Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Congress to look into restarting F-22 production

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    And whom would that foe be?
    The claims in a Russian manufacturers brochure...

    "I will see your vaporwave system and raise you hundreds of billions of dollars. "
    Last edited by troung; 27 Apr 16,, 18:34.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by troung View Post
      The claims in a Russian manufacturers brochure...

      "I will see your vaporwave system and raise you hundreds of billions of dollars. "
      To give the Russians their due, they have a track record of making very good SAM systems. Whether or not they can afford to procure more than a handful to surround Moscow is another question.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post

        If anything, the F-35s are probably being worked harder than the F-22s at the moment since there still aren't enough F-35 airframes to go around. Between ongoing testing and trying to get large numbers of pilots through the training pipeline, F-35s are racking up flight hours quickly.

        And the military is trying to NOT repeat the F-22 early years. Where the plane got the nickname "Ramptor" because of all the down time.

        They are wringing the f-35 out to find as many bugs as they can before they reach operators in large numbers

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          And whom would that foe be?
          Its not ISIS thats for sure.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            The F-35 was designed to cost less to buy and operate so that the US could afford to buy them in large numbers, and so that our allies can afford to operate them at all. Not many countries could afford to field F-22s even if we were willing to sell them.
            The F-35 was designed no lesser to boot than the F-22, albeit for a different mission. 155 frames but still testing should tell you enough. Giving me an order of 4000+ F-22s and they would cost exactly the same price as the F-35.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Zinja View Post
              Giving me an order of 4000+ F-22s and they would cost exactly the same price as the F-35.
              I disagree.

              You'll require twice as many engines, as well as older and more expensive stealth materials and fabrication techniques, not to mention that the F-22 is just a larger aircraft with 15,000 lbs more materials required per hull.

              Beyond procurement, you'll see even bigger differences in sustained operating costs. The F-22 is notorious for being maintenance intensive, and 1/3 of the maintenance hours it regularly requires are for it's stealth system. This was a big point of focus for the F-35 program, and its stealth system is reportedly dramatically more resilient. Jet engines are a big driver of ongoing costs, and having twice as many in operation for a given number of aircraft is significant. Along with this is the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that is built into the F-35 fleet. ALIS is a big undertaking with complex software and a lot of moving pieces to integrate. Yet despite it's unfinished state, it is already starting to pay dividends among the maintenance crews.

              Asked what the biggest benefit of ALIS is, one Marine cited the direction it gives a team of maintainers.“Walking you step through step. There’s literally a signoff for every task you do, every action you do,” he said.

              “Compared to how it was originally, it’s night and day,” said another when asked about updates to the system. “The transition has been good. Every upgrade they do is easy to get ahold of, get your head around. It’s been pretty consistent as far as maintainability.”

              All four men also agreed that they would recommend ALIS, or some equivalent system, for future aircraft, although they noted that logistically it would be almost impossible to retrofit such a system to existing aircraft like the F-18.

              Overall, maintenance on the F-35 is “ten times easier” than on an F-18, said the first maintainer. He acknowledged that the low-observable capabilities “can slow you down at times, but it’s obviously a needed weapon system so worth the pace we have to stall on.”

              http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...f35b/83614074/
              Systems like ALIS are an investment that will pay huge dividends over the life of the fleet as well as maintaining better readiness rates among aircraft. These are improvement that aren't as easy to measure as speed or altitude, but have an important impact never the less. You need to buy a lot more aircraft overall in order to field a specific number on any given day if their readiness rates are poor. The 2015 F-35 fleet, despite still undergoing testing has already surpassed the F-22's mission capable rates and at $17,000 less per flight hour, (a drop of 37.6% over last year) and these numbers are only going to improve as the F-35 reaches maturity.

              The F-22s offer unique operational capabilities, but it's hard to argue that they are economical aircraft even if bulk procurement would bring the acquisition costs down.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                155 frames but still testing should tell you enough. Giving me an order of 4000+ F-22s and they would cost exactly the same price as the F-35.
                Quick question: how would you ever get a sale total of over 4000 F-22?! That's cold-war figures, and for much simpler and multi-purpose aircraft, not for a dedicated interceptor that has some A/G capabilities...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Thats f-16 (4500)and F-4 (5200) built numbers. How many countries do you think can afford/the US would sell F-22s

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                    those cost per hour numbers have me wondering though.....

                    how much is the F-35 really flying, and what is it doing?

                    the F-22 has been around and is in use it seems quite a bit.

                    would that contribute to higher costs to maintain than a brand new airframe with low hours and limited use? (or are the flying F-35's really getting worked the same?)

                    also, were (or who?) are the numbers coming from?
                    The article links to a Times article for the 2013 numbers which were provided by the Air Force Comptroller Force, see the link below:

                    http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

                    While the F-35 numbers are both current and projected (the difference between being 2/3 (current) vs 1/2 (projected) are from numbers in a flight global article which says they are from the Air Force.

                    Flight Global Cost Per Flight Hour 2015

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                      Agreed, that's a total BS question. Two different aircraft designed for different roles, even allowing for overlap.

                      The only reason I brought up the General's answer was I was curious if during training/testing if some pilots were preferring the F-35 in even air to air situations. I haven't seen anything by pilots who have flown both one way or the other. While as others pointed out it would make sense for pilots to prefer F-35 in ground strike missions and F-22 in air to air missions, it would be very interesting if some quality of the F-35 was making pilots prefer it for even air to air missions. I am not saying this is the case, but the general's comments (he may very well be biased or deflecting as he is heading the F-35 program) raised my genuine curiosity. It is the curiosity that led me to ask what pilots who have flown both have said.

                      Thanks for all the replies, my main goal was wanting to start a discussion, which has happened. Wish High Seas, Jimmy, and Chogy still posted here. Miss their insight. I don't have a dog in the fight except that I want a capable Air Force able to establish air superiority and clear the skies of both enemy air to air and surface to air systems so the grunts on the ground can get air support when they need it and doesn't break the bank.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                        The only reason I brought up the General's answer was I was curious if during training/testing if some pilots were preferring the F-35 in even air to air situations.
                        The F-35 is no interceptor, but I could imagine a few cases where F-22s might like to have a couple of F-35s along for an air fight. Chief among them is when the other team has stealth aircraft of their own in the mix. The F-35 sports the most comprehensive IRST package ever put on a fighter, as well as the secure data links to transmit what they find to the rest of the group.

                        Using the F-35's (reportedly) greater frontal aspect stealth to sneak in and find the enemy stealth aircraft could allow them to vector F-22 shooters to engage from a speed and altitude that doesn't expose them to return fire, all without revealing the presence of the scouting F-35s. They'll make a good team.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...oposal-425794/

                          USAF warms to F-22 Raptor revival proposal

                          26 MAY, 2016 BY: JAMES DREW WASHINGTON DC
                          At a time when budget constraints are driving the US Air Force to divest fighter and attack aircraft faster than they can be replaced with the Lockheed Martin F-35, outgoing chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh says it would not be a “wild idea” to resume production of an improved version of the F-22 Raptor air superiority jet.

                          The Pentagon’s latest aviation inventory and funding plan says the flying branch has “insufficient resources” to maintain the 1,900 warplane level mandated by Congress beyond the current five-year budget blueprint that extends to fiscal year 2021.

                          The number of combat-coded fighter jets and their associated squadrons “will substantially drop” between 2022 and 2026 before hitting its lowest level in 2031 as the Fairchild Republic A-10 "Warthog" and other long-serving fighters are retired to the boneyard.

                          Asked about solutions to reverse this trend at an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 26 May, the general who flew the F-16 and A-10 says money is the main issue. America, he says, needs to decide if it wants to continue to be a globally deployed superpower in the next 20, 30 or 50 years and then fund its military accordingly.

                          Asset Image
                          US Air Force
                          The air force currently spends most of its aircraft procurement dollars on the F-35A multi-role fighter, Boeing KC-46A tanker and Lockheed C-130J tactical transport, but Lightning II production rates have been truncated at 48 aircraft per year through this decade, only rising to 60 copies per year in 2021 from Fort Worth, Texas. The service has no plans to buy more fourth-generation Lockheed F-16s or Boeing F-15s, and has slowed its pursuit of a sixth-generation type as it considers the best way to proceed in a tight budget environment.

                          One answer could be to resume Raptor production, with just 195 of those supermanoeuvrable combat planes delivered by the Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics F-22 industry team from Marietta, Georgia through 2012. It is powered by the Pratt & Whitney F119.

                          The programme was terminated by then defence secretary Robert Gates in a move described by the current head of US Air Combat Command as perhaps the “biggest mistake ever”. Until recently, Welsh and the secretary of the air force Deborah Lee James have been saying that reviving the F-22 line would be “cost-prohibitive” and a “non-starter”. Now, the air force appears to be changing its tune.

                          “I don’t think it’s a wild idea,” says Welsh, who notes that the air force is already working with Lockheed to figure the exact cost and the "pros and cons" of such a scheme. "I think it’s proven that the airplane is exactly what everybody hoped it would be.

                          “We’re using it in new and different ways. It’s been spectacularly successful and its potential is really, really remarkable,” he continues.

                          Asset Image
                          US Air Force
                          Congress is considering a provision in its fiscal year 2017 defence policy bill that would require the air force to provide a cost breakdown and even consider foreign involvement in the project by 1 January 2017, but Welsh expects an answer about the cost much sooner.

                          “It’s not a crazy idea,” he says. “I think you’ve heard the secretary in the past say, and the air force say, that we think it’s cost-prohibitive. We’re going back right now and looking in detail at the number.”

                          The F-22 was conceived in the 1980s as an advanced F-15 replacement and it first flew in 1997. The aircraft was beset by technical difficulties and costs quickly escalated as the Pentagon’s F-22 requirement dropped from 749 to 381 and finally 187 production units.

                          The programme was terminated in favour of other investments, such as delivering the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the service will declare ready for combat later this year.

                          Asked on 24 May if investment in costly stealthy technology, which is inherent in pricey aircraft like the Northrop Grumman B-2 and Lockheed F-22 and F-35, is causing structural budget problems and forcing fighter numbers down, US Defense Department acquisition czar Frank Kendall said it was more of topline budget issue, caused by sequestration and the Budget Control Act of 2011.

                          “Unless something is done about the budget situation, it’s going to be very, very difficult for us to support [the American military strategy]. What we’re buying with the F-35, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, is the most combat power we can get for our dollar,” Kendall contends.

                          “It’s not just about the numbers, it’s about the capability. From the stories we’ve heard here from the operators about the effectiveness of the F-35 against fourth-generation aircraft were extremely impressive. Having a less expensive and less capable aircraft is not the answer to our problems.

                          Asset Image
                          US Air Force
                          Lockheed Skunk Works, which is leading the world’s largest defence contractor’s F-X efforts, has proposed upgrades to existing types like the F-22 and F-35 as the best way to achieve air superiority in the 2030s. Other combat aircraft manufacturers like Northrop Grumman and Boeing would probably prefer a competition to introduce a next-generation warplane.

                          Welsh suggests that an improved F-22 might be preferable and more affordable than some type of sixth-generation fighter.

                          “Rather than thinking of a sixth-generation fighter, can you modify the F-22 and re-open the line cheaper and keep the numbers up?” he says. “I don’t know. We’re working on that right now. We’ve got to open the spectrum a little wider about how we’re going to get the job done 20 years from now.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                            I disagree.

                            You'll require twice as many engines, as well as older and more expensive stealth materials and fabrication techniques, not to mention that the F-22 is just a larger aircraft with 15,000 lbs more materials required per hull.
                            I seriously doubt that you believe raptors are F-35s with 15,000 lbs more materials.

                            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                            Beyond procurement, you'll see even bigger differences in sustained operating costs. The F-22 is notorious for being maintenance intensive, and 1/3 of the maintenance hours it regularly requires are for it's stealth system. This was a big point of focus for the F-35 program, and its stealth system is reportedly dramatically more resilient. Jet engines are a big driver of ongoing costs, and having twice as many in operation for a given number of aircraft is significant.
                            In the same way that F-35s benefitted from lessons horned from F-22s, new F-22s will benefit from lessons learnt from F-35s.

                            F-22s were first stealthy fighter ever developed in the universe, everything on it was ground-breaking so it was bound to be expensive. New F-22s won't be.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                              Thats f-16 (4500)and F-4 (5200) built numbers. How many countries do you think can afford/the US would sell F-22s
                              My point was comparing F-22 cost at 187 frames to F-35 cost at 3,000+ (not 4,000 - i stand corrected) frames to be, skews the picture.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                                I seriously doubt that you believe raptors are F-35s with 15,000 lbs more materials.
                                Of course not, I'm rebutting your assertion that "Giving me an order of 4000+ F-22s and they would cost exactly the same price as the F-35."

                                My point is that F-22s cost more in large part because there is literally 50% more weight in advanced composites, titanium alloy, and engine parts with exact tolerances. That stuff ain't cheap to acquire or fabricate. Even if you were to order equal numbers of aircraft the F-22 will still cost substantially more because it is a larger airplane.

                                Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                                In the same way that F-35s benefitted from lessons horned from F-22s, new F-22s will benefit from lessons learnt from F-35s.

                                F-22s were first stealthy fighter ever developed in the universe, everything on it was ground-breaking so it was bound to be expensive. New F-22s won't be.
                                Are you talking about restarting F-22 production with the existing fabrication equipment or making a new fighter based upon the lessons learned from F-22 and F-35?

                                Will you try to incorporate the adaptive cycle engines that are just a few years down the pipe while you are busy updating and retooling the fabrication equipment to bring it up to modern standards? What about making room for a defensive DEW that can blind or knock down incoming missiles? You might as well if you are updating everything else based on F-22 and F-35 tech and experience.

                                They'll require modifications to the airframe of course and you'll have to retest most of the fighter after you make all these changes so go ahead and add several years into your schedule for that. But at this point why not just make a new and better air dominance fighter to succeed the F-22 based on experience operating them and F-35s?

                                There is a big difference between bringing the existing F-22 line out of storage and firing it up, (assuming you can staff it) and trying to come up with a modernized F-22ish kinda fighter.
                                Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 02 Jun 16,, 02:05.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X