F-22 Raptor info

[Majestik Møøse]

As if the SECAF or CSAF have any say in acquisitions. Congress controls that, or rather the contractors who fund them do. A Billion dollars to restart the F-22 line is nothing. That's 0.17% of our yearly defense spending; 0.067% of the F-35 program. With the ludicrous amounts of money we throw around, never say never.

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

As if the SECAF or CSAF have any say in acquisitions. Congress controls that, or rather the contractors who fund them do. A Billion dollars to restart the F-22 line is nothing. That's 0.17% of our yearly defense spending; 0.067% of the F-35 program. With the ludicrous amounts of money we throw around, never say never.

True - that is the crux, we (the AF) are only advisory really to how or what we buy / operate, Congress with its causes, agendas, deals and priorities writes the appropriation.  Still, the case has to be made we can't afford to support Congress Oinky who wants to keep shoveling slop to X constituent and his/her parochial economic interest that sucks money from legitimate requirements.  

I agree it is not impossible, Regan resurrected the B-1, but we need a revolutionary with multiple stars to take a risk and publicly call out divestiture of old systems for new ones - the move to divest the A-10 while promoting the F-35 being the bad example of this, don't have a good one but hey there's always a first.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Clark Griswold
parting thought

[TreeA10]

IIRC, the Bone was built with parts from all 50 states. 

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

IIRC, the Bone was built with parts from all 50 states. 

This should be on the CSAF reading list:

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Blue-Yonder-Politics-Bomber/dp/0691023069

On the subject of restarting the line for Raptors and how it has 0.69% chance of happening plus or minus 100%, if the new CSAF wants to chase a white whale that might be catchable, go after the FB-22.  If the Navy can jedi mind trick Congress into buying that the Superbug was just an improved version of the classic hornet, the AF can do the same.

Another article on restarting the Raptor line, basically the author's opinion is the technology is old well so is the technology of the A bomb but that's still effective too, my retort to that.  He references an attempt to use the stored tools and recorded tool use videos, that didn't work so well, they couldn't find the materials and that happened several times, so this could all be moot but worth bullshitting over.

Worth a two minute read:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858

[TreeA10]

In another IIRC, if we had built the 700+ Raptors, there would have been squadrons with Air-to-Ground as the primary mission in their Doc statement. The software is in the ones currently flying.   We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel if we built more. 

[brabus]

This shouldn't be surprising, but the Raptor is not an A/G fighter; it's what we all think - an A/A fighter with a few cool A/G capes, but not nearly enough to really execute AI, AO, CAS, etc.  It's quite ridiculous to think producing 500 more Raptors solves our "A/G gaps."  I'm absolutely a huge supporter of producing more if it was doable, but I want it for what it's built for, not for a delirious dream that it is anything but an A/A fighter with a few niche capes to help out on the A/G side.

[Clark Griswold]

46 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

In another IIRC, if we had built the 700+ Raptors, there would have been squadrons with Air-to-Ground as the primary mission in their Doc statement. The software is in the ones currently flying.   We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel if we built more. 

What are you crazy?  Follow thru with a procurement and capability strategy and then revaluate at appropriate intervals when you have built out to program milestones that would allow you to have operationally relevant and logistically efficient fleet sizes?  Put down that crack pipe of common sense and drink this blue kool-aid...

Seriously, I agree but the AF does not like to play thru when the heat rises (in all fairness other branches curtail or cancel outright even after considerable development) but you would have thought with the recent memory of the B-2 when the ATF program was about to bear fruit there would have been either organizational resilience to resist rash moves or that more thought and contingency planning would have occurred for cost overruns, delays, technical issues, etc... 

40 minutes ago, brabus said:

This shouldn't be surprising, but the Raptor is not an A/G fighter; it's what we all think - an A/A fighter with a few cool A/G capes, but not nearly enough to really execute AI, AO, CAS, etc.  It's quite ridiculous to think producing 500 more Raptors solves our "A/G gaps."  I'm absolutely a huge supporter of producing more if it was doable, but I want it for what it's built for, not for a delirious dream that it is anything but an A/A fighter with a few niche capes to help out on the A/G side.

True, but this flight of fancy is the hypothetical development of the FB-22 for the range of A/G missions.  Like the Superbug to the classic hornet, this would have to be at most a second cousin the original Raptor with a lot of new customized systems, software, etc... to be a realistic A/G platform.  Now about the money...

[di1630]

This shouldn't be surprising, but the Raptor is not an A/G fighter; it's what we all think - an A/A.....

Yeah but we can make anything A/G. Look at the viper. Strap some bombs and A/G sensors, call the 20mm A/G capable...Pew pew. Solved.

[Lawman]

This shouldn't be surprising, but the Raptor is not an A/G fighter; it's what we all think - an A/A.....

Yeah but we can make anything A/G. Look at the viper. Strap some bombs and A/G sensors, call the 20mm A/G capable...Pew pew. Solved.

Don't forget a tape deck full of Queen songs.

In all fairness though to the Viper they are filling up a lot more lines on any ATO than anybody else and have been for a long time. Id like to look at ideas like an F/A/B-22 the way a lot of people probably looked at Strike Eagle when the concept was first put forward. This could very well work but F it up and the money spent would have been better used in another dedicated platform, not teaching a Fighter to be a bomber (or vice versa ala 111B's for the Navy).

[brabus]

this would have to be at most a second cousin the original Raptor with a lot of new customized systems, software, etc... to be a realistic A/G platform.

You just described the F-35.  This debate is useless.  Lets scream for more F-22s because we absolutely need them in the A/A realm, not because we have a misguided idea that somehow a FB-22 would be better than an F-35.

[Clark Griswold]

30 minutes ago, brabus said:

You just described the F-35.  

Can't argue with that, an FB-22 would just be much more capable in the A/G, at least from a load out perspective.  But the development of updated software & avionics for an FB could / should have updates / improvements for the F-22, an indirect way of improving the tails we have.  Honestly, the only thing that could get this started is a situation where double digit SAMs or 4+ gen fighters either block or severely impede operations for 'Merica or allies, the need will have to be demonstrated not just theorized before Congress will come around to it.

[11F]

You just described the F-35.  

...Honestly, the only thing that could get this started is a situation where double digit SAMs or 4+ gen fighters either block or severely impede operations for 'Merica or allies, the need will have to be demonstrated not just theorized before Congress will come around to it.

That's already happened (Syria). Congress just hasn't gotten the memo yet.

[HerkPerfMan]

14 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

In another IIRC, if we had built the 700+ Raptors, there would have been squadrons with Air-to-Ground as the primary mission in their Doc statement. The software is in the ones currently flying.   We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel if we built more. 

Ah yes, back when the Raptor was officially re-designated "F/A-22" for a brief period.

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, 11F said:

That's already happened (Syria). Congress just hasn't gotten the memo yet.

Valid.

[brabus]

FB-22 would just be much more capable in the A/G, at least from a load out perspective.  But the development of updated software & avionics for an FB could / should have updates / improvements for the F-22, an indirect way of improving the tails we have

It absolutely would not be more capable unless we're talking about a complete redesign (software and hardware) that would make the F-35 program look like "best seen to date."  A more capable 5th/6th gen A/G fighter is currently called F-X and will probably not see the light of day until the 2030s and probably won't be useful until mid to late 2040s...unless we learn from our acquisitions/program mistakes, but who honestly thinks that'll happen?

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

 

It absolutely would not be more capable unless we're talking about a complete redesign (software and hardware) that would make the F-35 program look like "best seen to date."  A more capable 5th/6th gen A/G fighter is currently called F-X and will probably not see the light of day until the 2030s and probably won't be useful until mid to late 2040s...unless we learn from our acquisitions/program mistakes, but who honestly thinks that'll happen?

No doubt we would be building Raptor 2.0 with an FB variant but it should be pitched as the compliment to the existing Raptors, you get an LO strike platform and missile truck with the FB instead of relying on a 4th gen to go into the WEZ as the 5th gens press forward.

[brabus]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but what you're arguing for is an F-35, an "LO strike platform and missile truck" as you call it.  The reason 4th gen will be around until 2045 is because we don't have enough money to afford an AF full of only 5th gen - there'd only be F-22 and F-35 if we had all the money in the world/had made significantly better decisions when it came to acquisitions and program management.  F-22 and F-35 are complimentary, we just simply can't afford enough of them.

[Clark Griswold]

I'm arguing for (with -0.01% probability of happening) another 5th gen with more weapons capacity than the F-35.  The FB-22 in this hypothetical would fill the role imagined for the B-1R concept.  The 5th gen platforms we have now (or will when the 35A is FOC) are excellent except they need to be able to cue more weapons than they can carry as it is likely they'll be swarmed by 4th gen fighters or likely have to attack multiple times a double digit SAM site as it will have its own point defense systems, a Strike Raptor able to carry 12 or more AIM-120s or 30 SDBs /  X JSOWs could be the part of that first night package to clear a path thru an IADS and not require a dedicated escort.

Bringing on another 5th gen would be the ton of bricks that breaks the camel's back so the 35 will have to do, which it seems likely as of late, it has been quietly successful.  If you were willing to give up certain capes or divest quickly whole fleets to fund this maybe but like you said if better decisions had been made this might have been possible, as they weren't it is not.  If I had to choose something to jettison to pay for this, it would not be the Hog, if you're reading this ACC... probably not.

[brabus]

6th gen reqs address your concern - so really you want the 6th gen fighter to replace the F-35.  That plan already exists, except you and I will be drinking whisky in the retirement home before that thing is FOC.  Don't lean so far forward as to sell current/near future technology short - we have some good stuff, but in the end handcuff ourselves due to budget and bureaucracy issues.  Frustrating, but that's what we get when career politicians run the country.

[Clark Griswold]

1 minute ago, brabus said:

6th gen reqs address your concern - so really you want the 6th gen fighter to replace the F-35.  That plan already exists, except you and I will be drinking whisky in the retirement home before that thing is FOC.  Don't lean so far forward as to sell current/near future technology short - we have some good stuff, but in the end handcuff ourselves due to budget and bureaucracy issues.  Frustrating, but that's what we get when career politicians run the country.

Good point(s).

On F-22 related news, I guess what the 22 could face that would be a more capable threat, the PAK-FA got a new lease on life as India and Russia hugged it out and came to an agreement on cost sharing and capabilities required:

https://warisboring.com/articles/russia-pulls-its-stealth-fighter-back-from-the-brink/

 

[di1630]

If we are in s war where 169 F-22's, our B-2 fleet and F-35s along with stealth cruise missiles etc. can't do the job, it's a big damn war and we have things to worry about.

As it is, I think about the worst case is needing to knock down some iads to set the stage for more of what we are doing now.

[Lawman]

If we are in s war where 169 F-22's, our B-2 fleet and F-35s along with stealth cruise missiles etc. can't do the job, it's a big damn war and we have things to worry about.

As it is, I think about the worst case is needing to knock down some iads to set the stage for more of what we are doing now.

It's not a way tomorrow that is the problem. It's the war 10-15 years from now.

How long did we ride the F-16/15 fleet and how many SLEPs and retiring of older portions of the fleet to strip parts off of to do that? How many decades did those assembly lines run and how long ago did they shut off?

That's the problem with the we have 169 Raptors argument. Right now we do. Ten years from now how many hours have you burned off those airframes. How many have you planted because let's face it crap happens and sometimes you gotta give the plane back to the taxpayer (even B-2). Now there won't be an F-22C coming online 10 years from now when the ones we have now are worn out and flying on weight/G restrictions to prolong that airframe life some more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

There's no room for logic here Lawman, this is the government we're talking about.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

It's not a way tomorrow that is the problem. It's the war 10-15 years from now.

How long did we ride the F-16/15 fleet and how many SLEPs and retiring of older portions of the fleet to strip parts off of to do that? How many decades did those assembly lines run and how long ago did they shut off?

That's the problem with the we have 169 Raptors argument. Right now we do. Ten years from now how many hours have you burned off those airframes. How many have you planted because let's face it crap happens and sometimes you gotta give the plane back to the taxpayer (even B-2). Now there won't be an F-22C coming online 10 years from now when the ones we have now are worn out and flying on weight/G restrictions to prolong that airframe life some more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup - Planned Obsolescence is not what we should build into them but at the IOC / FOC of a new MDS, the planned service life and replacement should be discussed, they are now but those replacement dates just keeping get shifted to the right.  Instead of waiting for a major accident to happen, having to figure out SLEPs, or other band aid programs, do what you tell Airmen every Friday night, have a plan.  Flying a jet for 20-25 years is enough; it keeps the fleet healthy, the industrial base viable and fielded systems relevant.

[Lawman]

There's no room for logic here Lawman, this is the government we're talking about.

True. I just hate that everybody wants to use the most basic two metrics possible of how many aircraft we bought and how long we flew the ones they replaced.

It completely ignores all the stuff I mentioned not to forget the increasingly high pace of technological obsolescence in the digital age. Now you take a fleet of 160 raptors, constantly have say 1/3 of that in depot for either service life extensions or modifications to maintain technological edge and you drop to a fleet of 100+ airplanes. Factor in how many of those are available to train and we are talking 1-2 wings of which only half are up at a time as deployable.

We go from the worlds most capable and deployable air power force to having a numerical parity to even small nations let alone the big scary ones like China/Russia.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk