Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs. By the time the J-20 or T-50 are in service, in numbers and with capabilities that matter, we'll be flying the PCA and even without it we will still have a larger more modern air force than anyone else in the world.

Do you believe that deterrence only applies to threats to CONUS? Which is inconsistent with your second sentence of needing an air force (or any military system beyond the Triad) at all if we are only threatened by ICBMs and SLBMs. No reason to station all that equipment in Germany and elsewhere during the Cold War and ironically sending heavy armor back to Europe that media reports as a conventional deterrent to a revanchist Russia. Now imagine the impact if we had an extra 200-300 Raptors to deploy to Europe.

But IF our air force is good enough to deter now - you now admit there is such a thing a conventional deterrence if this statement is to logically following my initial post - than having more F-22s (an undoubtedly better A2A fighter) would only enhance the deterrence YOU say we have anyway, correct?

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs. By the time the J-20 or T-50 are in service, in numbers and with capabilities that matter, we'll be flying the PCA and even without it we will still have a larger more modern air force than anyone else in the world.

It's the cruise missile threat that's keeping NORAD up and driving much of the AESAing/mission computer update efforts for the F-15 and F-16 fleet which would be largely superfluous
with 300 F-22s. And in all likelihood that many F-22s would have reduced the active:ANG F-35 apportionment ratio from 2:1 to 1:1 which would have enabled ealier retirement
of older ANG birds.

 

[TomcatViP]

in the latest issue of AF magazine, there is a report dedicated to the NORAD with interviewed confirming that NORAD is platform agnostic...

 

[marauder2048]

in the latest issue of AF magazine, there is a report dedicated to the NORAD with interviewed confirming that NORAD is platform agnostic...

It's what the *Canadian* deputy commander very artfully said with some major caveats.

In contrast, the US deputy director of operations intimated that the F-16 and F-18 were not adequate and that the F-35 was the significant step-up in capability they needed.

Awkward...

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/03/27/f-22-pilots-aim-9x-missile-new-fighter/?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[sferrin]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs.

You don't think an Oscar II parked off the coast of Virginia could do some significant damage with a couple dozen nuclear-armed P-700s?

 

[kaiserd]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs.

You don't think an Oscar II parked off the coast of Virginia could do some significant damage with a couple dozen nuclear-armed P-700s?

I love the F-22 but your proposed scenario is a very very poor justification for more.
Would having more F-22s rather than, say, upgraded F-15s or F-16s with AESA radars really give that much better defense against that threat?
And in the unlikely scenario that it did the F-22 would be useless if the sub happened to be a balistic missile sub.
The relative lack of F-22s would principally hurt if facing multiple front expeditionary conflicts against peer opponents with advanced Flanker or better level fighters.
And in those types of conflicts you'll also need F-35s instead of F-16s, F-18s etc because of the corresponding advanced SAM threat.
A top-up order of F-22s (from approx 40 to 80 to try to stay somewhat realistic) would have been great but in reality this or larger F-22 orders would have been ripped out of the guts of the F-35 and the best complement you would now have would be new warmed-up F-16s.

 

[marauder2048]

I love the F-22 but your proposed scenario is a very very poor justification for more.
Would having more F-22s rather than, say, upgraded F-15s or F-16s with AESA radars really give that much better defense against that threat?

The F-22 is vastly better at positioning itself for high Pk beam and rear aspect attacks against cruise missile raids.
The same kinematic advantage makes it more useful for boost/terminal intercepts against ballistic missiles as well.

Just need to develop that Air Launched hit-to-kill weapon that the ANG (amongst others) has been asking for for years.

 

[kaiserd]

I love the F-22 but your proposed scenario is a very very poor justification for more.
Would having more F-22s rather than, say, upgraded F-15s or F-16s with AESA radars really give that much better defense against that threat?

The F-22 is vastly better at positioning itself for high Pk beam and rear aspect attacks against cruise missile raids.
The same kinematic advantage makes it more useful for boost/terminal intercepts against ballistic missiles as well.

Just need to develop that Air Launched hit-to-kill weapon that the ANG (amongst others) has been asking for for years.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that in a wider context the F-22 has very significant advantages in terms of performance and capability over even upgraded legacy jets.
I would however doubt that in the specific scenario set out that, given the limited warning (and time to target) any realistic "enhanced" defence will be be anywhere near 100 percent effective.
And altering the scenario by adding one or more additional subs just helps to show how unrealistic proposition it is that buying more F-22s "resolves" this kind of threat.
And that's before you get into the proposed scenario of F-22s trying to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles; this would have been a very odd and very hard to sustain justification for buying more F-22s.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a side note, from an alternative reality that has become ours:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/russian-bombers-tensions-trump/index.html

 

[Jeb]

Lovely lighting. I'm trying to remember how long ago I saw the first pictures of Raptors escorting Bears. Possibly 15 years? Maybe longer?

 

[Dragon029]

The F-22 only entered service 12 years ago.

 

[sferrin]

I'll bet they wish they had more than 187.

 

[Jeb]

The F-22 only entered service 12 years ago.

OK, so the November 2007 intercept was the first one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#/media/File:Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg

 

[Empire]

Last year, the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces subcommittee tasked the Air Force to issue a study of what it would take to get the F-22 line up and running again. Has anyone heard if the study was completed and what it recommended?

 

[Jeb]

I saw a quote this morning from SecAF that, as I read it, basically spikes any plan to restart F-22.

USAF has no plans with F-22 other than modifications to existing airframes, [@SecAFOfficial] says. "The #F35 is the fighter priority"

https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/871721128259137536

 

[bring_it_on]

Seeking $4+ Billion over the next few years for work on the PCA makes that crystal clear.

 

[Airplane]

Seeking $4+ Billion over the next few years for work on the PCA makes that crystal clear.

If PCA is late, fails, or never comes to be, its not good to put US airpower in one type. What happened to the good old days of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time? The worlds biggest economy can't build 2 fighters at the same time? My how the left has changed America for the worse.

 

[SpudmanWP]

LM and P&W have a big head start when it comes to PCA.

LM for its experience with VLO designs, materials, & coatings combined with its work on fully fused avionics, VLO-class ESM apertures, carbon-nanotube reinforced polymers, etc should allow them to use much of it as-is in the PCA.

P&W already has a leg up in the power plant area.

 

[bring_it_on]

The worlds biggest economy can't build 2 fighters at the same time?

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines. On the F-22, the question is, does the USAF want to invest RDT&E dollars towards creating a 2030's relevant F-22 variant, or do they want to go all in on the PCA. I think they never really considered the first option very seriously once they knew how the requirements for the PCA were shaping up hence the focus towards investing in it in a big way as the recently released projections show.

 

[sublight_]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

 

[sferrin]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

You really think an aircraft powered by a pair of 45k-50k thrust engines is going to be a drone? I don't think so. And your "very low observable" requirement would suggest you also believe it will be subsonic? ???

 

[sublight_]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

You really think an aircraft powered by a pair of 45k-50k thrust engines is going to be a drone? I don't think so. And your "very low observable" requirement would suggest you also believe it will be subsonic? ???

It's a ruse. Today it is PCA, tomorrow it will be called Next Generation Air Dominance again, and the penetration expectation will belong to the B-21 complementary UCAS systems.

 

[sferrin]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

You really think an aircraft powered by a pair of 45k-50k thrust engines is going to be a drone? I don't think so. And your "very low observable" requirement would suggest you also believe it will be subsonic? ???

It's a ruse. Today it is PCA, tomorrow it will be called Next Generation Air Dominance again, and the penetration expectation will belong to the B-21 complementary UCAS systems.

So GE and Pratt are spending a billion plus on next generation engines for an imaginary program?

 

[sublight_]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

You really think an aircraft powered by a pair of 45k-50k thrust engines is going to be a drone? I don't think so. And your "very low observable" requirement would suggest you also believe it will be subsonic? ???

It's a ruse. Today it is PCA, tomorrow it will be called Next Generation Air Dominance again, and the penetration expectation will belong to the B-21 complementary UCAS systems.

So GE and Pratt are spending a billion plus on next generation engines for an imaginary program?

Let me re-iterate. Today it, the platform the billion dollar engines are being developed for, is called PCA, tomorrow it, the platform the billion dollar engines are being developed for, will be called Air Dominance again. The penetration expectation will still belong to the B-21 complementary systems. Their pretending NGAD will do penetrations. It wont.

 

[sferrin]

I don't know what this means, but the PCA is likely to enter production while the F-35's are still being delivered, so the US will likely have at least 2 hot fighter production lines.

I dont think the PCA is going to be a "hot fighter". It's probably going to be a very low observable and lethal UCAS. They have been saying all along that B-21 is a "system of systems", and at the same time nobody really wants to say what RQ-180 really is or what it relates to. It's likely not just ISR, but PCA related work.

You really think an aircraft powered by a pair of 45k-50k thrust engines is going to be a drone? I don't think so. And your "very low observable" requirement would suggest you also believe it will be subsonic? ???

It's a ruse. Today it is PCA, tomorrow it will be called Next Generation Air Dominance again, and the penetration expectation will belong to the B-21 complementary UCAS systems.

So GE and Pratt are spending a billion plus on next generation engines for an imaginary program?

Let me re-iterate. Today it, the platform the billion dollar engines are being developed for, is called PCA, tomorrow it, the platform the billion dollar engines are being developed for, will be called Air Dominance again. The penetration expectation will still belong to the B-21 complementary systems. Their pretending NGAD will do penetrations. It wont.

Got it. I always interpreted the "penetration" aspect as being able to do air dominance behind the front line and/or doing small precision strikes like the F-22 might do.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fighter-jet-restart-dead-study.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

In a classified report submitted to Congress this month, the Air Force estimated it would cost approximately "$50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s, at an estimated cost of $206 million to $216 million per aircraft," officials told Military.com on Wednesday.

Wasn't the last batch about $120 million/copy? What a waste, well on to PCA ASAP

 

[phrenzy]

The bigger F-22 fleet could end up being in a f-22b (not FB) configuration. The engines, like the J-79 and f-100 they could end up in any number of platforms. Get the propulsion right early and then you can incorporate it into any number of platforms. As far as I'm aware they haven't even finished the alternatives study for PCA/NGAD/F/A-XX and I don't think getting decent work on a flexible propulsion system that could end up on half a dozen platforms, even retrofitted to legacy ones depending on what the sixth Gen fleet specs are protected to be isn't so stupid. By then there will be so much intelligence packed into the munitions that platform agnosticism won't be as much of an issue as it is today. A lot of the stuff I wrote in a few places (when I was young and a lot less rigorous on another website) about restarting the F-22, export f-22, b versions, FB versions and navalised versions I think still holds true years later. 4 billion on engines makes sense when they are potentially open ended and much of the research and development can be deployed to update and increase the capabilities of what you have. You never know what sort of new high temperature, pressure, bypass, material etc. will end up supplimenting the legacy fleet or creating new variants.

What ever happened to ADVENT?

 

[sferrin]

What ever happened to ADVENT?

It got a new acronym (a couple times) and now both GE and P&W are building demonstrators.

 

[Dragon029]

Analysis of alternatives for NGAD will be completed this year

As for ADVENT, it became AETD which demonstrated 3-stream technologies. GE and P&W were then selected to participate in the AETP program which is running now and is in the process of creating the XA100 and XA101 demonstrator engines.

 

[bring_it_on]

ADVENT saw GE complete the program before the propulsion portfolio went to wards developing full up engine technologies and then through to a transition to prototype engines. This was where P&W were brought in, having been left out on ADVENT. This as Dragon points out is the AETD --> AETP phase which is about half complete. Plans beyond AETP have also been drawn up and are well documented.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fighter-jet-restart-dead-study.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

In a classified report submitted to Congress this month, the Air Force estimated it would cost approximately "$50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s, at an estimated cost of $206 million to $216 million per aircraft," officials told Military.com on Wednesday.

Wasn't the last batch about $120 million/copy? What a waste, well on to PCA ASAP

Can't say I'm very surprised by this decision but I'm still not pleased by it. Yes it would be expensive but in my opinion it would be worth the cost, especially considering the fighter gap and how much we're spending elsewhere for things other than new airframes.

 

[Airplane]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fighter-jet-restart-dead-study.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

In a classified report submitted to Congress this month, the Air Force estimated it would cost approximately "$50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s, at an estimated cost of $206 million to $216 million per aircraft," officials told Military.com on Wednesday.

Wasn't the last batch about $120 million/copy? What a waste, well on to PCA ASAP

Can't say I'm very surprised by this decision but I'm still not pleased by it. Yes it would be expensive but in my opinion it would be worth the cost, especially considering the fighter gap and how much we're spending elsewhere for things other than new airframes.

Agreed. Also its not as if it is a one lump sum payment of 50 billion as it would be spear out over 5 or 6 years of production. Considering that the 35 carries 4 aams and the raptor carries 8, 2 of which the 35 can only carry by throwing LO out of the window, the 22 would be money well spent. Plus the raptor carries more SDBs. It would better spent than the Navy buying anymore LCS. 8 or 9 billion a year is a bargain for what it would do to recapitalize US airpower. It of course will not happen. The US throws away every year the money it would cost to bring the raptor back. Hell we threw away our space program and Nasa. What bleeding heart social programs is that money going to?

 

[Sundog]

The USAF doesn't want a thirty year old fighter design, they want something built with new technology that is optimized for the Pacific theater of operations.

 

[phrenzy]

If they knew what they wanted none of us would be having this discussion. Without budgetary certainty the legacy fleet will likely still go on, I don't think a super raptor is out of the question, so much of the tooling and rigging as well as all the LM info and workers DVDs on production still exist in high rediness in the desert. I assume for spares in case of crash attrition (or worst case attrition).

I worry they will try and plug the gap with so many stop gaps, UAVs, sensor upgrades, weapons upgrades, all the F-35s we never thought they'd make in full numbers and end up costing just as much as moving forward with such Gen... Sixth Gen will fall way behind into eternal development.

At least propulsion is a real physical program and place to start.

Retrofitted ADVENT would be great, but so would a bigger raptor fleet... There are plenty of quotes about the 3 to 5 usefulness of raptor to lightning in most of it's mission parameters. But, we all know it's not going to happen without a serious change in the way the air force spends it's money, which at this point they can't do politically.

Policy paralysis is everywhere, a misstep here will have big implications for the single program that seems to be actually fielding a new useful air platform, the B-21.

I think they will move forward with anything they can actually field even if it's just a new engine, that gets their got in the for come appropriations time and they might get the next piece of real hardware into production.

 

[Dragon029]

Considering that the 35 carries 4 aams and the raptor carries 8, 2 of which the 35 can only carry by throwing LO out of the window, the 22 would be money well spent. Plus the raptor carries more SDBs.

You have to keep in mind however that for the price of 1 Raptor carrying 8 missiles, you can instead have 2 F-35s also carrying 8 missiles, but also being in 2 places at once. Don't get me wrong, the Raptor's speed gives it air-to-air flexibility that F-35s don't have individually, but the numeric advantage shouldn't be ignored either.

Also, Raptors don't carry more SDBs; both jets carry 8x SDBs internally.

 

[Airplane]

Considering that the 35 carries 4 aams and the raptor carries 8, 2 of which the 35 can only carry by throwing LO out of the window, the 22 would be money well spent. Plus the raptor carries more SDBs.

You have to keep in mind however that for the price of 1 Raptor carrying 8 missiles, you can instead have 2 F-35s also carrying 8 missiles, but also being in 2 places at once. Don't get me wrong, the Raptor's speed gives it air-to-air flexibility that F-35s don't have individually, but the numeric advantage shouldn't be ignored either.

Also, Raptors don't carry more SDBs; both jets carry 8x SDBs internally.

A 2 ship flight of Raptors is 16 aams. For the 35 its 8 aams, and they are all one type: 120s. Hmmm... 2 places at once? Does the 35 have a teleporter to magically appear someplace else when its in 2, or 4 or more package? So to keep it simple when there are 2 F35s on patrol off the coast or Iran and they send up 4 whatever, that one of the F35s can just break formation and appear someplace else? Don't tell me your dog pissing on my grass is actually rain... You're talking hypotheticals and fantasy scenarios.

How much does it cost to fly 2 Raptors per hour and how much for 4 35s? How much is maintenance on 2 Raptors versus 4 35s? How many tankers are needed for twice as many 35s as Raptors? Probably about twice as many. How much do those tankers cost per hour? How much fuel is being burned by twice as many 35s as Raptors? Ect ect ect ...

So the 35 can carry 2 bombs that are twice the size of the Raptors? Whoopity doo. Most targets are not hardened bunkers that need 2k lb bombs.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Per the recent report on restarting the F-22 line, the final cost puts it at $260mil per f-22 which is 3 F-35s, not 2.

 

[kaiserd]

Per the recent report on restarting the F-22 line, the final cost puts it at $260mil per f-22 which is 3 F-35s, not 2.

And that's before you factor in the higher operational and maintenance/ support costs.
I am a big fan of the F-22 and wish the US airforce had some more but at the cost of having the guts ripped out of the F-35 or out of the eventual project for replacing the F-22 would not be a cost worth paying.
There is also the underlying concern that as a product of its time the F-22 could potentially end up as bit of a hanger queen, needing far more man hours of maintenance per flight hour for what came before (the F-15 & F-16) and what came after (F-35); here's hopping it's a lot closer to the F-35 than to the F-117 & the B-2.

 

[phrenzy]

Except that we don't actually know the final production figures and full rate production prices on the f-35a, just cost reduction projections.

I know everyone loved the Paris air Show, it was impressive, but over Syria right now where everything if a target and you might be facing off in a kinetic fight against a sucker Russian aircraft within visual range there's one aircraft in the inventory you want. The f-22. gives you everything you want with reduced risk of larger flights and more ability to get the single threating aircraft you have to shoot down with escelating things further. Sending in and supporting twice as many lightnings there is going to be a much bigger problem.

Having said that I'm sure the data fusion and command and control the f-35 would bring stuff be advantageous, but so much of that goodness should be baked into any new F-22 restart. The data links, infra red sensors, improved targeting and maybe New engines.

But it's all academic, they'll take more B-21s and keep all the f-35s they can and just hope they can wait for PAC/NGAD. If things spiral out of control in the region it would be too late today to do much about it with a restarted raptor line, unless they are replacing lost Eagles (strike out otherwise) and F-16s, but that will probably be made up for with f-35 like it or not.