Question on F-22 program.

[Blackmarch]

Does anyone know the current status on the F-22 production? last I heard was that it was getting killed.

 

[azmurath]

Yes, the F-22 program is being killed.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Not only Raptor program but many other military projects have been killed too. Heck, 10 days into new FY, we don't have a budget plan, I couldn't take a simple personnel test because contractors are pretty much on strike, they have a STOP WORK order. First in my 6 year Army career, first in a new administration too in that career. Indeed a "change".

 

[Alaskan_Frontier]

F-35 is taking its place. The whole F-22 thing has been one big ummm.. big something. They cut airman to buy more, then cut production, then say a few more and now no more. kinda of like watching a teleprompter, back and forth. Not so much the president but between secdef and AF Joint chiefs.

 

[azmurath]

F-35 is taking its place. The whole F-22 thing has been one big ummm.. big something. They cut airman to buy more, then cut production, then say a few more and now no more. kinda of like watching a teleprompter, back and forth. Not so much the president but between secdef and AF Joint chiefs.

It is an AMAZING plane, it is just too damned expensive.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

A secdef whose hands are tied. F-35 is a joke and larger money trap considering what we have is doing its job well and no one is near coming up with something close to F-22 at this time.

 

[pepper1]

They could probably cut the air force down to just mechanics and pilots and maybe air traffic controlers and have the army MP's guard the air fields. Isent that what the AF is suppose to be all about is the planes, just like teh navy and coast gaurd is all about boats

 

[azmurath]

They could probably cut the air force down to just mechanics and pilots and maybe air traffic controlers and have the army MP's guard the air fields. Isent that what the AF is suppose to be all about is the planes, just like teh navy and coast gaurd is all about boats

Not at all. In fact, I am not even stationed within 20 miles of an Air Force base.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

It is an AMAZING plane, it is just too damned expensive.

And what do we do, we kill one, we buy another... The "another" is definitely a joke with mediocre performance with $83M per aircraft going up to $151M... Backbone of the USAF, F-16 costs only about $20M-$25M, with block 60 up to $63M

 

[pepper1]

And what do we do, we kill one, we buy another... The "another" is definitely a joke with mediocre performance with $83M per aircraft going up to $151M... Backbone of the USAF, F-16 costs only about $20M-$25M, with block 60 up to $63M

I watched an F-22 perform in an airshow and I would hardly call it mediocre, the J turn was very impressive and that thing could smoke any other fighter air craft in air to air, the only thing that will smoke the F-22 in the future will be boings pilotless fighters that can perform 20+ G turns (almost like a UFO) and are stealth but thoes will not be out until like 2020.

 

[azmurath]

I watched an F-22 perform in an airshow and I would hardly call it mediocre, the J turn was very impressive and that thing could smoke any other fighter air craft in air to air, the only thing that will smoke the F-22 in the future will be boings pilotless fighters that can perform 20+ G turns (almost like a UFO) and are stealth but thoes will not be out until like 2020.

He is referring to the F-35.

The F-22 is the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, and the only generation 6 fighter jet.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I was talking about the "another" plane... which is the stupid F-35 joke. F-22 is indeed impressive. Drop that much money on to me, I would be impressive for you too.

 

[Blackmarch]

I was talking about the "another" plane... which is the stupid F-35 joke. F-22 is indeed impressive. Drop that much money on to me, I would be impressive for you too.

While I don't think the f-35 is stupid nor a joke.... it must be held in it's proper place- mainly the same roles as the f-16 and the harrier, which are extremely useful with their roles... however Air superiority is much much much more difficult to achieve with those. The f-35 will likely achieve air superiority against older generation fighters but will be very hardpressed (if not outclassed) when other superpowers come out with their answer to the f-22.

 

[Crusader05]

Production of the F-22 is being capped at 179. The DoD is investing more in the F-35 since it is a mult-role fighter and can actually drop bombs. The F-35 is a combined/joint project and several hundred will be in service so it has the advantage of buying in bulk.

To play devil's advocate I question why we need to spend so much on an air superiority fighter when we are involved in counterinsurgencies and no nation holds a candle to our AF. Also, the Air Force wanted a one-for-one replacement of the F-15 with the F-22, but since it is so advanced one can do the work of several 15s, so we simply dont need as many.

Also, Azmurath there is no such thing as a generation 6 fighter, the F-22 is considered a gen 5 and the F-16/15s are gen 4.5.

 

[Blackmarch]

Production of the F-22 is being capped at 179. The DoD is investing more in the F-35 since it is a mult-role fighter and can actually drop bombs. The F-35 is a combined/joint project and several hundred will be in service so it has the advantage of buying in bulk.

To play devil's advocate I question why we need to spend so much on an air superiority fighter when we are involved in counterinsurgencies and no nation holds a candle to our AF. Also, the Air Force wanted a one-for-one replacement of the F-15 with the F-22, but since it is so advanced one can do the work of several 15s, so we simply dont need as many.

Also, Azmurath there is no such thing as a generation 6 fighter, the F-22 is considered a gen 5 and the F-16/15s are gen 4.5.

to answer the devil's advocate;
because it is not a necessity of now, but of apotential necessity. If by some chance we could foresee that no major power will ever have a significant conflict in the future, or until such a time that the f-22 would be obsolete... then yes such a program is a waste. Otherwise no.

 

[Crusader05]

to answer the devil's advocate;
because it is not a necessity of now, but of apotential necessity. If by some chance we could foresee that no major power will ever have a significant conflict in the future, or until such a time that the f-22 would be obsolete... then yes such a program is a waste. Otherwise no.

I am not saying we should not invest in air supremacy, but we need to be mindful of where we are placing our wieght of effort. Right now we need to be focusing on winning today's wars. While there is no nation threatening us in the air we certainly could in the future and the F-22 would have been an important step for future fighters. This isn't an all or nothing proposition, we still have 179 F-22s to prove we can make them. But we aren't dropping hundreds of billions more on the hundreds AF brass wanted.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

F-35... It is an unnecessary waste of money since Gen 4.5 fighters like Blk 60 F-16 or F-16IN can hold up against the potential enemies of the US. Currently we do not have a gen 4.5 F-16 in service, what we have is blk 50/52 gen 4 fighters. F-15E is categorized as 4.5 generation but with only partial fly-by-wire and an AN/APG-82(V)1 radar upgrade in development...

F-35 doubles the price of the Viper, it is pretty impressive on the paper, but that is about it. What does it offer further than a viper, a limited stealth which seriously compromises load-out. Some says price is not important. Price is hardly the only argument but nevertheless a very important one. Everything about the F-35 is on the table, not in the field. Its job can be carried out by the F-22 above and beyond. To be cost effective a cheaper but beefed up and combat proven F-16 could do the rest. F-35 is the biggest proof that some people on the hill wants to run the military like a business. They also say that in the long run its costs will not go up. How do we even know? So far it seems like a joint program that is aimed to make a few people very rich. Unit cost is $83M. Lovely number. 4.5 times of a F-16. 20M more than a F-16IN. That must be the cost of stealth, where you send F-35s with 2 bombs and 2 missiles to the fight, nothing more.

Some say we have to understand the advantages of "stealth". I don't think I understand the "advantages" of stealth which were quite effectively proven over Kosovo. Maybe a proper research is due to see that the F-35 is underpowered, overweight, and less agile. This stealth BS is only the lipstick on the pig. It is no longer an issue when the AF reconfigures the aircraft for a proper "strike" mission. Though interesting enough, AF never tested that bed yet. The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter. That makes the F-35 even less maneuverable than the appalling F-105 “Lead Sled” that got wiped out over North Vietnam. With a payload of only two 2,000 pound bombs in its bomb bay – much less than the F-105 could carry – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either. How much more will it cost and how many additional problems (software&hardware) will compromise its already mediocre performance? We will only know when a complete and rigorous test schedule – not currently planned – is finished. The F-35 is a bad deal that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.

The plane is behind schedule, costs are rising, and several European partners are reconsidering. Australia is wishy washy about it. This plane's future is not bright. Its electrical system, its flight control software, its engines all took a dump with problems. Normally whenever it takes an itty-bitty baby step, they report it to the media for PR purposes. First engine run? Reported. Roll-out? Reported. First flight? Reported. First Wheel-up flight? Reported. But “first emergency landing”? Not reported. 40,000 lbs thrust, maybe it is just my lack of interest but I have yet to see this aircraft do a vertical climb-out.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]As a CAS attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, replacing the A-10, the F-35 is a nonstarter. It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods as they maneuver on the ground. Specialized for this role, the existing A-10s are far superior.

Col. John Boyd would be rolling over in his grave on this joke. Costs killed F-22 and they assume it won't kill F-35. F-35 is not something we desperately need, not at this time while we are still ahead of the game, F-16, with new variants has still much to offer. At the end, this whole thing is about running the military like a business. We are worried about how great its stealth and EOTS/DAS is but my buddies are going behind enemy lines with Nam era OH58s.

 

[presto]

Cant the F-35 land and take off verticly? That was what I heard was its main advantage as you could provide close air support very close to the battle field. Of course what pilot wants to be sitting in a tent on the front line, if he wanted that he did not have to get a 4 year BS, go through all the paper work and training and all the other ducks he had to put in a row to get a pilot slot lol.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Cant the F-35 land and take off verticly? That was what I heard was its main advantage as you could provide close air support very close to the battle field. Of course what pilot wants to be sitting in a tent on the front line, if he wanted that he did not have to get a 4 year BS, go through all the paper work and training and all the other ducks he had to put in a row to get a pilot slot lol.

What are you talking about? Marine pilots go through the same, and yet they sit in a tent on the front-lines. Do you believe (which is obvious since you keep repeating it) that a 4-yr degree is a status decider in the military officer corp?

Only one model of F-35 can do the STOVL, short take off and vertical landing. It sacrifices fuel volume to make room for the vertical flight system. Takeoffs and landing with vertical flight systems are by far the riskiest, and in the end, a decisive factor in design. Like the AV-8B Harrier II, the F-35B's guns will be carried in a ventral pod. Whereas F-35A is stressed to 9 g, F-35B and F-35C are stressed to 7.5 g.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

The thing with the F-22 is that the wonderful machine that it is can do so much more than the human is capable of withstanding. Before long this and many others will be unmanned aircraft.