F-22 program saved!!!

[tflash]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR

 

So, 2010 brings something for the fans of true air superiority!

[topol-m]

Well 12 more but still far from originally planned numbers. Man, the cost of this bird is overwhelming...

[Pilotasso]

12 is an insignificant number on any countries scale. It is just to shut tup the critics.

[EtherealN]

If I understood that correctly though, that's also only a partial purchase on those planes? That is, down-payment to finance purchasing the parts for those 12 - not the same as a bill to give funding to actually pay for the completed planes?

 

That aside, it is sweet that this probably means there's another crop of people that will get to fly that bird for a living. For me (who doesn't have to pay for it... :P ) that is awesome in and of itself.

[tflash]

It's not the numbers that are important here: it just means the production line stays open (the discussion was only on the 2010 budget). Besides that, an opening has been made for studying export viability.

[EtherealN]

Good points, that.

[GGTharos]

Exactly correct - it is about the production line.

 

As for the aircraft being overpriced, realize that an 8-ship of f-22's does the job you'd have to take 20 planes with - including extra tankers. Its exchange ratio against even 4.5 gen fighters is simply insane. It's good bang for the buck, but of course they would be CHEAPER if more were built :)

 

You are exactly correct topol-m, they are far from the numbers needed. Originally the plan called for some 760 F-22's to replace the F-15's.

[topol-m]

Exactly correct - it is about the production line.

 

As for the aircraft being overpriced, realize that an 8-ship of f-22's does the job you'd have to take 20 planes with - including extra tankers. Its exchange ratio against even 4.5 gen fighters is simply insane. It's good bang for the buck, but of course they would be CHEAPER if more were built :)

 

You are exactly correct topol-m, they are far from the numbers needed. Originally the plan called for some 760 F-22's to replace the F-15's.

 

200 F-22 by year 2011 is pretty enough taking into account the fact that there won`t be a single non US 5th gen fighter in serial production by that time. PAK-FA, KFX, J-XX, etc. will need several years more to start full production... So 200 is good 760 is outrageous :D

[GGTharos]

Realize that it's 760 over the aircraft's predicted service life, which is about 30 years. So you wouldn't manufacture 760 together, but you'd build n F-22's every year, slowly replacing old airframes or aircraft destroyed in accidents.

 

200 is not really enough. 200 can't replace everything and doesn't serve all the strategic requirements.

[McVittees]

You are exactly correct topol-m, they are far from the numbers needed. Originally the plan called for some 760 F-22's to replace the F-15's.

 

'Numbers needed' is always a debateable point. I think there is a valid arguement in thinking soon we won't be needing manned aircraft for air defence roles so why spend billions on the F22 now? Swarms of UAVs controlled by a central, manned, aircraft seems like the logical way to go. Interesting times ahead.

[GGTharos]

The UAV fad has been getting spoken of for a very long time. You show me where you see an Air Superiority UAV even so much as in the making ;)

[RedTiger]

I don't believe the UAV stuff. First of all, "swarms" of them might sound like a good idea until someone invents the "fly-swatter" that kills them all. That's already possible of course, but I can forsee their being far more elegant and cleaner ways to nullify the Zerg swarm of UAVs.

 

Second, think about situational awareness. Think about how hard it will be to give a UAV operator the same level of sensory awareness a pilot would have. We're no where near that capability. How would you do this, anway? Lots of cameras attached to the UAV that are controlled by a head tracking device on the pilot? How are you going to convey spacial awareness and depth perception to an adequate degree?

 

I think the choices are going to come down to ass-load of stupid armed UAVs that are little more than Kamekazis or fewer UAVs with better sensors. Either way, I still think a human-driven fighter with something like AESA and lots of ARH missiles or directed energy weapons (when we get them small enough ;) ) is going to pop them all like balloons.

 

The UAV fad has been getting spoken of for a very long time. You show me where you see an Air Superiority UAV even so much as in the making ;)

 

I have a book at home that is a reference to US military weapons. IIRC, there was some type of stealth UAV in the conceptual stages -- I don't think it was even beyond drawings and mock-ups at the time of the books writing 5 years ago -- but it was intended to be used in combat in some form.

Edited June 18, 2009 by RedTiger

[McVittees]

GGTharos and RedTiger - both your points are very valid, but end of the day really your talking about timespans and details. Air Superiority UAVs are just a matter of 'when' not 'if'. Admitidly, that 'when' is a pretty big 'when?'. :)

[GGTharos]

When AI can be trusted to make its own decisions based on orders and intuition - when it can positively EID and VID things on its own, and not be rendered impotent by excessive ROE's, when there's no false positives making it look like that big airliner just launched a missile at it hus triggering that nasty 'you are authorized to return fire' flag, etc ;)

 

At the end of the day, it will be a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time before all this happens. Realize that current UAV autonomy extends literally to navigation and that's it, at least AFAIK.

[Flyby]

Bah!! :mad: Politicians think they know more than the SecDef? IMO it's more than just keeping the production lines open, though that is a very key point. It's the scum politicians lining their own nests so they can go forth at election time and say "See what I've done for you?" I read an article this morning stating that the Air Force will train more UAV pilots this year than fighter or bomber pilots. My country spends more in it's defense budget than the next five or six nations combined. As much as I like the idea of the Raptor, it reminds me of the Comanche project; another do-all end-all machine that ultimately was not needed for the current mission. Gates knows best, but politicians control the purse strings (pork spending).

Flyby out

How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving!

[GGTharos]

You can't compare the Comanche to the Raptor.

 

The Raptor offers capabilities that far exceed existing fighter capabilities for the price - useful ones at that in the arena it's supposed to operate in.

 

The Comanche offered new capabilities that didn't make a difference.

 

See the difference? ;)

[tflash]

The F-22 is no do-it-all, that's the F-35.

 

The F-22 is just a beautiful aircraft, meant to fly the blue skies like proud navy frigates sail the blue seas.

 

I sided strongly with F-35 and UAV's in other threads, for many of the reasons you mention, but shutting down the production line like the ill-fated Tomcat, well, I must say as an aviation enthousiast I'm happy it didn't end that way, yet.

[GGTharos]

The F-35 isn't do-it-all. It has self-escort capability, and Air to Air capability, but it's no Air Dominance aircraft ;)

 

It's arguably easier to turn an Air Superiority/Air Dominance aircraft into a do-it-all than the other way around.

 

As for the Tomcat, it was simply its time. The airframe was old, the engines were old, the design was fairly cantakerous by today's standards and the hornet seemed to offer better options together with the JSF.

[Maximus_G]

Re: F-22 program saved!!!

OK, looks like people are counting on PAK FA appearance :)

[GGTharos]

Looks like people are counting on not destroying their one advanced air dominance fighter ... I doubt it has much to do with the PAK-FA directly so much as it is one of those 'current and future threats' that the F-22 is supposed to oppose.

[Flyby]

You can't compare the Comanche to the Raptor.

 

The Raptor offers capabilities that far exceed existing fighter capabilities for the price - useful ones at that in the arena it's supposed to operate in.

 

The Comanche offered new capabilities that didn't make a difference.

 

See the difference? ;)

Well...we may be talking red apples and golden apples, imo. Both ac offer new capabilities. As far as making a difference goes, the Comanche never got to that stage before it was abandoned while the Raptor hasn't made a difference (yet). So far, just like the Comanche, it simply has new capabilities as I see it. But those haven't been exposed to a combat arena yet. With world changes as they are, it may yet wind up being a plane without a mission. Unless, that is, the U.S decides to strike North Korea, in which case it will bring everything it's got, including the Raptor (does North Korea have much of an air force?).

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

Let me make it painfully clear to you then:

 

The Commanche offered NOTHING over other helicopters that would have made it more useful or effective. That is why it was scrapped.

 

The Raptor is a generation ahead of current fighter designs and completely dominates them. It has been explosed to Red/Green/Whatever flags which short of shooting real weapons, do their absolute best to simulate a realistic combat environment so that pilots can get their ten 'up your chances of survival' combat flights in.

 

Is the difference clear yet or do I need to attempt another explanation? ;)

 

North Korea has old aircraft, but it has a huge whopping lot of them. And they train.

Edited June 18, 2009 by GGTharos

[Flyby]

Let me make it painfully clear to you then:

 

The Commanche offered NOTHING over other helicopters that would have made it more useful or effective. That is why it was scrapped.

 

The Raptor is a generation ahead of current fighter designs and completely dominates them. It has been explosed to Red/Green/Whatever flags which short of shooting real weapons, do their absolute best to simulate a realistic combat environment so that pilots can get their ten 'up your chances of survival' combat flights in.

 

Is the difference clear yet or do I need to attempt another explanation? ;)

 

North Korea has old aircraft, but it has a huge whopping lot of them. And they train.

Painfully clear? If it hurts you, don't do it!:P Just because it can do a thing does not mean it will ever do that thing irl. Heck the Apache was a cold war concept designed to hold off armor in the Fulda gap. Which threat was the Raptor designed to conquer, and does that threat still exist? I'm just sayin'.

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

Painfully clear? If it hurts you, don't do it!:P Just because it can do a thing does not mean it will ever do that thing irl.

 

THat's right. Why have nukes or guns at all, right? I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is non-sensical.

 

Heck the Apache was a cold war concept designed to hold off armor in the Fulda gap. Which threat was the Raptor designed to conquer, and does that threat still exist? I'm just sayin'.

Flyby out

 

You're sayin' what - that such a threat won't emerge in the future? That you should drop everything when yesterday's war is over?

That people will be nice to you from now on?

What are you sayin'? ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

My question is, which one of the two will prevail? F-22 or Toyota Prius? Which one of the two products, thus two approaches to the future, will yield better life to its citizens? The time will tell. At this time, I bet my money on Toyota Prius.

 

BTW, we are running out of money, therefore we can not have more F-22's. Do we need more F-22's? In my view, absolutely not. I am sure our military and Lockheed Martin/Boeing will find 1001 reason why we must have 800 raptors.