Congress looks into restarting the F-22 Raptor

[Viper0011.]

I'm all for bringing the Might, the most feared F-22 back into production however, the reason why the production shut down, still exists.
3 F-22's will cost us more than a billion dollars , each plane cost is $350 million dollars. Maintenance cost is huge, each flight hour cost is close to $70,000 according to time magazine.

They need to tackle these issues, then even kill the unreasonable F35.

We are almost a $ 90 TRILLION system on the planet with military forces stretching out literally to ALL corners of the globe . I am more than sure, if the Pentagon and the US Government realize the need, we can produce 500 of the -22's. The next gen LR bomber is also as costly as the -22 (or close to it).

Cost has not been an issue before and neither is it now. If you've followed defense sec. Gates, his reasons to cut production wasn't because the US somehow became "poor", it was because the warfare we were involved in those years (anti-terrorism ops), didn't call out for a quarter million dollar jet to be used against rag tag terrorist armies and militias.

Now, the wars are behind us or are run pretty much in an auto-pilot mode as there is plenty of availability of resources to handle unconventional warfare. So now we are focusing back to the global issues, like the Russians, Chinese, etc. Plain and simple!!

 

[shah1398]

I only read one line of your post and stopped. If only idiots on the street can guess Pentagon's policies and strategies, why would there be a Pentagon?? A few generals can sit in a Starbucks and create future war strategy eh?? . On topics that you have no clue about, I'd refrain from commenting as you make yourself look bad. Just saying...

Dear Sir,
Its a free world and everyone is free to give in his/her own analysis that is based on info and situation around. As a matter of fact no one in the world has the exact info of what Pentagon wants as none of us has any insight into what they plan and do. Not me, not U. The only thing we know is what they want us to know. If deals/strategies in US wud have been made in places as likes of cafes then the US wud never have been a super power. F-35 and F-22 both belong to Lockheed Martin, so in any case its win win situation for them. The fact is that with imminent threat in front, the Pentagon is suppose to field in a proven and potent fighter till F-35 really takes its place in threat theater. The growing capabilities/threat of countries like North Korea, China esp Russia with the new weaponry it had displayed during Syrian episode and its growing capabilities of ELINT and EW is a source of concern for US and currently its only F-22 which is a readily available defence against these threats. A new front in shape of South China sea is also emerging. Having said that, individual gains are always there in each and every deal and no one can rule it out. But current such steps show the concern of Pentagon and they are going for the readily available solution for that.

 

[Penguin]

Tells how unsatisfied Pentagon is with F-35 program so far, even to extent that they are reconsidering reopening a program which was dubbed by some as carrying obsolete tech. Hence my stance of upgrading F-22s rather than going for a new platform seems getting validated.

The F-35 is an F16 replacement. The F-22 is up from F-15. Big difference.

 

[shah1398]

The F-35 is an F16 replacement. The F-22 is up from F-15. Big difference.

Sir it was supposed to happen so till Obama stopped the F-22 program at just 187 aircraft inducted on 21 July 2009. My point is about possible revival of the F-22 program and core reasons behind it.

 

[Penguin]

Sir it was supposed to happen so till Obama stopped the F-22 program at just 187 aircraft inducted on 21 July 2009. My point is about possible revival of the F-22 program and core reasons behind it.

Pork barrel spending?

 

[TheNoob]

I'm all for bringing the Might, the most feared F-22 back into production however, the reason why the production shut down, still exists.
3 F-22's will cost us more than a billion dollars , each plane cost is $350 million dollars. Maintenance cost is huge, each flight hour cost is close to $70,000 according to time magazine.

They need to tackle these issues, then even kill the unreasonable F35.

holy shit really?

 

[somebozo]

US Airforce armed whole sale in F22 would be extremely lethal.

 

[shah1398]

Pork barrel spending?

Sir I can not call it so but F-22 was slated by Obama due to hi costs incurred by it and F-35 at that time was envisaged to be a much lethal but cost effective solution. An insight into the reasons why F-22 was slated is here below. U might it know all already but i found it interesting
http://web.mit.edu/17.307/www/17.307_example2.pdf

 

[Penguin]

I'm all for bringing the Might, the most feared F-22 back into production however, the reason why the production shut down, still exists.
3 F-22's will cost us more than a billion dollars , each plane cost is $350 million dollars. Maintenance cost is huge, each flight hour cost is close to $70,000 according to time magazine.

They need to tackle these issues, then even kill the unreasonable F35.

F-22
Program cost US$66.7 billion as of 2011
Unit cost US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)
Number built 195 (8 test and 187 operational aircraft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

If you devide program cost by 195 units, you get a cost fo $342 million per unit. The cost to actually built a unit (i.e. without taking into account development costs) in 2009 were less than half of that. As more units are built, development costs gets spreadout over a greater number, lowering the program cost per unit. Meanwhile, as experience is gained and production optimized, the actual building cost may also go down (unless modifications occurs or capabilities are added) E.g if 400 rather than 195 aircraft were built program post per unit is only $167 million, which means development costs account for an addition to building cost of 'just' $17 million.

F-35
Program cost US$1.508 trillion (total with inflation), US$55.1B for RDT&E, $319.1B for procurement, $4.8B for MILCON, $1123.8B for operations & sustainment
Unit cost
F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production without engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production without engine)
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production without engine)
Number built 171 as of March 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill funding the F-22's continued production and the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million for four additional aircraft, raising the total orders for production aircraft to 187 and leaving the program in the hands of the next administration.

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the Raptor was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending F-22 production in fiscal year (FY) 2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft or 54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling will be documented in illustrated electronic manuals stored at the Sierra Army Depot. Retained tooling will produce additional components; due to the limited production run there are no reserve aircraft, leading to considerable care during maintenance. Later attempts to retrieve this tooling found that the containers were empty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Production_termination

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. Russian and Chinese fighter developments have since fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate

There's some interesting politics going on here, plus a big question: "where has the tooling gone?"

 

[C130]

if we can get the cost down to $200 million than 200 would= $40 billion which isn't that considering how the Rafale and Typhoon are selling for.


200 Rafale or Typhoon would cost just little less around $30 billion

we could cancel a few programs to make this possible

1. Cancel Littoral Combat Sip
2. Retire A-10 and replace them with a cheaper alternative like Textron Land Scorpion or OV-10
3. only procure 8 Gerald R. Ford Carriers instead of 10/11
4. cut back on BMD, stop buying Pac-3 or look into the cheaper Pac-4 with stunner missile, cancel GMD and THAAD.

that a lone would save at least $100 billion dollars in procurement and operating costs.

 

[Penguin]

if we can get the cost down to $200 million than 200 would= $40 billion which isn't that considering how the Rafale and Typhoon are selling for.


200 Rafale or Typhoon would cost just little less around $30 billion

we could cancel a few programs to make this possible

1. Cancel Littoral Combat Sip
2. Retire A-10 and replace them with a cheaper alternative like Textron Land Scorpion or OV-10
3. only procure 8 Gerald R. Ford Carriers instead of 10/11
4. cut back on BMD, stop buying Pac-3 or look into the cheaper Pac-4 with stunner missile, cancel GMD and THAAD.

that a lone would save at least $100 billion dollars in procurement and operating costs.

Going down to 8 carriers means the navy can't handle more than 1 major conflict at a time, as you need about 5 carriers to have one on a particular station at all times.

The OV-10 Bronco is a 1960s airplane. Boeing has recently put forward plans internally to build a modernized, improved version of the Bronco, called the OV-10X, to satisfy a possible Air Force requirement for a light attack plane. According to Pentagon and industry officials, while the aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st century modernizations would include a computerized glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities. Boeing indicates that international interest in restarting production is growing, to compete with other light attack aircraft such as the T-6B Texan II, A-67 Dragon and EMB 314 Super Tucano. On 3 February 2010, during the Singapore Air Show, Boeing announced that the international interest for the aircraft was such that it would go on with its development even in the case it failed to win the USAF tender for 100 Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft. Still, given that this is a new built (rather than rebuilt) and substantially modernized aircraft, I don't expect it to be cheap. Plus, the A-10s are already there and paid for. Indeed, in the Airforce, the OV-10 was replaced by the OA-10A. An A-10X redesign may actually be more usefull. Although one advantage of the OV-10X would be its ability to operate from LHDs (although that does not compensate for the loss of carriers)
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/

How can you seriously suggest to cut back on BMD, when all your potential main foes have and are and will continue to be loading up on advanced artillery and increasingly long rand ballistic missiles, some of which nuclear capable. No amount of extra F-22s is going to stop those. There is a reason to not put all eggs in a single basket.

So, imho, only cancelling LCS is a viable option. An uparmed NSC aka patrol frigate would nicely fill any gap.

 

[C130]

@Penguin

I don't know how many carriers would be available or how many we would need. I just don't see us fighting on two fronts. only thing I can see happening that would require that is if we are at war with both Russia and China at the same time.

maybe we can make the new Gerald R Ford more efficient and spends less time at port and more time out at sea?

and we got mini carriers as well in the America Class as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship

OV-10X would be cheap compared to the A-10 in the long run IMO. they aren't as good or as survivable as the A-10, but the A-10 was designed to wipe out entire divisions of Soviet Tanks rushing into West Germany, but what we need now is cheap rat killer like the OV-10

I just don't like BMD. It's a waste of money and resources. It makes sense if you are facing a small force with some SCUDS and Tochkas like Saddam Iraq and the Yemen, but countries like Iran,North Korea,China,Russia etc simply have too many ballistic missiles and other systems like cruise missiles that would succeed any BMD system. it's just not full-proof.

I like MAD you lauch ballistic missiles that armed with nuke or biological weapons why try to shoot them down?? when you can 10x more back insuring their destruction and every ones else.

BMD gives you false confidence.

 

[anon45]

Tells how unsatisfied Pentagon is with F-35 program so far, even to extent that they are reconsidering reopening a program which was dubbed by some as carrying obsolete tech. Hence my stance of upgrading F-22s rather than going for a new platform seems getting validated.

What does congress ordering a study into the feasability of re-opening the F-22 Raptor line have to do with the Pentagon not liking the F-35?

You nailed it some times there are things between lines . F35 was destined to replace legendary fighters like F16/F18/F15 but some how it lacked in many areas .F22 in production will not be a great sight any more as already Chinese J20 is designed on basis of taking down F22

It was never designed to replace the F-15, it was designed to replace both the F-16 and F-18.

IF -- and this is a huge IF -- this goes thru, people can discard whatever notions about the technical difficulties we will have in restarting the production line. Simply put, we can do it and since there is a necessity, we WILL do it. Both the F-22 and F-35 were designed to be more modular than previous generations of combat aircrafts. Lockheed made video preservation of the production processes all the way down to the human level, as in production line workers recorded how they do things.

My take is that the next generation F-22 will be the equivalent of the leap from the analog F-16 to the all digital version, meaning the current performance specs will remain RELATIVELY the same, but its sensor and weapons integration package will be like going from bladed weapons to firearms. The current passive low radar observability technique is passive but it will be good odds that this next generation F-22 will incorporate some active techniques. No comparison with SPECTRA as SPECTRA is not as effective against first tier radar systems to start.

Long wavelengths ? Meh...As if long wavelengths were any credible tactical threats outside of fancy sales brochures.

So if there is going to be a next generation of F-22s, whatever the Russians and the Chinese can come up with, they can kiss their dreams of having credible challenges to US airpower: .

The rain bit that guy gave was ludicrous, but it is a valid concern that the F-22 would have to be almost redesigned with the amount of money that would have to go into 'modernising' the F-22. Changing the stealth coating from paint to baked in etc. I'm not sure how they would do this without breaking the budget, especially when the F-35 is just hitting its stride and prices are going down.


We don't wan't to damage the acquisitions there.

All the at least semi-informed hearsay I've read says that restarting the F-22 would be just that expensive, and would be not at all easy because all the engineers and equipment has been dispersed, retired, destroyed, etc. I'm talking 500 million per F-22.

On top of that, If it turns out that the superiority of Sensor fusion warfare is proven out, there really isn't a need for the F-22, the F-35 would work just as fine (actually better!) given no other country (to our knowledge) has even brought that design concept together.

It just strikes me as a hedge by congress too late in the game to be effective. If they wanted the F-22, they shouldn't have shut down the line. Right now we have to believe that Sensor Fusion is game-changing. (All accounts by pilots are that it is) and focus on continuing to extend that lead, instead of worrying about kinematic capabilities and reopening a line that, in our current military budget environment and with all the other r&d projects, they likely can't afford.

 

[volatile]

It was never designed to replace the F-15, it was designed to replace both the F-16 and F-18.

I beg your pardon A10 for Marine Corps

What does congress ordering a study into the feasability of re-opening the F-22 Raptor line have to do with the Pentagon not liking the F-35?

What was the point of closing it down for the first place and even from original requirement of 800 + to 200 .Cost wise / design wise F35 was to carry major burden of operations with F22 being queen of the skies .F35 relevancy to modern era is frnakly limited and it will take more time to design another 5th Gen fighter so easy way out is go for Raptor ,By the way i never liked the idea of discontinuation of Raptors in 1st place .Probably Japan/S.Korea deserves these jets .

 

[anon45]

I beg your pardon A10 for Marine Corps

The A-10 flies too low and slow for any contested environment these days, even small arms fire.
An F-35 can accomplish the mission just as well with precision weaponry in a low intensity conflict, is more effective in a contested environment, and creates less risk to the pilot, though troops they won't get to hear that BRRRT sound... A dedicated CAS plane for low intensity engagements might be better, but frankly we don't need to break the bank on that IMO.

What was the point of closing it down for the first place and even from original requirement of 800 + to 200 .Cost wise / design wise F35 was to carry major burden of operations with F22 being queen of the skies .F35 relevancy to modern era is frnakly limited and it will take more time to design another 5th Gen fighter so easy way out is go for Raptor ,By the way i never liked the idea of discontinuation of Raptors in 1st place .Probably Japan/S.Korea deserves these jets .

The point of closing down the F-22? Money.
Saying the relevance of the F-35 to modern era is limited is unsubstantiated especially given the philosophy behind it is very new. It remains to be proven, but the F-22 might be the best indicator interestingly enough.

Pilots say the F-35 is game-changing, and given their experience and expertise, I believe them. Any pilots (with operational experience of the F-35) that have come out to say the F-35 will suck in modern warfare?

Here are some that say it won't.
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/06/30/dogfight-og-f-35/

http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=f-35-offers-dream-capabilities-pilots-who-have-flown-it (2014)

http://www.investors.com/news/what-its-really-like-to-fly-the-f-35-a-marine-pilot-speaks/

(just read the pilot quotes fromt he investors article, the writer himself is not knowledgeable)

Clearly these pilots think the F-35 is superior to the F-18 and F-16, the aircraft they are intended to replace.

The philisophy for the F-35 at its simplest is this.

"First look
First shot
First kill"
(credit to Popcorn on F-16.net in this thread http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=30296 for the quote)

Obviously this focuses on catching the enemy unaware, and also the kinematics of the missile, vs the kinematics of the jet. Thus stealth and sensor fusion.

The data for engagements would seem to bear out that BVR engagements are increasingly important.

http://csbaonline.org/publications/...mbat-implications-for-future-air-superiority/



I never liked the discontinuation of the Raptor either, but it happened, and right now our concept of the future of air warfare makes the kinematics less relevant than battlefield awareness, so we have to continue on in that vein rather than move backwards, and in terms of battlefield awareness, the F-22 is indeed a step backwards from the F-35.

Neither Japan nor S.Korea would have ever gotten the F-22, it was not open to export. Ironically exporting it would probably have eased the costs too...