enter service so Costs are definitely able to be established with reasonable certainty.

TBH I can't understand the replacement argument as opposed to an industry innovation value added competition (ya know, the kind that are basically undertaken in most other competitions of the armed forces) Not being in industry, i'd rather defer. But seems to me the USAF needs the 767 like it needs a hole in the head. FFS these criminals did jail time for trying to defraud the taxpayer.

I mean if we are going to be Anti EADS, this is the reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

FFS, Boeing now know the pricing of the EADS offer yet again, because the Airforce told them, after EADS won, subsequently Boeings protest was upheld. I mean heck, it was some of the incriminating evidence that sent this mole to jail with the previous contract.

Edit: Here is the story http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm
Here is the plea agreement: http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/druyunpostpleaadmission.pdf

Aint no white washing this con. It's like one would still spray cleanex on Boeing for anything and detract from EADS on speculation. Mc Cain did the right thing. This was rancid.

Thread: Successor to F-22 by 2025

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

30 year plan lasted a month

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Solar eclipse, July 22, 2009

India canceled Tender for 22 Attack Helicopter

Directed energy weapons on the battlefield: A new vision for 2025

World's Ocean forces in 2025?

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions