Congress to look into restarting F-22 production

[Zinja]

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."........Even if you were to order equal numbers of aircraft the F-22 will still cost substantially more because it is a larger airplane.

Never said it will cost exactly the same, these are 2 different planes. An order of 3,000+ would certainly make it very affordable especially considering what it would bring to the table. It would be what the an F-15 is to the F-16. By the time production ended it was already circa £140m. Units of 3,000+ would make a vast difference not 'substantially cost more' than an F-35s.

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?

Im talking about making improvements with already existing technologies not unproven technologies that you mention. Do to the F-22 what the super bug was to the F/A-18.

[SteveDaPirate]

Never said it will cost exactly the same, these are 2 different planes.

Check post #35 man, I quoted you directly. I don't disagree that the price per airframe would fall significantly with a large order, but I don't think you'll ever get an F-22 down to the cost of an F-35 because it's a larger aircraft with twice as many engines.

Im talking about making improvements with already existing technologies not unproven technologies that you mention. Do to the F-22 what the super bug was to the F/A-18.

Bear in mind that the Super Hornet was essentially a new aircraft that borrowed a few things from the legacy Hornets. The Rhino is 20% larger, 7000lbs heavier, has numerous airframe changes, and has entirely different engines than the original Hornet. The parts they actually share are things like radar, computers and ejection seats. The Super Hornet was an incremental improvement in aircraft design rather than kind of technological leap the F-22 and F-35 represent, but it still required 5 years of testing and evaluation even with some shared components from the legacy Hornet.

The naming scheme for the Super Hornet was mostly a means to sell congress on a new fighter when they were thinking about a peace dividend post cold war and didn't want to be seen funding a clean sheet design.

If there is ever an F-22 restart, I fully expect it to be along the same lines as the Super Hornet. A new aircraft that shares a name and a few components here and there with the predecessor but little else.

[citanon]

Latest display at RIAT 2016: Holy crap the F22 display routine has gotten better!

And that turn at 8:50!!!!

[Stitch]

The maneuver(s) that really amaze me are the post-stall ones that would have been impossible in a 3rd or 4th-gen aircraft, but are completely controllable in 4.5 or 5th-gen aircraft like the Raptor; if you saw an F-4 or even an F-15 doing one of those maneuvers, you'd assume they were in some sort of an accelerated stall. But in an F-22 or an F-35, they're totally doable.

I was surprised (watching another RIAT-related video) that Poland was still flying MiG-29's; I thought they had traded them all in for F-16 Block 52+'s? Or do they still use the -29's for A-to-G?

[jlvfr]

I was surprised (watching another RIAT-related video) that Poland was still flying MiG-29's; I thought they had traded them all in for F-16 Block 52+'s? Or do they still use the -29's for A-to-G?

Afaik, they bought them to replace other Mig models (-21 and -23) as well as the SU-20. They still have around 30 (I think) -29s, as well as about 20 Su-22s. They should start taking bids to replace these in the next few years... maybe.

[bfng3569]

interesting article from Tyler Rogoway's new gig at the 'The War Zone'........

Let the Japanese pay for restarting the line......

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-japan-already

[jlvfr]

interesting article from Tyler Rogoway's new gig at the 'The War Zone'........

Let the Japanese pay for restarting the line......

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-japan-already

With the new homegrown Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin allready in development, I doubt they would drop it to buy F-22s...

[bfng3569]

With the new homegrown Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin allready in development, I doubt they would drop it to buy F-22s...

It appears the X-2 is more a tech demonstrator than anything else, and that the Japanese tender for bids (40 billion $$) is open to domestic as well as foreign products.

But now a $40 billion tender is being put forward by Japan to indigenously develop or import a new super fighter design. Although Mitsubishi’s X-2 technology demonstrator has just taken flight, it is just that: a technology demonstrator. Despite inaccurate press reports that the X-2 is a prototype, there's is no guarantee it will make it into production in the coming decade. Think of it more as a Bird Of Prey than a YF-22.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ja...-idUSKCN0ZF2Z8

Japan will launch a tender for fighter jets as soon as mid-July, the Ministry of Defence said, in a deal seen worth up to $40 billion as Tokyo seeks to bolster its air defenses amid creeping tension with China over disputed maritime borders.

In one of the biggest fighter jet contracts up for grabs in years, a ministry spokesman said Japan will contact foreign and domestic defense contractors soon after a July 5 deadline for expressions of interest in the tender for about 100 warplanes.

People familiar with the matter said U.S. firms Boeing Co (BA.N) and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) have been invited to take part in the project, dubbed the F-3 fighter jet program, alongside Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd (MHI) (7011.T), the prime domestic contractor.

A final decision is likely in summer 2018, the people said, with deployment due at the end of the 2020s at the earliest. They declined to be identified because the matter was confidential.

With a value seen by these people at up to $40 billion, the F-3 program will dwarf most recent fighter jet deals in value, likely attracting global contractor interest. But analysts say Japan's preference for an aircraft that can operate closely with the U.S. military, given close Washington-Tokyo ties, makes a non-U.S. option a long-shot.

[jlvfr]

It appears the X-2 is more a tech demonstrator than anything else, and that the Japanese tender for bids (40 billion $$) is open to domestic as well as foreign products.

Yeah... well... when Japan buys "foreign", it usually means "US", with rare exceptions, specially in such an expensive (and therefore, politically-sensitive) program. Apart from the F-22, they could have chosen the Eurofighter, fited with Japanese systems. Instead they went for the single-engined, shorter ranged F-35A (!), supposedly "because stealth".

If the F-22 had been available before the X-2/ATD program started, I believe Japan would have bought it, fiting it with homegrown electronics. But now? Very doubtfull. Remember these is the country that pressed on with the F-2, a "version" of the F-16 that ended up being 4 times more expensive...

[SteveDaPirate]

Apart from the F-22, they could have chosen the Eurofighter, fited with Japanese systems. Instead they went for the single-engined, shorter ranged F-35A (!), supposedly "because stealth".

Is the Typhoon longer ranged?

The numbers I've seen quoted for an air-to-air mission for the F-35A is 1407km on internal fuel, while the Typhoon is 1389km for an air defense mission with 10 minute loiter when equipped with three 1000 liter external tanks.

The F-35A certainly has a higher fuel fraction.

[jlvfr]

Is the Typhoon longer ranged?

The numbers I've seen quoted for an air-to-air mission for the F-35A is 1407km on internal fuel, while the Typhoon is 1389km for an air defense mission with 10 minute loiter when equipped with three 1000 liter external tanks.

The F-35A certainly has a higher fuel fraction.

With what weapons load? That's the diference, I think. If the F-35 wants to use the stealth that justifies it's cost, then it flies only with internal loads. Which means, afaik, 4 AIM-120. The Eurofighter's standard load, afaik, is 8 missiles (4 AIM-120/Meteor, the rest are short range).

[bfng3569]

Yeah... well... when Japan buys "foreign", it usually means "US", with rare exceptions, specially in such an expensive (and therefore, politically-sensitive) program. Apart from the F-22, they could have chosen the Eurofighter, fited with Japanese systems. Instead they went for the single-engined, shorter ranged F-35A (!), supposedly "because stealth".

If the F-22 had been available before the X-2/ATD program started, I believe Japan would have bought it, fiting it with homegrown electronics. But now? Very doubtfull. Remember these is the country that pressed on with the F-2, a "version" of the F-16 that ended up being 4 times more expensive...

exactly, they typically by US anyway, and yes, it appears stealth is a factor.

and maybe they would learn from the F-2 (on cost that is), who knows.

but their interest and desire for the F-22 hasn't seemed to fade.

as the article states though, even if they did 'foot the bill' so to speak to update and restart the line, would the US even allow it? And from the article, if it takes away from the F-35 money, then probably not.

but it would make sense by leveraging Japanese cash to update and restart the line up, and push out the next (6th) gen aircraft even further. Which would seem like a cost savings in the long run.

[SteveDaPirate]

With what weapons load? That's the diference, I think. If the F-35 wants to use the stealth that justifies it's cost, then it flies only with internal loads. Which means, afaik, 4 AIM-120. The Eurofighter's standard load, afaik, is 8 missiles (4 AIM-120/Meteor, the rest are short range).

If you need stealth for your AA mission, an F-35 with 4 internal AAMs is the way to go and the Eurofighter isn't suitable anyway. Or at least, not without a bunch of other aircraft to provide ISR, ECM, SEAD, MALDs, etc. but you can see how such an undertaking would quickly get expensive.

If stealth isn't required, you can fit 12 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s on the F-35 by utilizing the external pylons or perhaps swap a pair of missiles for external fuel tanks if you want additional range.

Most likely in my opinion is to have stealthed up F-35s sneak in close while Japan's many F-15s act as missile trucks that stay back and high to launch missiles that the F-35s then guide to targets.

As far as cost is concerned, Kuwait just bought a batch of Typhoons in September of 2015 for $140 million per aircraft, so not a lot of savings to be had there. As the 2nd largest operator of F-15s (made by Mitsubishi no less), the Typhoon doesn't really offer a lot of new capabilities that couldn't be had by just upgrading or expanding their existing F-15J fleet.

[kato]

The Eurofighter's standard load, afaik, is 8 missiles (4 AIM-120/Meteor, the rest are short range).

The 4+4 combination (or 4+2) is only used in strike roles, i.e. in addition to other loads, although it is a common load for simple interdiction missions or basic QRA.

Pure Air Superiority load is 6+2 or 6+4 (6+6 if someone would buy the two-rail launchers originally planned for the second-to-outermost wing pylons). The frame technically supports an 8+2 or 10+2 combination too, although it would then have to leave the wing drop tanks off (in the latter case). For weight comparison, the maximum multirole load flown somewhat regularly is 4 GBU-16/48 plus 4 BVRAAM plus 2 SRAAM plus 3 drop tanks.

the Typhoon is 1389km for an air defense mission

The number - exactly 750 nm - is a generic range for its performance in longer-ranged missions: the exact same is given for hi-lo-hi air-to-ground. Of course the F-35 number is just as "reliable". As for the drop tanks on the Eurofighter you can similarly generically assume a 20% range reduction without them.

There are some hints - mostly around the BAe CFT trials press releases - that actual range with low loads, i.e. in mere interdiction with e.g. 4+2, is supposedly considerably higher.

[Zinja]

but it would make sense by leveraging Japanese cash to update and restart the line up, and push out the next (6th) gen aircraft even further. Which would seem like a cost savings in the long run.

This is what I have been arguing too. There is an unknown period of the late 2020s up to the time the next gen fighter will come online, which possibly might see the raptor as the only survivable A2A fighter. For US the size of Europe to pin their entire security on 125 frames seem like high stake games to me.