What's new

F-22 Sunset Begins in 2030 - Raptor is Retiring

Mk-313

FULL MEMBER
Apr 26, 2020
716
0
285
Country
United States
Location
United States
New Force Design: NGAD Needed Soon, F-22 Sunset Begins in 2030


The Air Force is preparing to unveil a new 30-year fighter force design that includes at least two all-new fighters, a much greater use of autonomous and unmanned aircraft, a new way of providing close air support, and a narrowing timeline for retiring aircraft such as the A-10, F-16, and F-22, said Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements.

Hinote said the F-22 will begin to phase out in about 2030—the exact timeline will be situation-dependent—and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will be needed soon to defeat a Chinese stealth aircraft and missile threat that is “closer than we think.”

In a May 13 interview with the editors of Air Force Magazine, Hinote said Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.’s revelation that the USAF is planning to reduce its fighter fleet from seven types to “four plus one” is the kickoff of a “transparency” campaign to explain choices to be unveiled in the fiscal 2022 budget submission.

Brown said the future fighter fleet will include the F-35, F-15EX, late-model F-16s, and the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD family of systems; the “plus one” being the A-10. Brown did not mention the F-22, and “this was something you all rightly picked up on very quickly,” Hinote said.

The Air Force plans a “transition” from the F-22 to the NGAD, and “we felt like, now is a good time for us to be able to talk about how we’re going to bridge” between the two systems.

While the F-22 is a good airframe—it has been updated and will continue to receive upgrades, “mostly sensors,” Hinote said—the Air Force is anticipating “the sunset of the F-22 … in about the 2030-ish timeframe.” That won’t be the full retirement of the type, but the beginning of its phase-out, he said. By then the F-22 will be 25 years old and the Air Force should be deep into a new cycle of fielding NGAD and its successors on what could be as rapid as a five-year cycle.

“Our Chief of Staff Gen. Brown has it exactly right: We must ‘accelerate change or lose,’” said AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “If he says it’s time to start thinking about retiring the F-22, then he understands something about what’s coming with NGAD. The Air Force has led the way in developing and fielding the most advanced technologies on the planet and integrating them into complex weapons systems. They’ve done that from the F-117 a generation ago to the B-21 today. We have to respect Gen. Brown’s confidence and that proven capability to deliver.”

The F-22 fleet is small and suffers from vanishing-vendor problems, senior USAF officers have said recently. A recent high-level USAF planning document said the F-22 won’t be competitive two decades from now. Hinote said the F-22 “has its limitations and we can’t modernize our way out of the [air superiority] problem with just using an updated F-22.”

However, the Air Force will not allow any gap in its ability to achieve air superiority, he insisted.

“We believe … we have a good story,” he said, which is that the F-22 will be kept “viable as a bridge to get to the new capability. This is not an area of the Air Force where we feel we can take a lot of risk.” Though he thinks some mission areas might tolerate gaps or risks—he didn’t name them—air superiority “is not one of them.”

One of the reasons senior leadership is talking about the F-22 and NGAD is because the budget request to be presented in the coming weeks will show a “large … commitment” to the NGAD, Hinote said.

The service expects to have “a tight transition plan” between the F-22 and NGAD, he added. Until NGAD is available, “We feel like a good use of our resources is to keep the F-22 viable as we are developing this sea change in the way we field capability.”

Depending on the threat and hedging against problems in NGAD, the USAF may consider a service-life extension program for the F-22, but Hinote said that seems unlikely because the NGAD is making swift progress.

“I was surprised at how well it’s doing,” he said. He has escorted a number of members of Congress to see the jet—which former USAF acquisition chief Will Roper revealed last September has already flown—and they have come away “at a minimum, fairly impressed,” Hinote assessed. Members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense have similarly visited the program, and “seeing is believing,” he added.

“We still have to make it real, and there’s a lot to do in the program, but when you see what is going on, and you hear it from the Airmen who are flying it, you get a chance to really understand … where we’re going.” He said he wished he could “brag on” the contractors who have brought the program so far, so quickly, but much of the project remains classified.

The NGAD timetable will be “event driven,” but Hinote doubts it will be 10 years before it is in operational service. The “long pole in the tent” right now is integrating “the most important things onto that platform with a government reference architecture.”

He also noted that NGAD is a family of systems and will be “optionally manned,” meaning several versions of the jet may be built and employed with or without crews.

When the budget comes out, “it may not look like a 100 percent” replacement of F-22s with NGADs because “you’re talking about a set of capabilities, … some of that may be unmanned [or] optionally manned. So it’s not one-for-one.”

Broadly, he expects the Air Force to embrace autonomous aircraft as force multipliers. “We’re really working hard at identifying the true value propositions” in missions where unmanned systems may be used, he reported. He noted the Skyborg autonomous aircraft test earlier this month, which did not require the use of a runway for launch or recovery—something that could be a game-changer as the Air Force seeks to complicate the targeting problem for adversaries.

The NGAD concept calls for rapid turnover in technology, such that when one is about to be deployed, the next version will already be in design, if not development. Hinote suggested that the second NGAD type is already in design, then said, “I can’t confirm or deny that one.” But the Air Force is embracing the concept because it will allow “the great companies of our industrial base to re-enter the competition at the design phase, as opposed to crowding them out in the sustainability phase” as a consequence of what has recently been coined “vendor lock.”

It hasn’t been decided what the optimum cycle of NGAD platform turnover should be, but the hardware and software will be in a perennial spiral, Hinote said.

“As you’re allowing that program to mature, through a spiral series, you’re designing the next platform” with new software and sensor technology, he said. As these are integrated into the existing version, “you jump over that one” to the next one. “It could be every five years,” he said. “It could be every eight years.”

The A-10, which also is expected to fly until the 2030s, will be superseded by a “new way” and “new concepts” of delivering close air support, Hinote said.

“We’re not looking at building another non-survivable close air support aircraft like it,” he explained. “The lines on the battlefield are not necessarily where you’re going to be. In fact, it’s probably going to look much more distributed … [that’s why you’re seeing the] long-range fires discussion … play out in the press and in the Pentagon.” This is a “big, big deal,” he said. Close air support will “feel much different.” The new aircraft will be used “typically” in the counterterrorism environment, Hinote said, and the new concept is “pretty compelling.” He didn’t give details, but said that when the new capability becomes available “it’ll be pretty evident that we need to just go ahead and divest the A-10 and move to the new” construct.

As for the F-16, Hinote confirmed what Brown has suggested, that it will likely be a “clean sheet design” created in much the same way as the NGAD, using digital methods. The role envisaged for the new airplane will be homeland defense and missions “that don’t necessarily require a high level of survivability.” For example, it may not need to have “radar stealth.”

However, this is not a pressing decision, as “our F-16 ‘new’ blocks are actually still in decent shape; we can upgrade them and keep them viable for some time.” When it comes time to “sunset” the F-16, “a clean sheet design using digital tools is the way to go,” Hinote said.

Fielding the NGAD is urgent, Hinote added. While he would not say when the threat will overmatch USAF’s current capabilities, “the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/new-force-design-ngad-needed-soon-f-22-sunset-begins-in-2030/
 

Avicenna

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 18, 2016
4,997
3
8,092
Country
United States
Location
Bangladesh
New Force Design: NGAD Needed Soon, F-22 Sunset Begins in 2030


The Air Force is preparing to unveil a new 30-year fighter force design that includes at least two all-new fighters, a much greater use of autonomous and unmanned aircraft, a new way of providing close air support, and a narrowing timeline for retiring aircraft such as the A-10, F-16, and F-22, said Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements.

Hinote said the F-22 will begin to phase out in about 2030—the exact timeline will be situation-dependent—and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will be needed soon to defeat a Chinese stealth aircraft and missile threat that is “closer than we think.”

In a May 13 interview with the editors of Air Force Magazine, Hinote said Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.’s revelation that the USAF is planning to reduce its fighter fleet from seven types to “four plus one” is the kickoff of a “transparency” campaign to explain choices to be unveiled in the fiscal 2022 budget submission.

Brown said the future fighter fleet will include the F-35, F-15EX, late-model F-16s, and the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD family of systems; the “plus one” being the A-10. Brown did not mention the F-22, and “this was something you all rightly picked up on very quickly,” Hinote said.

The Air Force plans a “transition” from the F-22 to the NGAD, and “we felt like, now is a good time for us to be able to talk about how we’re going to bridge” between the two systems.

While the F-22 is a good airframe—it has been updated and will continue to receive upgrades, “mostly sensors,” Hinote said—the Air Force is anticipating “the sunset of the F-22 … in about the 2030-ish timeframe.” That won’t be the full retirement of the type, but the beginning of its phase-out, he said. By then the F-22 will be 25 years old and the Air Force should be deep into a new cycle of fielding NGAD and its successors on what could be as rapid as a five-year cycle.

“Our Chief of Staff Gen. Brown has it exactly right: We must ‘accelerate change or lose,’” said AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “If he says it’s time to start thinking about retiring the F-22, then he understands something about what’s coming with NGAD. The Air Force has led the way in developing and fielding the most advanced technologies on the planet and integrating them into complex weapons systems. They’ve done that from the F-117 a generation ago to the B-21 today. We have to respect Gen. Brown’s confidence and that proven capability to deliver.”

The F-22 fleet is small and suffers from vanishing-vendor problems, senior USAF officers have said recently. A recent high-level USAF planning document said the F-22 won’t be competitive two decades from now. Hinote said the F-22 “has its limitations and we can’t modernize our way out of the [air superiority] problem with just using an updated F-22.”

However, the Air Force will not allow any gap in its ability to achieve air superiority, he insisted.

“We believe … we have a good story,” he said, which is that the F-22 will be kept “viable as a bridge to get to the new capability. This is not an area of the Air Force where we feel we can take a lot of risk.” Though he thinks some mission areas might tolerate gaps or risks—he didn’t name them—air superiority “is not one of them.”

One of the reasons senior leadership is talking about the F-22 and NGAD is because the budget request to be presented in the coming weeks will show a “large … commitment” to the NGAD, Hinote said.

The service expects to have “a tight transition plan” between the F-22 and NGAD, he added. Until NGAD is available, “We feel like a good use of our resources is to keep the F-22 viable as we are developing this sea change in the way we field capability.”

Depending on the threat and hedging against problems in NGAD, the USAF may consider a service-life extension program for the F-22, but Hinote said that seems unlikely because the NGAD is making swift progress.

“I was surprised at how well it’s doing,” he said. He has escorted a number of members of Congress to see the jet—which former USAF acquisition chief Will Roper revealed last September has already flown—and they have come away “at a minimum, fairly impressed,” Hinote assessed. Members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense have similarly visited the program, and “seeing is believing,” he added.

“We still have to make it real, and there’s a lot to do in the program, but when you see what is going on, and you hear it from the Airmen who are flying it, you get a chance to really understand … where we’re going.” He said he wished he could “brag on” the contractors who have brought the program so far, so quickly, but much of the project remains classified.

The NGAD timetable will be “event driven,” but Hinote doubts it will be 10 years before it is in operational service. The “long pole in the tent” right now is integrating “the most important things onto that platform with a government reference architecture.”

He also noted that NGAD is a family of systems and will be “optionally manned,” meaning several versions of the jet may be built and employed with or without crews.

When the budget comes out, “it may not look like a 100 percent” replacement of F-22s with NGADs because “you’re talking about a set of capabilities, … some of that may be unmanned [or] optionally manned. So it’s not one-for-one.”

Broadly, he expects the Air Force to embrace autonomous aircraft as force multipliers. “We’re really working hard at identifying the true value propositions” in missions where unmanned systems may be used, he reported. He noted the Skyborg autonomous aircraft test earlier this month, which did not require the use of a runway for launch or recovery—something that could be a game-changer as the Air Force seeks to complicate the targeting problem for adversaries.

The NGAD concept calls for rapid turnover in technology, such that when one is about to be deployed, the next version will already be in design, if not development. Hinote suggested that the second NGAD type is already in design, then said, “I can’t confirm or deny that one.” But the Air Force is embracing the concept because it will allow “the great companies of our industrial base to re-enter the competition at the design phase, as opposed to crowding them out in the sustainability phase” as a consequence of what has recently been coined “vendor lock.”

It hasn’t been decided what the optimum cycle of NGAD platform turnover should be, but the hardware and software will be in a perennial spiral, Hinote said.

“As you’re allowing that program to mature, through a spiral series, you’re designing the next platform” with new software and sensor technology, he said. As these are integrated into the existing version, “you jump over that one” to the next one. “It could be every five years,” he said. “It could be every eight years.”

The A-10, which also is expected to fly until the 2030s, will be superseded by a “new way” and “new concepts” of delivering close air support, Hinote said.

“We’re not looking at building another non-survivable close air support aircraft like it,” he explained. “The lines on the battlefield are not necessarily where you’re going to be. In fact, it’s probably going to look much more distributed … [that’s why you’re seeing the] long-range fires discussion … play out in the press and in the Pentagon.” This is a “big, big deal,” he said. Close air support will “feel much different.” The new aircraft will be used “typically” in the counterterrorism environment, Hinote said, and the new concept is “pretty compelling.” He didn’t give details, but said that when the new capability becomes available “it’ll be pretty evident that we need to just go ahead and divest the A-10 and move to the new” construct.

As for the F-16, Hinote confirmed what Brown has suggested, that it will likely be a “clean sheet design” created in much the same way as the NGAD, using digital methods. The role envisaged for the new airplane will be homeland defense and missions “that don’t necessarily require a high level of survivability.” For example, it may not need to have “radar stealth.”

However, this is not a pressing decision, as “our F-16 ‘new’ blocks are actually still in decent shape; we can upgrade them and keep them viable for some time.” When it comes time to “sunset” the F-16, “a clean sheet design using digital tools is the way to go,” Hinote said.

Fielding the NGAD is urgent, Hinote added. While he would not say when the threat will overmatch USAF’s current capabilities, “the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/new-force-design-ngad-needed-soon-f-22-sunset-begins-in-2030/
@dbc

Interesting article.
 

Mk-313

FULL MEMBER
Apr 26, 2020
716
0
285
Country
United States
Location
United States
The fact that military decided to retire F-22 but keep F-16s just boggles my mind.

But also speaks volume to the resilience of F-16 platform
 
Last edited:

foxhoundbis

FULL MEMBER
Apr 21, 2015
105
0
200
Country
Germany
Location
United Kingdom
... just boggles my mind.
But also speaks to the resilience of F-16 platform
Speals mostly the total failure of the F-22 that was supposed to replace the F-14, F-15, F-111's fleets.
As U can see it was a total failure for all US aircraft labelled Generation V. Let's bet their next Gen VI will be a failure too.
 

CrazyZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 3, 2019
3,675
2
4,786
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The fact that military decided to retire F-22 but keep F-16s just boggles my mind.

But also speaks to the resilience of F-16 platform
PAF F-16 shot down a SU-30 (the F-22 of the East) and chased away its wingman a few years ago.....proving the validity of USAF fighter mafia's original notions. I am not surprised USAF will keep the F-16 longer then the F-22. With upgrades F-16 will still be dangerous for years to come. Stealth is better used in attack/bomber aircraft. Once F-22 or F35 turn on there radars and start shooting or maneuvering..stealth is lost.
 

Mk-313

FULL MEMBER
Apr 26, 2020
716
0
285
Country
United States
Location
United States
Speals mostly the total failure of the F-22 that was supposed to replace the F-14, F-15, F-111's fleets.
As U can see it was a total failure for all US aircraft labelled Generation V. Let's bet their next Gen VI will be a failure too.
Raptor was no way a failure otherwise Chinese wouldn’t have copied it, neither Russia would’ve pursued SU-57. And even your country wouldn’t have started their own project. The philosophy of USAF is to be 1 gen ahead of all the competitors

The point is Raptors specification are close to getting matched by competitors and it cost $70k/hour to fly it. So they would rather fly something more advanced for that money that is above the current 5th gen platforms.

The other thing to note it US military has a huge huge maintainence cost to keep everything in Shape. Right now they’re diverting that money to maintain raptors into building 6th gen
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,880
12
5,251
Country
United States
Location
United States
@dbc

Interesting article.
NGAD has already flown, the concept harks back to the century series. Fighters designed for a specific role engineered to excel in a small defined set of missions. We will not have thousands of a specific type like F-16 or F-35.
 

That Guy

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 29, 2013
11,831
39
15,027
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
It's still a hard maybe on retirement. The US has historically had a hard time retiring even vintage aircrafts. Take the A-10 for example, they've been trying to retire that aircraft for literally decades, but have no far failed to do so. Same with the F-16 and F-15.
 

Avicenna

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 18, 2016
4,997
3
8,092
Country
United States
Location
Bangladesh
Speals mostly the total failure of the F-22 that was supposed to replace the F-14, F-15, F-111's fleets.
As U can see it was a total failure for all US aircraft labelled Generation V. Let's bet their next Gen VI will be a failure too.
F-22 isn't a failure.

It's just that the threat has changed.
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,880
12
5,251
Country
United States
Location
United States
The point is Raptors specification are close to getting matched by competitors and it cost $70k/hour to fly it.
no, the Raptor is still unmatched. the point is we can now make a much better Raptor for much cheaper at a significantly reduced cost per flying hr.
 

Mk-313

FULL MEMBER
Apr 26, 2020
716
0
285
Country
United States
Location
United States
no, the Raptor is still unmatched. the point is we can now make a much better Raptor for much cheaper at a significantly reduced cost per flying hr.
“the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”

This shows that’s Raptors unwavering superiority is in threat in the near term future

The threat is different. US will not commit their entire military to fight China for a war relating to Taiwan. So even raptor being a superior 5th gen won’t help them very much since the entire airforce won’t be commuting to South China Sea. So they need something vastly superior if they were ever to win against china. That’s why recent war games US only won with NGAD
 

hyperman

FULL MEMBER
Jan 6, 2020
246
0
382
Country
United States
Location
United States
The fact that military decided to retire F-22 but keep F-16s just boggles my mind.
Its harder to maintain a Ferrari than a VW Golf.

they have different purposes, f-16 is meant to be cheap and versatile. the f-22 is an air superiority fighter meant to operate in contested airspace. the f-16s carry out the bulk work after air superiority is achieved.

Speals mostly the total failure of the F-22 that was supposed to replace the F-14, F-15, F-111's fleets.
yeah.. this was never the intent. it was always supposed to be produced in low volume for a specific purpose.

Its like how you don't train your whole army to be special forces, only a small subgroup of specialists.

As U can see it was a total failure for all US aircraft labelled Generation V.
why do you guys write this dumb stuff, does anyone actually doubt the ability of the f-22 in achieving air superiority?

The reason its being retired early is b/c #1 there is a new fighter that is set to be introduced and there are more f-35s set to be inducted. #2 its expensive to maintain as the airframe ages, and there are far more cost effective proposals, not to mention its ability to operate in contested airspace are projected to diminish as air defense systems get more sophisticated(which is why there is a 6th gen air superiority fighter in development).
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,880
12
5,251
Country
United States
Location
United States
the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”
of course the threat needs to be exaggerated- how else can you secure funding?
 

hyperman

FULL MEMBER
Jan 6, 2020
246
0
382
Country
United States
Location
United States
Did the F22 ever see combat?
the closest thing it ever came to with regards to contested airspace was syria, where it carried out a few bombings. but the US hasn't really had a reason to use it as most cases for air support have been against states and entities that either didn't have air defense capabilities or they weren't as robust.

was also used for recon work against the syrian regime and the russian and iranian elements present.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom