Jump to content

Thoughts on F-22 resurrection?


Recommended Posts

If you asked me this a few months ago, I'd have said no way.  Since there is a new sheriff in town with some unorthodox ideas, I'd say that today, anything is possible.  

 

Personally, I'd love to the see the AF scrap their next generation bomber (or if they just have to have that program, get rid of the B-52) and put the money towards restarting the Raptor production line.  Before they shut it down, the Japanese had openly stated they wanted to purchase a significant quantity of F-22's, Israel also seemed interested but we refused because we didn't want to share our technology with anyone else . So in theory, we might be able to get some other countries to assume a bit of the start-up costs. 

 

I think a force of F-35's and upgraded F-22's would be quite impressive.   It would allow the USAF to phase out their F-15C/E and F-16 force sooner than scheduled, which would save some decent money.  Obviously, we'd still have to keep the A-10 around, just because....

 

 

Edited by Alvis 3.1
Politics and such
Link to post
Share on other sites

One major difference between the cancellation of the B-1 and the cessation of production on the F-22 is time. The B-1 had not yet entered production, and as such, didn't have a host of subcontractors tooled up to make components. Restarting it was less trouble, as they didn't already have a supply chain in the first place that needed rebuilding. The F-22, on the other hand, did have a lot of suppliers, and after a 8 year shutdown, how many of them have moved on to other programs or even gone out of business.
Sure, I think it's physically possible to restart the line, but would it be fiscally believable? It might actually make more sense to start from scratch, but that would mean a 20 year lag time.
On the plus end, restarting it might bump the F-35 out of the "Most hated/expensive" plane category. We could trot out all those old, dusty memes for a second run!
:P

 

Alvis 3.1
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a chance. 

14 minutes ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

One major difference between the cancellation of the B-1 and the cessation of production on the F-22 is time. The B-1 had not yet entered production, and as such, didn't have a host of subcontractors tooled up to make components. Restarting it was less trouble, as they didn't already have a supply chain in the first place that needed rebuilding. The F-22, on the other hand, did have a lot of suppliers, and after a 8 year shutdown, how many of them have moved on to other programs or even gone out of business.
Sure, I think it's physically possible to restart the line, but would it be fiscally believable? It might actually make more sense to start from scratch, but that would mean a 20 year lag time.
On the plus end, restarting it might bump the F-35 out of the "Most hated/expensive" plane category. We could trot out all those old, dusty memes for a second run!
:P

 

Alvis 3.1
 

 

Yep. Once the bill comes due for the F-22 restart, everyone shifts back to the why did we cancel the F-35/B-21?! And then we watch it all come full circle.

 

Japan is already on board with the F-35. And Australia at no point ever made an OFFICIAL F-22 inquiry, despite what a bunch of dreamers down under say. All the people whining about F-35 costs havn't seen what F-22s cost to buy and operate. If the F-35 is top much, don't eveb waste your breath with the F-22 talk.

 

It's slim to none in my opinion. Zero really. And even if we got the F-22 back up and in production, I don't think we would export them. Which means once again the US is paying top dollar for a small run all by itself, and it still leaves the same needs the JSF was designed for, unfulfilled. 

 

Have we noticed that we always hearound how green the grass was on the other side after its too late? But before that the same people tell us what a horrific waste it is? 

 

How strange...

 

I don't think the F-35 will be cancelled, but the next worst solution is doing exactly like we did with the F-22.  Spend billions and many years developing it, then cutting it down just as it starts to bear fruit, and never really replacing what it was designed to replace, and after its too late the light bulb comes on that we should have just done it right the first time.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

A President Trump by all looks of things will see any F-22 restart  through the proper optics of cost/benefits. If doing so and thus allowing an export variant of F-22 would come to pass and  keeping what would be high costs down a bit. Well one can  see and more likely dream.

 

F-22 should have been built in larger numbers and put on an export list for 'Top Class  U.S. Allies' Japan and Israel certainly would have chosen F-22's as part of their air forces. Australia maybe also. Canada ?????? our government  procurement   is often  stupidly politicized. I doubt we would have bought into F-22  regardless of export rules.

 

When it's all said and done Canada will buy either F-18E/F or F-35A... THAT'S IT!   A mixed fleet ??? Maybe  and done so to save some political face for our current government trying to appear more transparent.

 

It does bug me how my nation   has dealt and deals with   military   procurement as it often costs more and/or we get less bang for our buck. This  goes back to the 1960's, so it's not just one government's fault. I will say this in being positive,   our CF-18  purchase was a  rather good one and its cost/benefit/performance   did work  very well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 And even if we got the F-22 back up and in production, I don't think we would export them.

So that comes back to question I've long had.  We'll peddle the F-35 to anyone with check book (Turkey and probably other future customers in that category) and yet the F-22, which is a decade or so older than the F-35 is forbidden from export, even to "inner circle" allies like Japan / Israel.   The F-35 is supposed to be the cutting edge of stealth, sensors, design, etc but we don't have any problem exporting them as quickly as LockMart can churn them out of the factory.  

 

What is so special about the Raptor?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sell previous Canadian governments short on lack of foresight on military procurements, you can go back to WW1 and the Ross Rifle, and pre-war on the lack of naval procurements.:angry:

 

If the US starts up the F-22 again, I hope this time they stick with it and build modernized, up-to-date variants and in decent enough numbers. Limiting them to the USAF only and not allowing exports was a foolish choice, in my opinion.

 

 

Alvis 3.1

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

So that comes back to question I've long had.  We'll peddle the F-35 to anyone with check book (Turkey and probably other future customers in that category) and yet the F-22, which is a decade or so older than the F-35 is forbidden from export, even to "inner circle" allies like Japan / Israel.   The F-35 is supposed to be the cutting edge of stealth, sensors, design, etc but we don't have any problem exporting them as quickly as LockMart can churn them out of the factory.  

 

What is so special about the Raptor?

 

 

 

 

The F-22 has a lower RCS than F-35.  F-35 is still better than any of the 4th gen fighters, but F-22 is still the king of stealth.  

 

Also agree with TTYL.  Restarting the production line for F-22 would be enormously expensive, so much so that F-35 would once again be the "cheap" option. 

 

Also not mentioned is the fact that F-22 production machinery and technicians have been moved to F-35 production.  You can't restart F-22 without dramatically impacting the F-35 production rate.  Given the current delays in JSF, I doubt anyone would accept further delays.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, graves_09 said:

The F-22 has a lower RCS than F-35.  F-35 is still better than any of the 4th gen fighters, but F-22 is still the king of stealth.  

Very interesting.   I knew the Raptor had better RCS from rear aspects but I though from other directions, the F-35 was significantly better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

So that comes back to question I've long had.  We'll peddle the F-35 to anyone with check book (Turkey and probably other future customers in that category) and yet the F-22, which is a decade or so older than the F-35 is forbidden from export, even to "inner circle" allies like Japan / Israel.   The F-35 is supposed to be the cutting edge of stealth, sensors, design, etc but we don't have any problem exporting them as quickly as LockMart can churn them out of the factory.  

 

What is so special about the Raptor?

 

 

Isn't the F-22 part of a more integrated system where as the F-35 is more stand alone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gordon Shumway said:

When it's all said and done Canada will buy either F-18E/F or F-35A... THAT'S IT!   A mixed fleet ??? Maybe  and done so to save some political face for our current government trying to appear more transparent.

I read somewhere that Canada decided to pull out of the F-35 and decided on SuperHornets instead due to the enormous cost of the F-35. The F-35 may be ok for USAF/USMC use but don't think it will pan out as well for the Navy. The Navy needs twin engine aircraft, I know we have had single engine aircraft in the Navy before and they were pretty good during their time. Twin engine is a better option in my opinion due to that extra engine being able to get the air crewman back to a safe zone before they have to eject due to battle damage. Of coarse this is my opinion and only my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkKnight said:

so it costs  more to refurbish tooling/ restart than to start from scratch?

 

Not necessarily, it would depend on how much altering of the aircraft would be required to update it. LockMart apparently kept the tooling for the F-22, but smaller suppliers may not have, as they would have moved onto other projects and tooling sitting around wouldn't be of any use if it was specific for the then cancelled F-22. Finding new suppliers would take time and money. This is conjecture on my part, I've not seen anyone with real hard numbers on what restarting the F-22 would actually cost, and I'm pretty sure nobody will be forthcoming with them if they are extremely high.

 

 

Alvis 3.1

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SBARC said:

 

Isn't the F-22 part of a more integrated system where as the F-35 is more stand alone?

Exactly the opposite.  F-35 is far more built on system integration.  The F-35 is built on 2000s computer/communication technology F-22 was built on 1990s technology.  The F-35 is a single glass cockpit with fully customizable displays.  The systems are so integrated the pilot can have a "gods eye view of the battle space".  It is by far the feature pilots like most about the JSF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tosouthern66 said:

I read somewhere that Canada decided to pull out of the F-35 and decided on SuperHornets instead due to the enormous cost of the F-35. The F-35 may be ok for USAF/USMC use but don't think it will pan out as well for the Navy. The Navy needs twin engine aircraft, I know we have had single engine aircraft in the Navy before and they were pretty good during their time. Twin engine is a better option in my opinion due to that extra engine being able to get the air crewman back to a safe zone before they have to eject due to battle damage. Of coarse this is my opinion and only my opinion.

 

 

It is an opinion because there are virtually no statistical differences between single and double when it comes to attrition. Especially with Modern Engines. There are going to be examples on both sides singles and duels. But Numbers wise it balances. Which brings up a question I've always had:

 

If a double is "safer" in case of failure, and the attrition is the same. Are Duels failing more often? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

Not necessarily, it would depend on how much altering of the aircraft would be required to update it. LockMart apparently kept the tooling for the F-22, but smaller suppliers may not have, as they would have moved onto other projects and tooling sitting around wouldn't be of any use if it was specific for the then cancelled F-22. Finding new suppliers would take time and money. This is conjecture on my part, I've not seen anyone with real hard numbers on what restarting the F-22 would actually cost, and I'm pretty sure nobody will be forthcoming with them if they are extremely high.

 

 

Alvis 3.1

 

 

There have been a lot of articles written on resurrecting the F-22, And the magic number to make it worth it seems to be 200, which doesn't seem to bad until one realizes we were never able to reach 200 the first time and that was with a 100 percent effort that got people fired. there is talk of "upgraded" F-22, fore xample with F-35 sensors which would add cost and of course the "export" Raptor which would be yet another variant, which requires its own design and development.  

 

Its the operational cost of the Raptor that is the real show stopper IMHO. Even if countries bought into an aircraft that costly, paid for a chunk of the development etc. The operational cost is mind numbing. If all goes to plan you are looking at about the 3-4 F-35s for the cost of one F-22 CPFH. Then you have countries that are buying not even triple digits of F-35s, and you start to see the problem. A squadron of 10 F-22s vs 30-40 F-35s. 

 

 

 

Quote

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

 

--General Mike Hostage.

 

 

Now of course its define "beat"...  dont want to go over any of that well trodden ground again. 

 

 

The bottom line is this: We should have kept the F-22 going but we didn't. That can't be undone but what we can do is make sure we don't make the same mistake with the F-35 and B-21. 

 

This isn't the bottom line the next one is.

 

Line intentionally left bottom

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/12/2016 at 5:50 AM, Gordon Shumway said:

Australia maybe also.

 

Only in the minds of fantasists like Kopp and Goon. At no point did it meet the RAAF requirement for a multi-role fighter.

 

We're starting to build an impressive joint force with Project Jericho. It's costing a lot and so far has buy in from both sides of parliament, but no way would we be spending the money to buy both F-22 and F-35

Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adamitri said:

So if we keep the F-35, Lockheed wins....

If we bring back the F-22, Lockheed wins...

 

No. Much more to it than that. Even if looking at a pure profit motive, LM makes far more building thousands of F-35s

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...