http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml&headline=F-22%20Design%20Shows%20More%20Than%20Expected

F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected

Feb 8, 2009
By David A. Fulghum

Hoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements.

Moreover, the U.S. Air Force is taking the fighter to the Paris air show for the first time this summer, says Larry Lawson, executive vice president and general manager of the F-22 program. The promise of additional U.S. and, possibly, foreign sales has removed any obstacles.

The problem confronting the company is that Raptor backing is splintered. Senior Pentagon acquisition officials want to shut down production to cut defense spending. Congress wants more production to keep aerospace industry jobs going. Air Force leadership is setting on a new minimum requirement for 240-250 aircraft (about another 60 F-22s) but hasn't made the new number public, apparently waiting to introduce it as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can't deploy until about 2014.

In addition, the secrecy-obscured question of just how good the F-22 is as an air-to-air combat design remains unanswered. It's a complex issue that involves the world of electronic surveillance and attack, information operations, network-centric roles and advanced radar. Right now, the F-22 is one of only two stealth fighters being flown. That may change in a decade as Russia and China introduce new designs. Advanced F-15 radars have a slightly greater range, but the F-22 can use its stealth to move closer to targets. U.S. aggressor pilots work daily to find ways to outmaneuver F-22s, but so far they've only accomplished a few kills, always by some fluke, says Lawson.

The F-22's newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as "better" than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble." By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.

Supercruise is at Mach 1.78 rather than Mach 1.5. Acceleration - although company officials would not say from what speed or at what altitude - is 3.05 sec. faster than the requirement of 54 sec. In nonafterburning, full military power, the Raptor can operate at slightly above 50,000 ft. However, it is known that the F-22 opened its aerial battles at about 65,000 ft. during its first joint exercise in Alaska, apparently using afterburner. There is also a mysterious admission that the range of the Raptor's Northrop Grumman/Raytheon active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has a range 5% greater than expected. That means a cushion of an additional 5-6 mi. of detection range against enemy aircraft and missiles.

Ranges of the new lines of AESA radars are classified. But they are estimated at about 90 mi. for the smallest (aimed at the F-16 radar-upgrade market). The F/A-18E/F and F-35 (with radar ranges of 100 mi.) are followed by the F-22 (110-115-mi.). The largest is carried by the upgraded F-15Cs and Es (125 mi.). By comparison, the range for a mechanically scanned, F-15C radar is 56 mi. according to Russian air force intelligence. U.S. aerospace officials agree that an AESA radar "at least doubles" the range over standard military radars.

When coupled with the electronic techniques generator in an aircraft, the radar can project jamming, false targets and other false information into enemy sensors. Ranges for electronic attack equal the AESA radar plus that of the enemy radar. That could allow electronic attack at ranges of 150 mi. or more. The ability to pick out small targets at a long distance also lets AESA-equipped aircraft find and attack cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and small UAVs.

Lockheed Martin also makes an economic argument for continuing Raptor production. The F-22 unit cost in a USAF multiyear purchase is $142.6 million (average unit flyaway cost). Initial unit cost of the F-35 will be around $200 million and then start dropping as production continues. In Japan, the decision to indigenously build small numbers of F-15Js and F-2s (a larger F-16 design) drove their cost to roughly $100 million each. The Eurofighter Typhoon would likely cost even more in a small production run.

"If the [U.S.] wants to do a foreign military sale or sustain those [high-tech F-22 production] jobs longer or wanted to keep its [stealth fighter] insurance policy in place longer, it would have an option" if it continued production until 2014, says Lawson. "We're hoping for a positive decision to keep production going and allow the [U.S.] administration the time it needs to study the problem further to make a decision about what the ultimate quantity is. If you build more, they cost less."

The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.

The speed of pilot training also has offered surprises. The first class of four first lieutenant F-22 pilots - with no experience in another operational fighters - has graduated from Raptor training, says David Scott, Lockheed Martin's director of F-22 business development. In addition, a second, full class of 13 pilots, just out of advanced jet training, has been selected for direct transition to the Raptor. Scott says the new pilots have far fewer habits to unlearn, and they adapted more quickly to improvising with the F-22's advanced network-centric capabilities.

Another element of the formula is that 183 Raptors - with production ending in 2011 - provide the U.S. with only 126 combat-coded (capable) aircraft, says Lawson. Of those, only about 100 would be operationally available. A fleet of 183 F-22s would require the Air Force to continue using 177 F-15s through 2025 for air superiority roles, and the end of production would kill any chance for a foreign military sale, he says.

However, if production were extended by three years to 2014, when planners hope the U.S. economy will be stronger, company analysts say the number of operational F-22s would grow to 180, says Lawson. They would be supplemented by the first 68 F-35s, and foreign military sales of the F-22 would become feasible, he adds. While Australia has definitely dropped out of the chase for F-22s, Japanese and Israeli officials say even a single squadron would provide a large boost in deterrence to other military forces.

Russian opinions of the F-22's capabilities vary from awestruck to dismissive, according to a Jan. 26 article in Pravda (english.pravda.ru/world/americas/107010-raptor-0).

The stealthy fighter poses a "great danger to any modern missile defense system," says Konstantin Sivkov, vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, with a "wide range of opportunities to defeat [air defenses]. Enormous speed . . . maneuverability and its airborne equipment . . . make it a very powerful and dangerous aircraft." However, the Raptor "should not be overestimated," says Alexander Khramchikhin, a specialist with the Institute of Military and Political Analysis. "It is radar-detectable and it is destructible." The Pravda article says the U.S. considers Russia and China as its "first and foremost threats [and] that the two countries may have "fifth-generation fighters during the upcoming 5-10 years."

Advanced air defense systems - called SA-20 and SA-21 by NATO and S-300 and S-400 by the Russians who export them - can only be penetrated by stealthy aircraft, say U.S. experts. The Russians note that their missiles are purely defensive (although that would be a tough argument to make in the Middle East) and that the S-300 is exported to a only few countries. In addition, the S-400 cannot be found outside Russia, and it equips only two divisions within the country, they assert. However, exports of such high-threat, "double-digit" surface-to-air missiles have been made to China, Vietnam and Syria, and are on order for Iran.

Lockheed Martin planners want to parlay the Raptor's operational enticements into support from the Obama administration, which would have to approve further fighter production by March. The pressure is on to find support for continued F-22 Raptor production of at least 20 more aircraft - for which Congress has approved long-lead funding - and as many as 60 total if the Air Force restates its requirement for the aircraft.

Some senior Air Force officials, while looking longingly at a larger fleet, think the odds are poor for funding beyond the next increment of 20 F-22s. They say internal Pentagon calculations are that Lockheed Martin has an adequate base with the C-130J and C-5B upgrades that will sustain their business while F-35 ramps up to a high-rate production of 110 aircraft per year.
 
There is quite a bit of new "official information" in this article. Releasing more specific data about it actual capabilities is one way to go making case for more F-22s.

It seams now from statements from the USAF, Lockheed-Martin, the Pentagon, the Congress and the Senate, only the Congress opposes more F-22s with the other players starting a lobbing effort to continue production. It would be interesting to see, what will the Obama administration decide before March first.

In the mid 90's BAe published exchange ration from simulated fighter battles between various western fighters and the latest MiG-29 and SU-27 variants. Back then it was all in support for the Eurofighter which came out with exchange ration of 4-1 and the F-22 with 10-1.
I suspect BAe used the the requirements for the F-22 as a base, since the later had not flown yet.

Now Lockheed Martin publishes a figure of 30-1 for a similar scenario presumably using more up to date performance figures.

These are of course the for and against the argument of buying more F-22s. Still the new figure shows the F-22 to be considerably more effective than originally planned underscoring its better than specified key performance parameters.

The F-22 will visit the this summer's Paris Air show for the first time in its career. It will be interesting to see if more information will be presented at this event.
 
lantinian said:
There is quite a bit of new "official information" in this article. Releasing more specific data about it actual capabilities is one way to go making case for more F-22s.

It seams now from statements from the USAF, Lockheed-Martin, the Pentagon, the Congress and the Senate, only the Congress opposes more F-22s with the other players starting a lobbing effort to continue production. It would be interesting to see, what will the Obama administration decide before March first.

In the mid 90's BAe published exchange ration from simulated fighter battles between various western fighters and the latest MiG-29 and SU-27 variants. Back then it was all in support for the Eurofighter which came out with exchange ration of 4-1 and the F-22 with 10-1.
I suspect BAe used the the requirements for the F-22 as a base, since the later had not flown yet.

Now Lockheed Martin publishes a figure of 30-1 for a similar scenario presumably using more up to date performance figures.

These are of course the for and against the argument of buying more F-22s. Still the new figure shows the F-22 to be considerably more effective than originally planned underscoring its better than specified key performance parameters.

The F-22 will visit the this summer's Paris Air show for the first time in its career. It will be interesting to see if more information will be presented at this event.
Back then, stealth information and how effective were (aspecially considering the ATF) still fairly new and unavailable to the british to have an accurate simulation. And I think the same thing can be said for the russian aircrafts (the one flown in the simulation was su-35 I believe). The 30-1 is sited using the su-27 and mig-29, but it doesn't specifically say which variant of these families.
 
The 30-1 is sited using the su-27 and mig-29, but it doesn't specifically say which variant of these families.
I agree that typing says its not SU-35 or MiG-35 although I am quite sure Lockheed are implying the later for several reasons:
1. American way of designating aircrafts would treat SU-35 as a variant of SU-27 rather than a new aircraft. F-16 Block 60 can also be named F-26 by the Russians for much the same reason. It's easier for the American public to think of the new russian models as advanced derivatives, rather than new aircraft.

2. A recent comment from USAF about F-35 being 400% better than best Russia can sell today (SU-30MKI), is in parallel with the stated figure of 4-1 exchange ratio coming from Lockheed.
http://frontierindia.net/f-35-at-least-400-better-in-air-to-air-combat-against-russian-sukhois-says-lockheed-martin

3. F-22 was never meant to defeat SU-27s or MiG-29s. The whole purpose of the program was to produce an aircraft better than what the Soviets could design in the Future as well as advanced derivatives of their current designs. Therefore comparing it to old generation of aircraft is irrelevant.

4. The Article states that legacy fighters have less than 1-1 chance vs these Russian types. I highly doubt that latest models of F-15 or F-16 in service have less than 1-1 vs the basic Flanker or Fulcrums. They are obviously referring to the latest models available for export.

5. BAe was indeed referencing SU-35 but it is not the SU-35 we know today. It was the first SU-27 derivative with canards and some new avionics back in the mid 90s. The Russians then went to SU-37 in 97 with TVC. Its Just a PR campaign to make their government think they are buying new models. I remember reading about then head of Such, Simonov (I think) stating the SU-37 equal 10 SU-27s. And that was more than 12 years ago.

So I still stand by my belief that F-22 turn out to be a lot more combat effective that even its best opponents could foresee. I just don't think they got the maintenance part right ....... again.
 
lantinian said:
This link
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11567.html
seams to give some good numbers for the F119 engines.


0,664 pounds of fuel per pounds of trust per hour, at 2x21,500 lb of
trust from 14,400 lb of available fuel will allow the two Raptor
engines to run for roughly 30 minutes total.

Mach 1,5 at 40,000 ft translates in about 1,600 km/h. 30 min dash at
that speed will give us a range of 800 km. Add 100 more to get to Mach
1,5 from take of and 100 back needed to land and we have a max Mach
1,5 supercruise combat radius of 500km which is about 270nm.

May not sound like much but how good will the F-15C do in the same
circumstances? It has less internal fuel and twice the SCF to keep the same speed :)

I Know the YF-23 would have done a lot better but that's another story.

BTW, wasn't the original requirement for about 350nm supercruise radius?

P.S. Using the figure of 20,650 lb for internal fuel, I get a 44 min of supercruise for a combat radius of 687km or 370nm.

In the June 12, 2006 AW&ST issue there was an article on cruise missile defense and in the article it outlined how the F-22 was to play a major role in cruise missile defense. One reason is the F-22’s ability to sustain supersonic speeds to allow multiple reattacks on cruise missiles after they have passed by the CAP station. The article quotes a USAF official (IIRC a General or Col.) who noted that the F-22 could cruise at Mach 1.5 for 41 minutes compared to 7 minutes for an F-15 when on a CM defense mission. That’s approximately 600nm or a radius of 300nm if it’s all supersonic.

From the context of the article and the quote the 41 minutes is a mission representative figure so I assume that means that this number is the fuel available for ingress/egress and using the 2/3rd rule of thumb that translates to 12,300lbs or a specific range of roughly 0.048 nm/lb of fuel at Mach 1.5. The jet has a 595nm subsonic only radius of action so assuming the same available fuel as above that gives it a subsonic SR of 0.96 nm/lb of fuel or roughly double when subsonic.

BDF
 
I presume reality somitemis is less exciting
 

Attachments

  • flatdash1.jpg
    flatdash1.jpg
    213.7 KB · Views: 236
  • flatdash2.jpg
    flatdash2.jpg
    219.4 KB · Views: 233
  • intercept.jpg
    intercept.jpg
    243 KB · Views: 248
flateric said:
I presume reality somitemis is less exciting

Those slides come from a Dr. Grant ppt. presentation (Transformation and the Joint Air Component) from one of the AFA annual conventions, IIRC 2003 or so. Now there are no comments in the presentation that I have so we don’t know the parameters of those scenarios but those slides you show do not contradict what I wrote. The first slide shows that the F-22 can intercept the inbound threat from a distance of 330nm where the F-15 fails because it runs out of gas; it doesn’t indicate the maximum supersonic range. The second merely shows how long it takes to conduct an 150nm intercept. Note the F-15 is subsonic and the F-22 is not.

The last one, however, cuts off the range values but in later slides shows 443nm sub + 50nm supersonic. Using my numbers I get 480 + 50 so I was off by about 7% or so which is pretty good considering I’m guestimating fuel available calculations. I'm probably not exact (and I don't claim to be) but it's clear the F-22's supersonic persistance is pretty good even if it didn't meet initial ATF KPPs.

BDF
 
An official statement about the F-22 is that 6 Raptors can cover the same area as 10 F-35s. F-22 speed and range have to be quite impressive for that, since the F-35 range in quite impressive in itself
 
The official word on F-22 performance in relation to meeting KPIs is at:

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

Combat Radius (NM) Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 310+100nm
 
lantinian said:
An official statement about the F-22 is that 6 Raptors can cover the same area as 10 F-35s. F-22 speed and range have to be quite impressive for that, since the F-35 range in quite impressive in itself

Yeah that was an interesting recent revelation as was -- yet again -- the fact that the USAF would “favor more F-22s” in our future fighter force structure. I’d be nice if there was a way of buying both the F-22 now and F-35s but reduce the F-35 buy somewhat at the end of the run but I don’t see that as a politically acceptable notion. Personally I’m in favor of a future fleet of ~250-300 F-22s, 1,200 F-35s and 100-150 B-3s (NG-LRS) as I think that’d be a more balanced force structure.

Abraham Gubler said:
The official word on F-22 performance in relation to meeting KPIs is at:

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

Combat Radius (NM) Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 310+100nm

It’d be nice if we knew what the parameters of “Mission 1” are. The USAF and LM have been fairly vague on the F-22’s supersonic endurance/range stating “half hour in a one hour mission” and “as long as you have fuel” to more precise figures such as the one I gave above or the AFA material such as the Grant slides above or from the magazine itself. So far none have appeared to contradict the others and for the most part the relationship of sub to supersonic fuel burn appears to be right about double. This relationship bears out even in the Stevenson/CDI presentation so I think my estimation is in the ballpark.

BDF
 
Question(though it may be a bit off topic), how much would the F-22 cost if it was bought in the same numbers as the F-35?
 
That's an impossible question to answer. But the reality is cost of production aircraft after recuperating start up costs is very much associated with weight. The more titanium, the more parts to screw together, etc all drives up cost. The F-35 once it reaches its average unit cost will be much cheaper than the F-22. The F-22 has currently reached the 'sweet spot' on the production line. There would be no significant driving down of cost if production was to continue to 1,000. By significant I mean more than ~10%.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
That's an impossible question to answer. But the reality is cost of production aircraft after recuperating start up costs is very much associated with weight. The more titanium, the more parts to screw together, etc all drives up cost. The F-35 once it reaches its average unit cost will be much cheaper than the F-22. The F-22 has currently reached the 'sweet spot' on the production line. There would be no significant driving down of cost if production was to continue to 1,000. By significant I mean more than ~10%.

I don’t know about that. The line was optimized for 48 jets a year but was drawn down to 36 after the ’97 QDR and a drop in overall buy to 336. It was further reduced and the rate was slowed further and in effect the program never had a real production ramp or a true high rate of production. A few years ago LM felt they could get the unit costs down to the mid 80s if they could get production rate up. In today’s dollars that would probably mean about 100-110 million a pop or about a 30% reduction. The F-22 will always be more expensive than the F-35 for sure.

BDF
 
RIP, Dave Cooley
 

Attachments

  • 081114-F-1830P-301.jpg
    081114-F-1830P-301.jpg
    534.8 KB · Views: 91
As I understand, Raptor crashed at Cuddeback Dry Lake area, not far from X-15A-3 crash site...
 
It means that the plans to build another two dozens of F-22 for the USAF and a few others for the export are definitely cancelled?
 
mmmm, it depends from what will happen in the Far East and with Iran, I think.
 
A top Pentagon official has informed the US Congress that Syria is set to purchase Russia’s advanced Mig-31 fighter jet, a move which Jerusalem hopes to counter by obtaining the superior F-22 stealth fighter.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force has expressed renewed interest in buying the Lockheed Martin built F-22 “fifth generation” fighter, which so far has only been sold to the US military. Congress will be discussing the F-22 next month, and there is widespread speculation that the ban on selling the aircraft abroad will be lifted, as the production line for the aircraft is in danger of shutting down.

http://www.icej.org/article/israel_syria_seek_next_generation_aircraft
 
From what I've read the new administration has upheld the previous one's position that the Raptor will not be sold to any other nation...I would bet that LockMart will lobby very, very hard to get that changed but my money is that they won't prevail...
 
Basically they will build 4 more additional Raptors to those already planned and thats it. The production line is has some 30,000+ workers now and will gradually decrease over the next 2-3 years.

Meanwhile the F-35 testing will accelerate as some of the aircraft initially planned for production in 2009 will now be used for testing. So any workers loosing jobs in the F-22 program will likely be able to find a place in the much larger F-35 program.

Still, it will be interesting to see how much support did F-22 have in congress when this plan gets the vote.
 
People can read the transcript of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' briefing here to see exactly what was included - it might help stop rumours/misconceptions.

First of all, remember that this is only the start of the budgetary process - it is what the administration is planning (or asking for if you like). Once it gets out the other end, the result will be different. Though the F-22 production will still probably be capped - there may be a couple more, but nothing like what some would dream of.

They're going to shut down production? Or just not order any more?

Apart from the four extra mentioned, they are planning to stop production at 187 total - there may be a few more added in (perhaps one to replace the recent loss) but not a great deal.

mmmm, it depends from what will happen in the Far East and with Iran, I think.
Insert Quote
Quote
A top Pentagon official has informed the US Congress that Syria is set to purchase Russia’s advanced Mig-31 fighter jet, a move which Jerusalem hopes to counter by obtaining the superior F-22 stealth fighter.


Quote
Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force has expressed renewed interest in buying the Lockheed Martin built F-22 “fifth generation” fighter, which so far has only been sold to the US military. Congress will be discussing the F-22 next month, and there is widespread speculation that the ban on selling the aircraft abroad will be lifted, as the production line for the aircraft is in danger of shutting down.

http://www.icej.org/article/israel_syria_seek_next_generation_aircraft

I doubt these will have any impact on the decision - as it is they will have 180 odd F-22s + f-35s + all the legacy platforms + allies so I doubt a few MiG-31s (if it does eventuate) or whatever Iran has will sway the decision. In fact, even China wouldn't change things IMHO.

From what I've read the new administration has upheld the previous one's position that the Raptor will not be sold to any other nation...I would bet that LockMart will lobby very, very hard to get that changed but my money is that they won't prevail...

I honestly don't think that Lockheed Martin would be too worried - they are still winning with the F-35 which will be exported far and wide and to far more customers than the F-22 ever could have.

Also, the law preventing the export of F-22s isn't exactly the position of either the Bush or Obama administrations - it is actually an ammendment (the Obey Ammendment - named after the proposer Congressman David R. Obey) to the 1998 Department of Defense appropriations legislation.

I hope this is useful.

Regards,

Greg
 
It is interesting that the F-22 is getting all the focus from this. Some of the other plans are significant too, such as:

We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.

Hopefully the LCS will overcome its initial difficulties.

7. To replace the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet, we will maintain the KC-X aerial re-fueling tanker schedule and funding, with the intent to solicit bids this summer.

The never-ending story is to get another chapter?

Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.

I guess the HH-47 won't see the light of day now, or will it perhaps but in a joint service format?

We will cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable.

Not unexpected, but at least it stays alive as a research program.

Fifth, in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.
If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51. If the department is left to pursue this alternative, it would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards.

No comment.

Sixth, and finally, we will significantly restructure the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

It will be interesting to see what results from this.

Regards,

Greg
 
• In FY10, we will begin the replacement program for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program.

Cool, a new SSBN to counter Russia's new one. I wonder if we've got a new SLBM in the works that'll be fitted to it.

• We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.

There goes B-3.<_<

• We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement

Didn't this thing just get started and with a working prototype?

• We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.

Weren't they already on a 5 year build cycle?


4. To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs.

Smart choice there, go with what you know works. Too bad he didn't apply that to other programs.
 
With the price of the F-35 ballooning, the F-22 seems like a better buy for the AF. So when the AF buys its lot of F-35A's, it's getting a lower top speed, no supercruise, less stealth, and less maneuverability. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.
 
barring some interesting event like a comet striking earth , we will all be here when the F-35 is cancelled at some minor production number to allow more unmanned combat equipment , which will be far cheaper , at least on paper . It is a good thing we still have Phantoms . America , eat your heart out .
 
CFE said:
With the price of the F-35 ballooning, the F-22 seems like a better buy for the AF. So when the AF buys its lot of F-35A's, it's getting a lower top speed, no supercruise, less stealth, and less maneuverability. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

There is no actual evidence to support the claim that F-35 cost is ballooning. Just a lot of conjecture based on comparisons to projects that happened 10-20 years ago without today's technology. While there may be sticker price cost rises they are due to INFLATION and not particularly relevant to a cost comparison test. Cost of the F-35 is actually been driven down. Even in LRIP they are achieving 3-5% savings each year on predicted cost. It will be far more affordable than the F-22 and not need the kind of costly upgrades the F-22 will demand to stay relevant.

The F-35 could cruise in still air at 200 knots and still be a better solution than the F-22 as long as the overall capability of the weapon system is better. Simply pointing to a few kinematic differences and believing its not as good is completely wrong in this day and age.

There aren't many air force professionals losing sleep over the F-35 project, its a damn shame there are so many propagandaists out there losing sleep over the F-22...
 
New SSBN: a couple of years ago the Navy asked the industry for ideas on a new SLBM having a shorter (think like an IRBM) range than the Trident II. This could mean a smaller sub, more missile per sub, both. There are rumours of a switchable payload SLBM (nuclear/conventional), with a RV CAV-like. On DTIC appeared a couple of reports on concepts like this. Wil post.
Carriers: this is the classic decision made for short-term political motives, "after 2040 ?". In 2012 (even earlier, there is a Congress election in Nov. 2010) a new president will again revert the decision. After 2040 China will be a real challenge, barring catastrophic state failure.
 
re SSBNs: the USN has already announced development of a common missile compartment for use in both US and UK follow-on SSBNs.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/

Based on British statements about this project and its future SSBNs, it's clear that the CMC will be compatible with Tredent and any successor SLBM.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090330/text/90330w0015.htm
 
Still, I'm surprised so few F-22's were built. I figured at least 220 to 250 of them would have been built.

Regarding the F-35 weapon's system, it's kind of funny, you'd think they'd just fit the F-22 with that infrared/optical system that the JSF had and they'd have the high-speed performance and the JSF's weapon systems too which sounds like a win-win.


Kendra
 
There is no actual evidence to support the claim that F-35 cost is ballooning. Just a lot of conjecture based on comparisons to projects that happened 10-20 years ago without today's technology. While there may be sticker price cost rises they are due to INFLATION and not particularly relevant to a cost comparison test. Cost of the F-35 is actually been driven down. Even in LRIP they are achieving 3-5% savings each year on predicted cost. It will be far more affordable than the F-22 and not need the kind of costly upgrades the F-22 will demand to stay relevant.

I agree completely - trust me, the companies supplying components etc to the f-35 are under a LOT of pressure to keep prices down and to even reduce them in the future (a price that may be accepted for the initial LRIPs will need to be lower to win the FRP contracts!).

the recent 200USD/copy price referred to by the Israeli's was to get some very early aircraft. the actaul unit cost (not including the fill logistics etc package) will be much, much lower. Remember also that the F-35 is the first program where price has been a 'design criteria' from the start. Note that this doesn't mean that everything is designed/selected only on price, but rather unnecessary price increases are not tolerated.

Regards,

Greg
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Still, I'm surprised so few F-22's were built. I figured at least 220 to 250 of them would have been built.

Regarding the F-35 weapon's system, it's kind of funny, you'd think they'd just fit the F-22 with that infrared/optical system that the JSF had and they'd have the high-speed performance and the JSF's weapon systems too which sounds like a win-win.


Kendra

As I think Abraham Gubler may have already said elsewhere, the backfitting of equipment to the F-22 isn't such a simple matter. Besides high speed performance isn't everything.

Regards,

Greg
 
r16 said:
barring some interesting event like a comet striking earth , we will all be here when the F-35 is cancelled at some minor production number to allow more unmanned combat equipment , which will be far cheaper , at least on paper . It is a good thing we still have Phantoms . America , eat your heart out .

Maybe, but there is still a lot of backlash against an all UAS/UCAS force and I think you will still see the f-35 production top out close to 5000 by the time the last one rolls off the production lines - who knows it may even be uninhabited. I personnally don't have a problem with such a thing though.

regards,

Greg
 
GTX,

As I think Abraham Gubler may have already said elsewhere, the backfitting of equipment to the F-22 isn't such a simple matter.

Why not?


KJ Lesnick
 
Look at the actual "accelerated" numbers for F-35 production, including exports; now superimpose them on what the official test schedule (which neither NavAir nor the Joint Estimating Team believe) looks like; and consider how much testing will have been done at the point where the configuration for each successive LRIP batch has to be frozen.

Essentially, a lot was already being bet on F-35 performing (from now on) far better than any previous program, even though its performance to date has been average at best; now, a lot more is being bet, and the alternatives are being closed out earlier.

For example: if you look at the plan in late 2001, IIRC, F-35 should have been through DT by the time the F-22 and Super Hornet lines started to shut down.

I would also point out that, back then, nobody was saying how modeling and simulation were going to radically change the role of flight test. In fact, nobody heard that line at all until people started asking how come they'd only flown 100 sorties in two and a quarter years.
 
what happens when one idiot tries to come for help

http://gawker.com/5204575/shill-general-says-only-cancelled-superfighter-can-stop-pirates?skyline=true&s=x

Fox's Pirate-Killing Jet Swindle
By Ryan Tate, 9:38 PM on Wed Apr 8 2009

Fox News analyst Thomas McInerney bizarrely twisted today's pirate attack to cheerlead for a pricey fighter the Obama administration plans to cancel. Is that because he's been paid by a contractor on the plane?

McInerney is no stranger to shilling. Last year, the New York Times busted the retired lieutenant general for acting as an on-air puppet to George W. Bush's Department of Defense, helping promote war in Iraq. "Good work — we will use it," the general wrote the Pentagon after swallowing a fresh batch of talking points.

McInerney "sits on the boards of several military contractors," the Times wrote. Those are typically well-paid positions.

The talking head has worked as a consultant to Northrop Grumman. Northrop is a major contractor on the F-22 Raptor, a fighter slashed from the Pentagon's new budget proposal. Contractors are already organizing a fight in Congress.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that McInerney turned up on Fox today to say the Raptor, a fighter designed to cruise a supersonic speeds and shoot down other airplanes, is ideal for escorting U.S. ships and fighting off the hot military enemy of the moment, bands of pirates — especially if you pair it with Northrop's spy drone (scandalously over budget) and an in-flight refueling tanker (like the Northrop model McInerney consulted on).

See the clip above, found by Mike Byhoff in our video department (and mentioned in a previous post).

It doesn't take an Air Force general to see how bizarre McInerney's military reasoning is. The analyst told Fox the F-22, at $146 million each, would be great against pirates due to its fast "reaction time" and 20 milimeter cannon.

He neglected to mention virtually every U.S. fighter made in the last 30 years carries such a cannon (usually the six-barrel M-61 Vulcan), including the F/A-18 Hornet already in use by the U.S. Navy (pictured left). He also fails to mention that, no matter how fast the F-22 might be, it can't be based off an aircraft carrier. So its reaction time could never be as good (from a land base on, say, the Arabian Peninsula) as a Hornet or other existing Navy jet floating in the waters nearest the pirates.

Finally, McInerney fails to mention that, though capable of ground attack, the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air operations, i.e., shooting down other fighters.

The idea of going after hostage-taking pirates with an advanced fighter jet and a high-altitude drone is absurd on its face. Prior to intercepting its prey, a pirate ship could be taken with anything from a cheap, Hellfire-missile-equipped Predator (for small ships) to an inexpensive helicopter to almost any existing fighter plane. Once hostages are involved, there's very a little any attack aircraft could do, short of dropping in some commandos.

But military realism need not matter to either Fox or its shill general. McInerney's fantasy not only helps his benefactors — we need the Raptor to keep away evil pirates, you see — it also no doubt holds a certain sexy Top Gun appeal to many Fox News viewers. It's a win-win, at least until more people start calling Fox on its weapons-lobby footsie.
 
Well, Gates Speech was a RECOMENDATION, balancing military needs with budget. This is by no means a final decision and I suspect it will change. For the wrong reason or not, there is a substantial lobbying effort in favor of the F-22. And since parts for it come from 47 states, I suspect the lobbying will affect republicans and democrats alike.
It may happen that in order to pass this military budget, the white house will need to add some 20+ Raptors or it will just not get the vote.

If you ask me, there isn't a better time to unveil the PAKFA than now as far as keeping the F-22 in production.
 
that's why they are not in a hurry at KNAAPO, I suspect=)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom