F-22 production will end at 187 aircraft

[GGTharos]

And this is exactly why you should do the math on it yourself.

 

Back on topic.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And this is exactly why you should do the math on it yourself.

You can do all the math in the world. You can hide numbers too, is that the math you are referring to?

 

Back on topic.

The topic is end of F-22 production. And the secretary of defense cut the F-22 out due to reduced budget. We are on topic.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[topol-m]

I heard rumors around that the Navy is planning on purchasing some F-23's for the fleet. Be nice to see a big black can o' whoop ass sitting on the newest carriers coming out.

 

 

Thats very interesting possibility, i`ve always liked the YF-23 more. Can you give us the source of that info? IMO F-22 should have never won the competition.

[Force_Feedback]

Thats very interesting possibility, i`ve always liked the YF-23 more. Can you give us the source of that info? IMO F-22 should have never won the competition.

 

Here here! Seems a little strange though, the program was halted, the prototypes were either cut up or placed in a museum. Sounds April's Fools to me. Especially the X-47B or something coming (carrier-borne UCAV).

[tflash]

Guys, F-23? that is sheer speculation. Read this for some REAL information on the topic: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/UAVMIX040709.xml

[Vekkinho]

F-23?! A Black Widow?! Back in business?!

 

It'd be great 'cuz I liked it more but I don't think so!

[CE_Mikemonster]

Imagine the fighter force that the US has based in the Middle East at the moment and the influence that has on Iran.

 

Now imagine if half of these fighters were F-22's, and the other half were F-35's. How would you feel?

 

 

Personally I think it's ridiculous not to use the F-22 in sizeable numbers, the sheer dominance of it is an enormous political tool against 'rogue states' such as North Korea.

 

On the upside, 187 is still an enormous number of planes, and more importantly allows for Operational Evaluation.

So at least the technology will be retained and updated rather than left by the wayside or seen as unneccesary.

 

The key thing however, imo, is to retain all of the engineers and institutions that make such things possible, in order to still be ahead 50 years from now.

That's a bit of a vicious spiral though I suppose if you're not exporting in any significant numbers.

 

 

And at any rate, in air superiority terms, the F-22 vs any Fourth Gen jet is basically clubbing baby seals. Talk about a force multiplier.

[hitman]

78,8 trillion dollars? Last I heard it was 9+ trillion. Someone either forgot to eat his wheaties this morning, or he couldnt find them because they must be laced with stealth technology.

 

Thats very interesting possibility, i`ve always liked the YF-23 more. Can you give us the source of that info? IMO F-22 should have never won the competition.

I cant remember where I heard it, maybe from one of the recruiting events we had at school a few months ago.

Edited April 8, 2009 by hitman

[CE_Mikemonster]

There is no money. Period. 187 is too much to begin with. What was the F-22 score against those F-15's? If it is that good then, why do you need them in large numbers?

 

Beside, me as a taxpayer, I am more then happy for my money to be spent on F-22 program, but not to the point that my children can not have medical insurance and I am left without retirement. That's how Soviet Union collapsed.

 

Erm.. Are you an economist? :huh:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Erm.. Are you an economist? :huh:

No I am not

[tflash]

Since you guys still prefer to speculate instead of reading the info, I will quote from it:

 

"The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, says the new tactical aircraft force structure will be a high-medium-low mix of F-22s, F-35s and, perhaps, a surprise to some in the defense industry: the USAF's Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle.

 

As part of his alterations in defense spending, Gates announced April 6 that 250 aging USAF fighters would be retired in next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Many of those will be F-16s and A-10s, according to defense and industry sources.

They will be replaced partly with General Atomics Reapers. "Given the conflicts we are in and are likely to be in the next couple of years are conflicts in which being on station for a long period of time and not delivering maximum loads every sortie - those platforms do, in fact, give you a qualitative edge."

 

If so, the continued production of new F-35s and new Reapers will shape the near-term industrial base workload for tactical aircraft ...

 

Boeing's St. Louis facility, which builds the F/A-18E/F, E/A-18G and F-15 families, can expect 31 new Super Hornets ...

 

Part of what makes the force structure's top-line possible is the force mix of F-22s and F-35s, Cartwright adds.

"They don't do the same thing, but the pairing of the F-35 and the F-22 gives you something significantly better than the pairing of the F-22 and the F/A-18, F-16 or F-15. And so if we can get numbers in one - a niche capability that the F-22 brings - and the F-35 the modeling tells us that the against the threats that we believe we have today and the threats that we believe will emerge in the future, then that mix - numbers in the F-35 and the qualitative edge in certain areas of the F-22 - that was the mix that came out."

[topol-m]

Imagine the fighter force that the US has based in the Middle East at the moment and the influence that has on Iran.

 

Now imagine if half of these fighters were F-22's, and the other half were F-35's. How would you feel?

 

I would feel like i`m gonna buy several dozens of S-400 from Russia and blow the sh.t out of anything larger than a sparrow flying in my airspace at several hundreds km away. That includes pigeons, crows, etc.

Edited April 8, 2009 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

.... and that feeling is all those S400's would buy you.

 

I would feel like i`m gonna buy several dozens of S-400 from Russia and blow the sh.t out of anything larger than a sparrow flying in my airspace at several hundreds km away. That includes pigeons, crows, etc.

[topol-m]

.... and that feeling is all those S400's would buy you.

 

Hehe i feel an irresitible temptation to spoil this thread with another dispute, but i will not succumb.

[Force_Feedback]

Yes, placing advanced aircraft in the Middle East would be desastrous, not to mention a certain jewish nation that has them already. Now the potential enemy are some Mig-29s, updated F-5s and some other outdated aircraft. That keeps the balance as those cultures have a more recent history of violence (or better said: continuing). So bringing more arms there would only mean more unnecessesary deaths, turmoil, insurgency, ie freedom for the people there (anarchy). The established order wants to prevent that, so no shiny tech over there.

 

S-300/400 can't be used to attack people on the ground, so either it's shooting down airspace violators, or sparrows :D

[tflash]

The revised defense acquisition policies precisely aim at *enhancing* the US capabilities to deal with threats, not lessen these abilities.

 

- Super Hornet, Osprey and MH-60R/S already have significantly enhanced the force projection capabilities of a carrier group, in range, payload, sa and number of sorties that can be generated. The Superbug has more Time-on-Taliban per airframe than the hangar queen it replaced.

 

- SM-3 missile gives already far superior air defense than the venerable Tomcat

 

- Gates wants to bring in the F-35 faster, and withdraw obsolete fighters earlier. Doesn't seem a problem to me: F-35 will *dramatically* improve force projection and seems certainly fit to address air defenses in the Mid-East.

 

- investment in Littoral Combat vessels will allow for measured response in possible conflict zones like Persian Gulf.

 

- MQ-9 Reaper is taking a heavy toll on insurgents (anyone already summed up Reaper strikes? It already killed many more insurgents than the Harrier will ever manage to kill Marine pilots). In Gates plan, there are many more Reapers underway.

 

I would say, who needs F-22? But then again there ARE already 187 of them. So what is the problem?

[topol-m]

The problem is that F-35 is weaker than F-22 in air combat especially in a close, meneuverable one. And with the 5th generation fighter programs in development and testing in several countries a good air superiority fighter is needed and will be needed in the next few decades. Serial production of these fighters may not be fact at the moment but it will be for most of these countries in 2012-2020. Also the stealth technology the way it is incorporated in F-35 should not overestimated, or there is a chance that by 2020 the thousands produced fighters may lose their advantage in terms of detection ranges, an advantage around which the F-35 has been created, and on which its survivability mostly depends. I know its just theory but its a theory that should be taken into account when your entire fighter force will depend on a single (with different modifications) aircraft. The production of thousands of aircrafts is unnecessary waste of funds instead of investing them in development of new weapons programs. With the speed everything gets old nowadays by the time you complete your production plans you will have a fleet of aircrafts that already need a general modification or even replacement to meet the new needs on the battlefield and to be competitive.

Thats why i think 187 F-22 is pretty much enough for air defence and combined with several hundred (not thousand) F-35 is enough even to meddle in some local conflcts here and there.

[GGTharos]

Your theory has already been thought of by those same people who asked for and those who built the F-35. For close combat there's AIM-9X; the theory here is that the F-35 will arrive with a positional advantage and mostly negate a maneuverable opponent by having the first shot.

 

The other part is that the F-35 is projected to remain superior -and- stealthy well into 2020 - that is part of the deal.

 

Fighters still take 30 years to get old. That's just how it is. This isn't WW2 where you have 10 new fighter models every year.

 

The point of having more F-22's isn't to fight the wars that are being fought NOW. It is a deterrent to someone more capable, and able to handle someone more capable.

 

The best investment is a powerful weapon you never have to fire because others are too afraid you'll fire it. Much like nukes - the difference here is that you can't resolve all conflicts with a nuke ... you need conventional forces.

[CE_Mikemonster]

That was sort of my point about using the F-22 as a political tool. I wasn't saying 'Lets go and do it.'

[jpm1]

I don't know about that - I see more manned than unmanned planes flying sorties currently.

 

The crash itself shouldn't have given a 'coup of anything' ... it is actually surprising that the crash rate is so -low- given that this is a new aircraft.

 

personnally i didn't hear of a manned next generation aircraft development whatsoever it is in the US or in Europe nowadays SAMS have reached such a level of technology that you don't destroy planes in the air anymore see the S-400 only or the S-500 which hasn't been achieved admittedly but you hear numbers that give vertigo ... the only interest of manned fighters is to insure protection to ground troops against hidden planes that could have escaped satellites surveillance which is very unlikely and will be more and more unlikely in the future

[EtherealN]

Well, an obvious thing of note is that the fact that we don't hear of aircraft being developed doesn't mean there is none. And:

 

nowadays SAMS have reached such a level of technology that you don't destroy planes in the air anymore

 

That has me scratching my head a bit. What do you mean by that?

[monotwix]

personnally i didn't hear of a manned next generation aircraft development whatsoever it is in the US or in Europe nowadays SAMS have reached such a level of technology that you don't destroy planes in the air anymore see the S-400 only or the S-500 which hasn't been achieved admittedly but you hear numbers that give vertigo ... the only interest of manned fighters is to insure protection to ground troops against hidden planes that could have escaped satellites surveillance which is very unlikely and will be more and more unlikely in the future

 

Well, an obvious thing of note is that the fact that we don't hear of aircraft being developed doesn't mean there is none. And:

 

 

 

That has me scratching my head a bit. What do you mean by that?

 

My first guess would be, they wouldn’t fly into a self distract zone.

And second is when a line has been ripped out of a text, it could be pretty much mind boggling to piece it together.

[Wilde]

That has me scratching my head a bit. What do you mean by that?

 

He prolly meant those SAMs are too dangerous to get close to them.

 

 

What boggles me is, that people keep on feeding the publicity stuff about the F-22 (and F-35 for that matter) being oh that superior to anything available in the whole world. So far it has been superior in licensed computer games only.

What if the thing isn't anywhere close to being that superior? Then 187 pieces is just ridiculously few. And what, 400 million dollars? That's ridiculously much. If I was a rather young president, who didn't start the project but who has to take care of budgets now I'd be very skeptical about it.

 

The rumours about the F-23, I don't believe though. It was part of an advanced fighter program. It was stopped when it didn't get the deal. I doubt it would be very easy to start the program again and somehow change it to a carrier-launched aircraft. Also there's only one remotely potential enemy with a carrier (2nd one building?). Why would the US navy need a completely new aircraft to do it's job? At the moment that would be only a massive money sink.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I was naturally suspicious as well regarding the capabilities of the F-22, but honestly after I read some pilot accounts etc..

 

The thing is as well, planes nowadays are planned to be in service for 50 years. The F-22 is unarguably the best air superiority aircraft in the world, and I presume will always be updated and upgraded. the higher specs the 'baseline' model has the better the upgraded model will have.

 

I really think that 187 isn't a small number considering how it acts as a force multiplier to F-15s even when it's missiles are expended.

[topol-m]

I really think that 187 isn't a small number considering how it acts as a force multiplier to F-15s even when it's missiles are expended.

 

Exactly. Unless someone plans to invade some nation i dont see how 200 F-22 is little. And there will be other aircrafts in service too. Pretty enough for defence, isn`t that what they are primary needed for?