Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[SpudmanWP]

I was actually basing my F-35A costs per the latest budget, not "projections", with some common sense thrown in.

 

[Dragon029]

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?

Why are you comparing 2 Raptors vs 2 F-35As when you later acknowledge that you can get 2 (or 3) times as many F-35As for the same amount?

2 places at once refers to the fact that if you have 2 or 3 times as many F-35As, you can position them in many more locations. Instead of having a 2 ship of F-22s patrolling along the border of Iran, you can have a 2 ship of F-35s doing that, plus another 2 ship flying in Syria and depending on the final costs, possibly another 1 or 2 F-35As flying in Iraq or wherever else you want them to be.

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?

Based on the F-35 Selected Acquisition Report data, an F-35A is about half cost per flight hour ($29,806 in 2012 dollars at maturity) and even less annually due to the more simulator-based training.

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 ...

Valid point, although fuel is a minority of an aircraft's sustainment cost.

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.

I was only correcting you where you claimed that the F-22 carried more SDBs. If you want to talk about the F-35A's heavier weapon carriage capability though, then I'd like to point out that having that additional volume also allows the F-35 to carry weapons like the AARGM-ER, JSM and JSOW-ER internally, whereas none of those weapons are scheduled for integration on the F-22 and I think it's unlikely that any of them would actually fit the Raptor's bays. It's not just about taking out hardened bunkers, it's also about having stand-off capabilities should enemies be able to field a serious IADS that renders standard gravity or glide weapons too ineffective or too dangerous to employ.

 

[phrenzy]

F-22 to fly until 2060:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-air-forces-stealth-f-22-raptor-will-fly-until-2060-21329?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=907a02010f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-907a02010f-85348829

Hooray!

 

[Airplane]

F-22 to fly until 2060:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-air-forces-stealth-f-22-raptor-will-fly-until-2060-21329?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=907a02010f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-907a02010f-85348829

Hooray!

.....and how many are going to still be around by then?

This is why we need more F-22s: " ...the F-35C, is designed to operate with some effectiveness within high threat environments populated with advanced surface to air missile systems." The F-22 was designed to survive in high threat environments (battlefield Europe) and kill bandits inside their own turf. What good is 360 degree SA when the other guy sees you too? I don't know why there are so many haters of the -22 and buying more. The ability to haul around 2x2klb bombs isn't the end-all-and-be-all of maintaining air superiority. Nor is 360 SA if you run out of missiles as soon as the battle begins. It's peculiar how if someone says that we should buy more Eagles as an interim, people clap and applaud. But the mention of more Raptors get's boos as being old tech.

 

[Dragon029]

.....and how many are going to still be around by then?
...It's peculiar how if someone says that we should buy more Eagles as an interim, people clap and applaud. But the mention of more Raptors get's boos as being old tech.

I do love the Raptor; kinematically (certainly in speed) it's unparalleled today; the fact of the matter is though, unless the USAF budget expands considerably, it's more F-22s or it's NGAD on schedule. It's really not that much different a choice as buying more F-15s vs buying F-22s, except in this case the decision is being made 10-15 years in advance - I'm not one of those guys in favour of buying more F-15s.

This is why we need more F-22s: " ...the F-35C, is designed to operate with some effectiveness within high threat environments populated with advanced surface to air missile systems." The F-22 was designed to survive in high threat environments (battlefield Europe) and kill bandits inside their own turf...What good is 360 degree SA when the other guy sees you too? I don't know why there are so many haters of the -22 and buying more. The ability to haul around 2x2klb bombs isn't the end-all-and-be-all of maintaining air superiority. Nor is 360 SA if you run out of missiles as soon as the battle begins.

It's worth noting that that quote comes from a journalist talking about the US Navy and it's diminished long range strike capability, something the F-22 wouldn't fix, but NGAD intends to (at least for the USAF and launching missions from tankers outside the range of PL-15s, etc).

What good is 360 degree SA? It means that if you individually run out of missiles, the rest of your wingmen already have that target locked and can engage with their missiles, regardless of if you're on the offensive or defence - again, it's not 4x AMRAAMs on an individual F-35A vs 6x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders on an F-22; it's 8x or 12x AMRAAMs on 2 or 3 F-35As vs 6x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders. Plus once the missiles do run out, you have a jet that (like the F-22) is capable of acting as part of a distributed AWACS operating behind enemy lines.

 

[bobbymike]

P&W pitching F135, AETD improvements for F-22 engine

As Pratt & Whitney works with the Air Force and Navy to improve the efficiency of the Joint Strike Fighter's F135 engine, the company is discussing options to field some of those upgrades on the F-22 Raptor's F119 engine.

 

[NeilChapman]

Perhaps part of the equation was how quickly can PCA be fielded vs retooling for additional F-22's. If B-21 was, budget slowdowns aside, originally expected to be 10 yrs from contract to IOC using existing tech, is that feasible for PCA? That's a major departure from the F-35 programs 20+ years.

And, with AOA (especially range), new engine designs, stealth improvements, NGJ tech, etc etc etc, DoD thinks it makes sense to go with a new airframe. That's a compelling story.

I love the F-22. I'd prefer PCA to NOT be transformative and get it in less than 10 years - and - not take 12 years to get out of LRIP. I understand the politics of "worldwide" production but...

Another question is how much electronic attack will be available in B-21? Will it need an escort capable of providing destruction of enemy air defenses as well as air dominance? If NGJ tech is not included in B-21 would it make sense to create a B-21 variant with NGJ tech integrated?

Whatever the answers to many questions precluded additional F-22's. It's big, but perhaps not big enough.

 

[bobbymike]

From Air Force Association:

Stealth Is Still the Critical Secret Sauce for Combat Aircraft

​An F-22 Raptor, assigned to the 433rd Weapons Squadron, at Nellis AFB, Nev., banks and flies over the Nevada Test and Training Range July 10, 2017. Air Force photo by SSgt. Daryn Murphy.

​—John A. Tirpak

“Stealth” technology hasn’t been rendered obsolete by new radars and detection methods, and has, if anything, become even more of a critical design consideration for future combat aircraft, according to stealth veterans and experts at an AFA Mitchell Institute program at the US Capitol Wednesday.

Presenting a new report, “Survivability in the Digital Age: The Imperative for Stealth,” authors retired Maj. Gen. Mark Barrett (AFA’s former executive vice president) and retired Col. Mace Carpenter (a senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute) said stealth designs continue to be a relatively low-cost factor in new aircraft design, and are crucial not only to the survival of individual aircraft but in making a smaller force possible.

Without stealth, Barrett said, armadas of support and escort aircraft would be a required part of a strike package against targets protected by modern air defenses. But with modern stealth—as embodied in the F-22, F-35, B-2, and new B-21 bomber—those same missions can be flown with far fewer aircraft.

In air-to-air engagements, said Barrett—a career fighter pilot who commanded one of the first F-22 wings—Russian-made Su-27s and F-16s can see each other at about the same time, meaning “the one with the bigger stick,” or the faster and longer-ranged weapon, will win.

But the US “doesn’t have the biggest stick,” Barrett asserted. By contrast, a stealth aircraft can see and shoot at an Su-27 long before his opponent even knows the stealth jet is in the vicinity, and every engagement is a win for the stealth aircraft, despite its shorter-ranged missiles.

Carpenter, who flew F-117s in combat, said new radars that can detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges still have to track their targets, hand them off to missile batteries, and shoot, and the missile itself has to be able to track the target closely enough to destroy it. Stealth reduces the likelihood of success “at every phase” in that process, he said.

Barrett said that as radars get better, support aircraft in the form of electronic warfare jets can help stealth aircraft by blinding search and track radars with jamming, making it easier to get through to the target. Without stealth, a conventional aircraft, or even a putatively “stealthy” jet with weapons on external stations, would be much easier to spot, track, and target.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) noted that “many of the same larger technological advancements that have evolved stealth have also advanced the threat environment that stealth was initially designed to mitigate.” Technologies such as “wide-band multi-static radar and passive detection systems can be networked with high-powered computers to form a robust network that seeks to deny large swaths of airspace.”

To combat this, there must be a “fusion of technologies” including networks and new sensors on stealth aircraft, “presenting the enemy with a wildly-diverse set of radar returns from conventional and stealth aircraft,” or perhaps “something more active.” He offered that in addition to support platforms like the EA-18G Growler or F-35, “smaller frequency-tailored systems might be suitable for a future unmanned system.”

Barrett said that while foreign powers are starting to field aircraft “that look stealthy,” the US has the advantage of 40 years of working with stealth, figuring out how best to employ it, and foreign powers won’t be able to match that experience for quite some time.

When the F-22 was new, he said, its pilots used the F-15 “playbook,” but soon began to realize that employing the F-22 required “a whole new way of thinking.” Pilots don’t—and shouldn’t—fly close to each other, and could employ new tactics and derive greater value from the jet’s capabilities, he said. The F-22, beside being able to “pick off” enemy fighters at will, is also a stellar “battle manager” by virtue of seeing all the elements of the fight at a glance. The F-35 has similar capabilities, he said.

Countries that are buying the F-35 are, for the most part “not buying the simulator,” and that’s a mistake, Barrett said. Working out the secret, unexpected capabilities of the F-22 required long hours trying things out in the simulator, and that experimental capability was fundamental to deriving the full power from the F-22, he said. Countries “that buy an F-35 to replace the F-4” but don’t invest in the corresponding development of exploiting its capabilities “have a very expensive F-4 on the ramp,” he said.

The key question to be answered by force planners, given the the “comparable” cost of stealth aircraft to non-stealth aircraft, “isn’t ‘why,’ but ‘why not,’” Barrett observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Institute Study

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_cd5494417b644d1fa7d7aacb9295324d.pdf

 

[AeroFranz]

Good reference - Thanks!

 

[bobbymike]

Good reference - Thanks!

No problem, I don't have the technical knowledge of many members here so when 'surfing' the web always try and bring links of interest to contribute to this amazing community as best I can.

 

[kcran567]

Instead of sinking close to a Trillion $$$ for the F-35, why didn't more effort be put in updating the F-22 with the F-35s fancy avionics and updated baked on stealth coatings, and just have a simplified and scaled back (X-32) "F-32" serving the Marines and whoever needs it with a smaller vstol capable fighter/attack aircraft.

Would have and saved a sh*t load of $$ while having affordable and viable numbers of Hi/Lo mix which was the STATED goal of the JSF program in the first place.

Even if inferior to the F-35 (which it really wasn't, it actually was capable and affordable to manufacture) it had a simplified direct lift system that would have been less brute force than the F-35's but much more in line with affordability if avionics could be kept within reason, which was not the case with the F-35.

The F-35 defeated its own stated goal of affordability that money should have been put toward further development of the excellent F-22 (and put in new tech to help make it more affordable/maintenance friendly if possible) while using something like the x-32 in numbers.

The money spent on the F-35 could be going to the F-22, an affordable aircraft like the X-32, and a future replacement for the F-22, PCA or whatever.

 

[Dragon029]

Don't forget that it's $1.5T for everything including sustainment and inflation through to 2070; the production cost of 2470 F-35s, including inflation, through to 2044 is about $400B at the moment.
Raptors are still / would still be more expensive than F-35s (I don't see how you get the same avionics as the F-35 + ~20,000lb of additional aluminium, composite, titanium, etc for less). You'd also want to build something like an F/B-22 or some other variant that can carry serious stand-off weapons internally (maybe double the B-21 quantity). I also doubt the Marines would be able to afford an X-32 - depending on what you choose to cut you're either going to get a stealthy plane that can carry or recover almost nothing, or something that doesn't provide any more than a Harrier SLEP + avionics upgrade would have, or you're just going to have a more expensive aircraft due to the significantly reduced economy of scale. Your plan also leaves the Navy empty handed unless you believe you can somehow slip in a Navy F/A-XX or just want them to operate X-32 STOVLs.

 

[Airplane]

More Raptors, many more, would have totally negated the USAF need for a JSF. It would have also allowed for a smaller fighter fleet for the USAF and would have saved money. The Raptors would have gotten incremental upgrades throughout production to eventually rival the JSF passive sensors. So the JSF can carry 2 heavier bombs. Big deal, since most targets aren't hardened bunkers. Its just another example of politicians f*cking up the military. For crying out load, the JSF cannot even carry 9x internally.

 

[GTX]

For crying out load, the JSF cannot even carry 9x internally.

And yet it carries the larger AIM-120 internally...your point being?

 

[GTX]

Instead of sinking close to a Trillion $$$ for the F-35, why didn't more effort be put in updating the F-22 with the F-35s fancy avionics and updated baked on stealth coatings, and just have a simplified and scaled back (X-32) "F-32" serving the Marines and whoever needs it with a smaller vstol capable fighter/attack aircraft.

Would have and saved a sh*t load of $$ while having affordable and viable numbers of Hi/Lo mix which was the STATED goal of the JSF program in the first place.

Even if inferior to the F-35 (which it really wasn't, it actually was capable and affordable to manufacture) it had a simplified direct lift system that would have been less brute force than the F-35's but much more in line with affordability if avionics could be kept within reason, which was not the case with the F-35.

The F-35 defeated its own stated goal of affordability that money should have been put toward further development of the excellent F-22 (and put in new tech to help make it more affordable/maintenance friendly if possible) while using something like the x-32 in numbers.

The money spent on the F-35 could be going to the F-22, an affordable aircraft like the X-32, and a future replacement for the F-22, PCA or whatever.

Oh, so much "grass is always greener" mentality here I don't know where to start...

 

[SpudmanWP]

More Raptors, many more, would have totally negated the USAF need for a JSF. It would have also allowed for a smaller fighter fleet for the USAF and would have saved money. The Raptors would have gotten incremental upgrades throughout production to eventually rival the JSF passive sensors. So the JSF can carry 2 heavier bombs. Big deal, since most targets aren't hardened bunkers. Its just another example of politicians f*cking up the military. For crying out load, the JSF cannot even carry 9x internally.

1. The F-22 cannot do STOVL or CV ops.

2. The F-22 costs 2-3 times as much as an F-35A, in procurement, CPFH, and lifetime costs.

3. Our Allies cannot use the F-35.

4. It's not just a bigger bomb than the F-35 can carry, it's internal cruise missiles, AShMs, glide bombs, MALD-Js, AARGM-ER, bunker busters, etc

5. On the 9x issue, would you rather have an internal BVR weapon that you can also use WVR, or carry a WVR weapon where you will be forced to wait till the WVR weapon is in range to engage?

 

[Airplane]

More Raptors, many more, would have totally negated the USAF need for a JSF. It would have also allowed for a smaller fighter fleet for the USAF and would have saved money. The Raptors would have gotten incremental upgrades throughout production to eventually rival the JSF passive sensors. So the JSF can carry 2 heavier bombs. Big deal, since most targets aren't hardened bunkers. Its just another example of politicians f*cking up the military. For crying out load, the JSF cannot even carry 9x internally.

1. The F-22 cannot do STOVL or CV ops.

2. The F-22 costs 2-3 times as much as an F-35A, in procurement, CPFH, and lifetime costs.

3. Our Allies cannot use the F-35.

4. It's not just a bigger bomb than the F-35 can carry, it's internal cruise missiles, AShMs, glide bombs, MALD-Js, AARGM-ER, bunker busters, etc

5. On the 9x issue, would you rather have an internal BVR weapon that you can also use WVR, or carry a WVR weapon where you will be forced to wait till the WVR weapon is in range to engage?

Spud - I am speaking SPECIFICALLY for the USAF. An all F-22 fleet instead of a limited numbers of -22s and greater number of -35s would have been far cheaper for the USAF and would have allowed for a smaller fleet and would have saved money. It's economy of scale. -22 would have been cheaper if more had been built. It +1000 were built I can't postulate what procurement costs would have been, but it would be "cheap" and billions would not have been spend on the -35.

On the 9x issue, I would rather not have the -35 being a one trick pony with 120. At this point in time we don't know where the Pak Fa and Chinese planes RCS are going to wind up being (likely there are some people spread throughout the DoD who do know) but if the 120 isn't effective against them or their countermeasures against it and you've got to merge to within visual, there is obviously not much to little to no IR suppression, and 9x will be the way to go. It out to be a crime that the JSF can't carry 9x internally. 9x is effective even in frontal firings where the Pak Fa and Chinese have the smaller RCS. What a shame JSF cannot carry 9x.

As far as glide bombs and cruise missiles and the etc. we had a ready made platform but the politicians limited it a build of 21 copies.

And for don't forget, after the -22s destroyed the opposing airforce or kept it occupied, and conducted SEAD, we have Strike Eagles.

 

[bring_it_on]

Aim-9X is not the weapon for the F-35, the AMRAAM is. If they want to provide multi-spectral coverage and have a better short range weapon for the internal bay then those requirements will be rolled into the new missile with which they are now getting started.

As things stand, short of developing a purely LOAL mode Aim-9x there was no way to add the missile internally without impacting platform design and weight. Such a move (as was planned initially for the ASRAAM) would have then led to loss of flexibility in terms of optimally swapping out the IR missile and replacing with an MRAAM. Long term, they are probably better off going for a new missile that is better. There have been significant advances made in capabilities from when the Aim-9X was designed. They need to move on and the F-35 has decades of service life ahead of it.

On the numbers, the USAF wanted 400+ F-22As as part of their fleet mix. They wanted more but were unable to get even 200 let alone the 400 they wanted or the 1000 being proposed here. The USAF wasn't quit about its displeasure with the small F-22 fleet. They tried as hard as they could but they couldn't get more.

It out to be a crime that the JSF can't carry 9x internally. 9x is effective even in frontal firings where the Pak Fa and Chinese have the smaller RCS. What a shame JSF cannot carry 9x.

On the contrary, It ought to be a crime to expect a platform designed for the 2020-2060 environment to be constrained by a weapon that goes back decades. Modern technology, capability and concepts in guidance, propulsion and agility need to be explored to give the F-22, F-35 and the future crop of fighters better performing missiles. If the problem is future proofing the F-35 against low RCS and better RF ECM techniques then the answer is to look into your S&T and R&D and develop something that provides that and not slap on a solution that actually limits the flexibility of how the weapon system is employed.

In the interim, you have the external carriage option.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Spud - I am speaking SPECIFICALLY for the USAF.

Ok... the primary purpose of USAF fighter aircraft is a multirole, strike fighter.

If you don't build the F-35 and depend solely on the F-15E, then you will be spending even more money on using the F-22 in the escort role, EW aircraft, decosys, etc.

As far as more B2s for bombing, I thought you were trying to save money?

Using 4th gen as your primary fighter leaves you with this.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-returns-mothballed-raptor-to-fleet-440178/

The US Air Force has taken a Lockheed Martin F-22A out of storage and plans to return the Raptor to flying status by the end of this year, the service confirms to FlightGlobal.

The service’s fiscal year 2018 budget justification documents states the F-22 programme will add another operational test aircraft to the fleet by taking one aircraft out of flyable storage.

The USAF selected F-22 serial number 91-4006, an engineering, manufacturing and development model aircraft with a Block 10 avionics configuration. It has been parked at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Modifications worth $25 million to upgrade the parked Raptor to a Block 20 avionics standard have already started, a USAF spokeswoman tells FlightGlobal. The service will also modify basic systems including hydraulic, electrical and flight controls.

4006 was the ship in the background of my profile picture. We UCLA aerospace engineering undergrads were given a special tour of Edwards AFB last year, and we even got a talk with a test pilot, nicknamed C-dip (can't remember his name, unfortunately). At the time 4006 was missing the Sidewinder launch rails and was noticeably dusty and showed signs of wear and tear. 4009 was the other aircraft parked in the hanger, and that one's exterior colors are much closer to production aircraft.

I actually still have some mental notes that I took from the tour last year, I'll try to compile it and type it up here.

 

[Dreamfighter]

The US Air Force has taken a Lockheed Martin F-22A out of storage and plans to return the Raptor to flying status by the end of this year, the service confirms to FlightGlobal.

To celebrate next month 20 years since F-22A first flight?
No new production most probably, but at least one additional will get airborn (again).

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force weighs cost to upgrade 34 F-22 trainers to combat configuration

The Air Force estimates it would cost $1.7 billion to convert 34 older-model F-22 training jets to an operational configuration that is homogenous with today's Block 30 Raptor fleet.

 

[NeilChapman]

Air Force weighs cost to upgrade 34 F-22 trainers to combat configuration

The Air Force estimates it would cost $1.7 billion to convert 34 older-model F-22 training jets to an operational configuration that is homogenous with today's Block 30 Raptor fleet.

50M a pop. Evidently there's a lot to upgrade. Seems like a no brainer.

Another squadron and a (almost) a half.

I wonder what the timeline would be? Seems I've been hearing that the depots are all backed up.

 

[Empire]

What block upgrade would the 34 training jets get to bring them up to combat configuration?? Anyone know or hear? ok block 30 i see now! Wonder how long that would take? They are upgrading a mothballed block 10 to a training block 20 this year and that is taking about 4 to 5 months i think

 

[bobbymike]

http://warisboring.com/f-22-raptors-over-syria-acting-as-flying-scouts/

 

[Jeb]

http://warisboring.com/f-22-raptors-over-syria-acting-as-flying-scouts/

I've been comparing the F-22's operational potential to a scout sniper for a long time now. Nice to see someone else drawing the same comparison.

 

[bobbymike]

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2017/10/05/airframe-the-f-22-raptor/

 

[Hood]

The US Air Force estimates it would cost more than $1.7 billion over 11 years to upgrade 34 Lockheed Martin F-22s Block 20 Raptors to Block 30/35 configuration.
This is partly because some items are no longer in production, like the upgraded APG-77 variant used on the 30/35.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-estimates-f-22-updates-could-cost-17-billion-442672/

 

[marauder2048]

F-22 Stores Integration

 

[bobbymike]

http://forgodandcountry.com/aviation/watch-an-f-22-raptor-take-on-an-a-4-skyhawk-in-a-dogfight/?utm_source=MA

Turn and burn Mav!!

Near where they filmed Top Gun. Years ago I posited "Top Gun II: Raptor Flight"

 

[Flyaway]

Damaged F-22 makes comeback after six-year repair job

A Lockheed Martin F-22 grounded since a trainee pilot’s error led to a crash landing in May 2012 could be ready to return to service next March after a nearly six-year-long repair job, according to a new US Air force document.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/damaged-f-22-makes-comeback-after-six-year-repair-jo-444022/

 

[sferrin]

Damaged F-22 makes comeback after six-year repair job

A Lockheed Martin F-22 grounded since a trainee pilot’s error led to a crash landing in May 2012 could be ready to return to service next March after a nearly six-year-long repair job, according to a new US Air force document.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/damaged-f-22-makes-comeback-after-six-year-repair-jo-444022/

Sounds like quite a lot of effort for a jet we only needed 187 of and then quit production. /sarc.

 

[Mike Pryce]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

 

[sferrin]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

Giving it to Northrop Grumman rather than the Phantom Works would probably be a better bet. That FB-23 would be real useful about now. (Though probably left behind in comparison to the PCA being developed.)

 

[marauder2048]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

Giving it to Northrop Grumman rather than the Phantom Works would probably be a better bet.

Guess it depends on which data rights the US government purchased and which were on offer.

 

[sferrin]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

Giving it to Northrop Grumman rather than the Phantom Works would probably be a better bet.

Guess it depends on which data rights the US government purchased and which were on offer.

Maybe they're trying to throw Boeing a bone. ??? Doesn't make sense to pick them over Northrop.

 

[Airplane]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

Giving it to Northrop Grumman rather than the Phantom Works would probably be a better bet.

Guess it depends on which data rights the US government purchased and which were on offer.

Maybe they're trying to throw Boeing a bone. ??? Doesn't make sense to pick them over Northrop.

Maybe Northrop has already done similar avionics/sensor work under another black program(s)....

 

[Triton]

It used to be said that the best replacement for the Buccaneer would be an updated Buccaneer.

Seems some in the USAF may feel the same about the F-22:

http://www.sldinfo.com/redefining-the-next-generation-fighter-aircraft-build-out-air-combat-capability-by-shaping-a-21st-century-version-of-the-century-aircraft/

Give the Skunk Works and the Phantom Works one each and 3 years....

Michael Wynne was United States Secretary of the Air Force during the George W Bush administration from 2005 to 2008. The incumbent United States Secretary of the Air Force is Heather Wilson. Are any decision makers currently listening to Wynne's opinions?

 

[marauder2048]

Wynne is still very active in the AFA and Air Force leadership does at least hear him out.

On a related matter: interesting interview with former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (F-22 related excerpt below).

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-mcpeak-speaks-20171113-story.html

Carl Prine: As an outsider, maybe I’m looking at this as you don’t get all the credit you
deserve for doing some good things and you get too much blame for other things. I don’t think
you get enough credit for the F-22. You were driving a lot of that.

Merrill McPeak: Right. And including trying to convince Obama. I spent ‘08 in Iowa, in
the snows of Iowa, introducing Obama in high school gymnasiums. And when we get back
into the van to drive to the next stop, we’d watch basketball. And I’d try to get a word in
edgewise about the F-22.

Then he went and canceled it.

Carl Prine: That was (Secretary of Defense Bob) Gates.

Merrill McPeak: That was Gates. Don’t even get me started on that.

Carl Prine: I think he might be the most overrated Secretary of Defense ever. I really do.

Merrill McPeak: You and I should go have a beer!

Carl Prine: Gates was a great politician.

Merrill McPeak: I can think of no national security problem that was improved by Bob
Gates. But his main virtue was that he wasn’t Don Rumsfeld.

 

[Triton]

Thanks for the additional information marauder.