F-22 production will end at 187 aircraft

[EtherealN]

Well, it all depends, really. If you want to avoid fatigue (both among aircrew, ground crew and the airframes themselves), you wouldn't be having all of them deployed at the same time - doing so would cause you to then have a period of time where you will have none deployed once those are getting attrited by fatigue, even if one assumes zero combat losses or accidents.

 

I am unsure on the exact rotation schedules that the yanks use, but if we do a 50/50 of the entire F-22 force - half home for retraining, resupply and so on - we'd then have some 90 deployed in theatre. If we then want to maintain an Air Dominance CAP over the theatre, we really want to make sure to always have some in the air. Now, there's no issue in having more pilots than planes - that way they can rotate, but the aircrafts still have to be serviced, rearmed, refueled and so on. So they could get as low as some 20-30 being airborne.

 

For most fights that the US has been in lately, and especially given that there are a lot of other aircraft in service, so those 20-30 wouldn't be the only ones, this would be enough. For the old scenario of superpower vs superpower style engagements - it would be laughable, imo.

 

HOWEVER

That line of reasoning is full of barely informed assumptions and I will defer to anyone with a closer understanding of US rotation practices and the specific F-22's servicing practices. I just want to highlight the fact that just because you have so-and-so many fighters doesn't mean you have that amount of fighters in the air. Most of the time, far from it, and even if you did end up getting all of those into the air at the same time, that will at best remain a fact for an hour or three.

 

The whole point of having a lot of them is to have enough of them in service, in theatre, without burning out aircrews or airframes.

 

All of that said though, with the F-22 in it's limited number not being intended to be the entire air component, the problem isn't as big as it could have been. It might very well just allow commanders to detail CAP to high-threat SAM areas that they otherwise would have had to leave alone, while the 15's, 16's and 18's take care of the less dangerous portions.

 

Though I would remind topol-m that your judgement on what is much and what is a little has been put into question earlier with your categorical statements of how many fighters have or have not been used in the same conflict since WW2. :P You never responded to my quick bout of research on that. ;)

[Groove]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/schwartz-donley-why-we-advised.html

[Pilotasso]

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?

 

You guys are not considering maintenance and costs.

 

187 F-22 airframes for the US is too low. The first examples are halfway through their lives (bout 8000 hours believeing some reports on F-16.net). Wich means probably there wont be 187 airworthy airframes EVER.

 

-First, because by the time the last fighter gets built a number of others have already been retired.

-secondly, because the rate of attrition means there will be fewer and fewer aircraft every year.

-Thirdly, the fleet might be scraped well before reaching 1 aircraft left simply for maintenance costs.

 

For now the "opposition" is well controlled by types such as this plane, latest F-15/16's, Eurofighter and later the F-35.

 

With the absence of the F-22 there is the possibility that F-35 will meet planes that have similar stealth, or that stealth might be countered by new sensors. F-22 would remain superior even without it but F-35 is arguable. F-35 has less stealth features than F-22, and some other very important tactic fetures that the raptor has and the lightning does not.

 

While I doubt the russians and the chinese will surpass the F-35 with their PAK-FA and J-XX, the progressive reduction in numbers by the F-22 will mean that the new asian types certainly will enjoy better chances of bringging the bar closer. Not only that, but they will also enjoy greater proliferation than the F-22 (no exports).

 

 

While there is no visible threats in the horizon for a major war the US will certainly loose momentum internationaly in peace time as well. Cutting the F-22 will be a mistake to be remembered. Oh well what can you do...things change.

 

There are reports that 6th gen aircraft thechnology is being already put forward for studies for a new plane project.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3374.html

 

Its a long time from now and probably only a handfull of them will be produced...or it will be readicaly different from current concepts or predictions.

[X-man]

So an F-22 is only expected to be operational for about 8yrs? Sounds very little...

[GGTharos]

Depends on how often they are flown. 8 years would equate to four hours of flying every working day of the week.

[Pilotasso]

Not only that, but supermanuevrability reduces airframe life if used frequentely.

 

So an F-22 is only expected to be operational for about 8yrs? Sounds very little...

 

not 8 years I said half their service lives, wich would result in 16 years. Still little nevertheless.

[GGTharos]

Not 'supermaneuverability' ... high-g maneuvering. ;)

[Case]

Not only that, but supermanuevrability reduces airframe life if used frequentely.

 

Not 'supermaneuverability' ... high-g maneuvering. ;)

 

Reducing airframe life because of metal fatigue, I presume?

[GGTharos]

Yep, you get major flexing of components, friction, etc etc. It's like trying to break a wire by bending it real quick. If you do it slow, no dice - if you do it quick it breaks (though it's due to overheat, but the mechanism I suppose is the same - it basically robs the metal of the grain that gives it the proper integrity).

 

So your 8000h of service are probably rated for say 3% max g use, 30% 5-8g use, and the rest under 4 g. I don't know the actual numbers, I'm just tossing out a speculative example - in any case, if you go over your alloted max g use, you wear out the airframe faster, so it's no longer 8000h of service, it's less.

[hitman]

Metal fatigue is caused by cold working or hard working of the metal...which means the more you flex it, the more brittle it becomes, and the easier it will break. Its more like bending a piece off rebar over and over again until it just breaks at the bend.

[Case]

I'm aware of the physics behind metal fatigue, I was just wondering if there might be something else Pilotasso was alluding to.

[hitman]

Nope. It is what it is, he just got his terminology mixed up.

[mvsgas]

This is common on many aircraft. Many have extra supports added on certain areas to increase their operational life and to strengthen areas that might have become more prone to cracks. Also some parts me be change in "x" amount of flying hours to correct or prevent some of this problems.

[hitman]

I wonder if I can do an AD search on an F-22. :D Ill do that later.

[tflash]

I guess talking about F-22 being a kinematic superior aircraft to F-35 has become somewhat less relevant. The whole idea is to have network superiority, not individual asset superiority.

 

The blue side has still plenty more support aircraft and comms sattelites to weave a strong web of information around its fighters. Compare with how many Awacs aircraft Russia or Iran can field.

 

Imho it is precisely at that point that the F-22 has failed: it was conceived on its own, as a first 5th generation asset, with excellent comms BETWEEN F-22's, but unfortunately without a broader picture how this would integrate with the rest. While Navy MH-60's, the vessels, the superbug, the Orion, the JTAC on the ground today are all networked at least through link-16 and now mostly MIDS, with video-downlink possibilities, the F-22 stays out of that picture. At the moment, F-22 pilots are yelling over the radio instead of sharing fused data around.

 

In my understanding they think it is better to do it right and have stealth-compatible comms developed for F-35 then try to implement it on F-22, with its arcane cold war philosophy avionics (it does not even have an optical sensor!).

 

In my view, future networkability is what the F-35 finally gave the edge to F-22 in the decision process.

[GGTharos]

That is in fact incorrect. The F-22's are network fighters. While there are some issues with the datalink, they are being addressed. I doubt an F-22's can't actually transmit link-16/MIDS (of course, I could be wrong, easily) but rather they prefer not to right now in order to avoid electronic detection. My guess? They'll using some form of SATCOM.

 

And why do you think the F-22 has any sort of need for an optical sensor? It had been considered and rejected.

 

The F-22 ALREADY has the electronic warfare and networking advantage over the F-35. You're thinking things backwards - the F-22's technology is what went into the F-35 ;)

 

Lastly, individual asset superiority is important. The question is, is it useful and economical? No amount of wartime assets is economical ... until you're in a war.

[Vault]

The F-22 is gagged from tansmitting data on link-16, making it a passive network fighter, Passive listeners on any data network are suseptible to packet data error/loss/corruption. I highly doubt that the F-22 will use SATCOM for communication because SATCOM and link-16 operate within the same frequencies on NATO band C making SATCOM as suseptible to ELINT/EW as link-16.

[Force_Feedback]

Yoink...

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/15/325156/usaf-selects-datalink-to-bridge-communications-gap-between-f-22-and.html

[GGTharos]

1) What does 'gagged' mean? Does it mean they prefer not to transmit? Because if they CAN transmit, that becomes important.

 

2) SATCOM can be directional. Directional = much fewer ECM/ELINT issues, regardless of frequency.

 

And again, they're addressing the datalink issue ... FF beat me to it.

 

The F-22 is gagged from tansmitting data on link-16, making it a passive network fighter, Passive listeners on any data network are suseptible to packet data error/loss/corruption. I highly doubt that the F-22 will use SATCOM for communication because SATCOM and link-16 operate within the same frequencies on NATO band C making SATCOM as suseptible to ELINT/EW as link-16.

[nscode]

The F-22 is gagged from tansmitting data on link-16, making it a passive network fighter, Passive listeners on any data network are suseptible to packet data error/loss/corruption. I highly doubt that the F-22 will use SATCOM for communication because SATCOM and link-16 operate within the same frequencies on NATO band C making SATCOM as suseptible to ELINT/EW as link-16.

 

 

Any link-16 device is able to opperate in data silent mode. I am sure that the protocol desing covers problems of passive participants on the network. ACK/retransmit is not the only way to ensure data consistency. Heavy ECC alghoritms can compensate for that (with some overhead, but I don't think that is an issue for this type of network).

[tflash]

The F-22 ALREADY has the electronic warfare and networking advantage over the F-35. You're thinking things backwards - the F-22's technology is what went into the F-35 ;)

 

Of course, but when the F-35 program will be up to speed in say 2015-2020, this F-22 technology will be very old news. And all funding will concentrate on developping for F-35 first, which is only logical.

 

BTW I guess the same leaders that wanted 300+ Raptors and called the F-35 "their tenth priority" (!) were probably those that rejected IRST on F-22 while deeming it "unnecessary"?

 

Dunno where they went though ... maybe they retrained to be Predator pilots? THOSE have real operational Satcom datalink AND an advanced MTS-B multispectral sensor suite. :music_whistling:

[hitman]

There is no point in putting IRST on an aircraft designed to shoot you BVR specifically. Its main payload is AIM-120D's, which is something far more capable than an AIM-9X.

[GGTharos]

Of course, but when the F-35 program will be up to speed in say 2015-2020, this F-22 technology will be very old news. And all funding will concentrate on developping for F-35 first, which is only logical.

 

No, it isn't. It's a continuation of the F-22's technology, which continues to evolve. There are scheduled development upgrade programmes for all fighters.

 

BTW I guess the same leaders that wanted 300+ Raptors and called the F-35 "their tenth priority" (!) were probably those that rejected IRST on F-22 while deeming it "unnecessary"?

 

Dunno where they went though ... maybe they retrained to be Predator pilots? THOSE have real operational Satcom datalink AND an advanced MTS-B multispectral sensor suite. :music_whistling:

 

Oh, you mean perhaps 'the same pilots' who happened to have air superiority as their primary job? No, actually, they're flying F-22's after transitioning out of F-15's. Apparently IRSTs aren't terribly useful in the air superiority role when they aren't needed as backup to a crappy instrument that should have been the primary means of prosecuting BVR ;)

[Wilde]

There is no point in putting IRST on an aircraft designed to shoot you BVR specifically.

 

That's what the American engineers thought some 20 years ago. They believed IR stuff is useless and it's all about radar. The day they will get shot at head-on by a modern IR missile from 50+ nautical miles will prove them wrong. It's only a matter of time before that happens.

[tflash]

For the strict AS role, no. But the world is more complex. Take QRA flights, often flown by typical AS fighters. Most of the real QRA flights now involve identifying aircraft rather than shooting an AIM-120D at it. With an frontal optical system, you can have a clear look at it from farther away.

 

I think it is no surprise that frontal vision systems have been developed for Typhoon, Rafale, Flanker, Mig-29 but now also for Eagle and Super Hornet. In both the latter's cases, specifically for A2A use. And don't forget the updated Eagle already has an Aesa radar in the F-22 performance class.

 

Maybe the F-22 doesn't need it for its (highly debated and contested) main role, but if it would be available, I do not think the pilots would complain.

 

I saw an image of Rafale OSF of a locked fighter at BVR range, where you could read the aircraft number on the image. Seems useful to me.

 

Rafale pilots claim it even helps finding and aligning with a tanker. But if you don't want it, OK for me. F-35 customers really, really want it. And not only for A2G.