Another dozen F-22 Raptors
- Thread starter Scorpion82
- Start date
I think the F-22 may be done for now, but I don't think it's permanently finished, only just for the time being. Sooner or later the USAF will need an air superiority fighter to replace the aging F-15s, and it seems reasonably cheaper and easier to put back into production a plane that's already been through the testing and development stages and is for the most part already ready for production rather than design and develop an entirely new plane altogether. Though I'm not sure about this, it would appear the F-35 and the F-22 share a lot of major components, which would make restarting its production cheaper still. The maintenance problems can be figured out and fixed over time, if the F-22 does go back into production.
Or, I'm just being silly and overly hopeful.
Or, I'm just being silly and overly hopeful.
I think you'll find the F22 and F35 share bugger all. Even the engines are different. Software and hardware are different (at least 10-15 years younger in the F-35 and software is designed around an open architecture whereas the F22 uses largely outdated computers and software that must be custom designed.
The F-35 will be able to fill the air defence role very ably so it will replace the F-15's and 16's.
It is not simple to reopen a production line once production ceases. The equipment and even the building is reused for other purposes. Even if the US did decide to do this, the F22's avionics and systems would need to redesigned from scratch, and a rethinking of its radar absorbent coating that is proving to be so maintenance intensive now. If you are going to go to those lengths, you might as well design a new aircraft, not put back into production an airframe that has its design roots at least 20 years ago.
winnyfield
New Member
Defense budget has been increased. They just don't want the F-22.
It's a Democratic White House threatening a veto against a Democratic House & Senate.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
AFAIk they do share T/R modules, at least that one thing. Not much else though.
The F-16C is an excellent air defence asset, the USAF could have gained air superiority over Iraq and the Balkans without the F-15C, the F-16Ccan do it all. The only reason the F-16's were relegated to purely strike roles was the fact that they had F15C's anyway. F-15A's will be MORE than capable enough to gain air superiority over virtually any threat, and they have few squadrons of F-22A's to deploy if need be.
Even if they did reopen the production line it would mean another version of the F-22A (probably F-22B or C) and none of the through life upgrade's developed for the original batch would be applicable to the C version and vise versa. Therefore i don't think it will be likely, it just doesn't make financial seance. It may be likely that we see a long range, multi role version of the F-22A as an F-15E replacement (like the FB-22 concept), the F-15C "Golden Eagles" will likely be replaced by F-35A's or a sixth gen platform.
I would think that if they do reopen production they would have to upgrade the F-22 to a B variant anyway (given time lapse, the A variant would be due for an upgrade), and there could be a lot of room to share technology with the F-35, including the paint? (unless radar absorbent paint must be specific for different airframes to maintain stealth). After all, my understanding is that the F135 turbofan the F-35 uses was a derivative of the F119, and the F-22 would have probably had to upgrade its operating system to open source later on anyways.
Furthermore, though the F-15 may be able continue service, I question it and the F-35's readiness against competition from whatever China and Russia may be able to churn out in the next decade or so. Of course, conflict with Russia or China is unlikely, and these countries themselves may face the same cost issues the US has faced, but nonetheless the job of a military force isn't just to be prepared for present conflicts but future ones as well. If the US military suddenly sees a need for a better air superiority fighter (and I think sooner or later it would), it's probably much cheaper to put the F-22 back into production than to create an entirely new platform. Switching to a 6th generation option, whatever that may be, could end up being even more costly than reopening production, given that you'd have to reinvest money into R&D, then go through all the costs of turning up production. In that way, even if a return of the F-22 requires upgrades, I think it would make financial sense over an entirely new platform.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The problem with the F-22A is there are already several versions, and the oldest 60 use an outdated software architecture, and the rest don't use the same as the F-35. Therefore as spiral developments come to fruition the software has to be developed twice, which means billions of $$$ spent doing something extremely costly and complicated twice. If you have a second production run of F-22C's they will likely be built with contemporary open architecture like the F-35, so any software developed will have to be developed again for the F-22C. If they want to upgrade the F-22A's they will have to write the hideously complicated software three times. It will cost squillions and realistically wouldn't be feasible. You would effectively have to rip the guts out of the platforms avionics system, its a bloody nightmare.
Again its a question of cost. If they had built the F-22A and the F-35 with comparable architecture, you could easily migrate systems and capabilities across. But now with 2 versions of the platform (3 if you include F-22C) the cost of adapting the technology would be prohibitive. There are some hardware components that can migrate pretty easily, as i said before the AN/APG-79 already uses the T/R modules developed for the AN/APG-80. As for the RAM, the F-22A and F-35 were designed with different RCS and maintenance requirements. Thus the F-35's RAM would likely not meet the F-22A's design requirements. Puss the cost again would be prohibitive (its more than the paint).
Its based on the F-119, but they share virtually no parts and are optimized for different parts of the performance envelope, and they are different sizes. Thus I don't think there is much of an opportunity for crossover there. Its more than the difference between the GE F404 and F414.
That's the thing, the cost of spiral development will be huge considering the architecture constraints and different versions, its likely that only critical upgrades will be completed.
Really? Why is that? The F-22A is miles ahead of any technology any other nation has ever deployed, so is the F-35. Personally i would be impressed if the Russians or especially the Chinese come up with something comparable to the F-35 and the produce it in numbers great enough to have a significant impact . Consider the simple fact that the US is on its 4th gen of manned VLO/LO platforms, the Russians and Chinese are currently at Zero.
Anyway the platform is only one element in the kill chain, and the massive lead the US holds in virtually every other element means that realistically an upgraded F-15C force could gain air superiority over a J-10B or Su-35BM equipped foe. Just from a C4ISTAR standpoint the USAF is a light year ahead of the Russians and further ahead of the Chinese.
I absolutely agree with you. The counter insurgency and small conflict focus that has dominated US thinking is about to be surpassed by traditional peer competition, and high end war fighting capability will be at a premium again. The Jihadist war is winding down and a confrontation with Russia in eastern Europe and China in east Asia is winding up. The procurement decisions made now will have a significant effect on those confrontations over the next 20 years.
But new platforms will be under development anyway, with manned/unmanned solutions already being designed. Why invest money in the F-22A which is already a through life development money put, creating another version will only exacerbate the problem.
But 6th gen will be being worked on anyway, just as 5th gen was even as F-15C's were rolling off the production line. Thus if you are already working on a next gen platform, why not bring that forward rather than invest money in a previous gen platform that will just cost more and more money.
In any case if there is a need for more air superiority platforms to replace the F-15C it will make much more seance to just add more orders to the F-35A production line than the massive cost of re-opening the F-22A production line (re tooling the various production facilities alone would cost squillions). Then you will have 3 versions of the F-22A to support, that is a through life nightmare. The F-35A will be a formidable air superiority platform anyway, and given the comparative ease of upgrade it by that time will likely field advanced capabilities that the F-22A wont.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to update the whole with one new architecture all at once? That way instead of encountering cost spirals twice you only have to spend all your money on one upgrade? Besides, if the F-22 were still in production, they would have had to face these cost issues anyways. It's inconcievable that the F-22, were it in production, would not be upgraded with new components and a new software as technology improved.
Couldn't they revise the design to share more components and software with the F-35 before moving it back into production? Also, the F-35 will probably have to get software upgrades at some point anyways. Wouldn't it cut cost if these upgrades happened simultaneously with an upgrade of the F-22's software? (of course, I'm making this sound a bit rosier than it probably is. Software wise I'm aware that some things will share a basic architectural design but the specifics will be vastly different, and it's different if the F-35 is open source and can be easily upgraded while as you pointed out the F-22's entire operating system would have to be replaced). Similarly, couldn't they either upgrade the F-35's RAM, or downgrade the F-22's?
Ahh, I see. There's no quick fix for the cost of putting the turbofan back into development then.
I'm under the notion that had the F-22 remained in production these costs spirals would have cropped up anyways.
I tend to err on the side of caution when estimating what capabilities other countries may develop. Just because the US is vastly ahead doesn't mean either Russia nor China can't catch up. As the head of the pack the US has the burden of figuring out new innovations, while Russia and China can make do with copying old ones and observing what's already on the field to quicken their own developments. One example of how countries at the head of the technological curve have the burden of improving slower is exactly what you pointed out. The F-22 is indeed far more advanced than anything else on the field, but that level of advancement is inhibited by cost and feasibility, which essentially gives other countries time to catch up, at least in terms of what they're fielding if not in terms of what they're developing. I am especially wary of China, as they do hold a lot of US debt, but in any case there's no clear answer to this point. We'll see how well they do and if the F-35 is enough when we see exactly what these countries churn out in the next decade.
I agree that the platform is only one element, but the other elements to controlling an air space are much easier to upgrade and catch up on I think. With that in mind, I refer back to my previous point about the potential for these two countries to narrow the technology gap.
I'd rather not get into the manned unmanned debate, and will leave the question of what exactly qualifies as 6th generation open. I merely postulate that the F-22 would be a viable alternative to developing an entirely new fighter if a new fighter is needed before a next generation fighter is ready. The US is staring down a massive budget deficit, and I get the feeling that R&D of military hardware will naturally slow, at least for the next 8 years or so. For the same reason why new F-22s were struck down (US debt and the lack of need for them in our foreseeable conflicts) I imagine a 6th gen platform's R&D being slowed down (hard to justify new technology if the current one works fine). Should the F-35 not be enough, assuming a government still intent on managing military procurement tightly, having something still ahead of the curve but not too new might seem a cheaper alternative to fielding something too advanced to justify the cost for.
Again, not sure on how much money will go into R&D of a 6th gen platform when what we have is advanced enough now that we can't even justify continuing production of the F-22. Granted it would be wise to bring forward new technology, but as you said it's a matter of cost. Would it be cheaper to spend money to bring a 6th gen platform upfront or to put into production an old fighter whose capabilities were once too far ahead but are just about what you need at the time? You've convinced me that putting the F-22 back into production would be very expensive, but I wonder the answer to the question, and right now that answer's up in the air.
However, what seems to be clear with the current end of the F-22 is that the military industrial complex no longer has a cold war to justify pushing the envelope of military technology like it did while the F-15 was in service. I find it an interesting irony that what's ended the F-22's production could slow down the R&D of a 6th generation platform in a way that might justify bringing the F-22 back.
Perhaps the primary difference of views then is that I suspect the F-35's capabilities won't be enough in the future, and the slowdown of military spending that helped doom the F-22 could also doom everything that was supposed to come after it and make conditions more reasonable for its return. Of course, you're right in saying the F-35 is a highly adaptable platform, but that adaptability is limited by what the airframe is designed to do. The F-35 was originally designed assuming a high/low mix with the F-22 occupying the high position. With the potential retirement of the F-15C (and the F-15C is quickly aging), the USAF will be left without a fighter to fill in that position. What will it do then?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Updating the whole architecture virtually means rebuilding the platforms avionics system from scratch. In a platform that is already the most expensive fighter every made that would mean a significant increase in cost. The DoD is already bulking at the cost of the Raptor, there is no way in hell they are going to fork out billions of $$$ to basically rebuild the brand new fighters they already have. They are just going to live with a compromised platform.
Yes but the more they build the more the additional cost multiplies. The fundamental logic is why keep building a platform that will cost you massive amounts in through life support and is already hideously expensive when you have a perfectly good, sound, capable and in some ways more advanced platform in production (F-35A).without any of these issues.
The F-22A will be a hole in the pocket of the USAAF throughout its life, why make the hole bigger?
Sure but what happens with the 183 you already have? There is already a huge support infrastructure built for the platforms you have, but now your new production aircraft are different. Add to that the upgrades you have developed will not be easily adaptable to the different versions of your platform. Its just making your support and development issues worse and its more development cost to add to the already massive development bill. More cost, more support issues and more time. All that or just buy more F-35A's.
AFAIK the software is written in different codes, so any upgrade you develop for the F-35A has to be totally re written for the F-22A. Big, big, big problems when you consider the complexity of advanced features such as EA.
That is the way it SHOULD have been done from the ground up.
But then the F-22A wouldn't meet its RCS requirement or the F-35A wouldn't meet its cost, maintenance and exportability requirements. Plus it adds unnecessary diversity to the F-35A. Standardization in huge projects is a very valuable thing. That is in fact the current problem.
They would have been amplified because you have to do its for more platforms.
But the gap is HUGE. And although there will be some ground made up, both the Russians and the Chinese have to go through a comparable development process. They wont have to follow all of the same steps the US did, but they defiantly can not just use US advances as some sort of technical guide. They still need to make the same breakthroughs with less experience, less resources and a smaller technological base. Will they both field 5th gen platforms? Yes. But you cant assume they will be more capable than the F-35A (the US's second 5th gen platform) when they are both yet to demonstrate basic competency in many of the technologies needed.
I wouldn't worry about that, they own US debt because they have no other real investment options. There inst much they could do with it to harm the US anyway accept stop buying. But remember the private sector held massive amounts of US debt before Beijing had a sovereign fund.
C4ISTAR is an area where the US's lead is accelerating. Its not just technology, its the vast amounts of resources the US can devote to that end. The US has a virtual monopoly on the militarization of space, and its lead is only getting wider. There are fundamental reasons why the US enjoys naval & space domination that have much to do with geography. Their rivals are forced to devote their scarcer resources to other ends like massive land forces.
Boeing was talking about its 6th gen platform that was both manned and unmanned.
One way or another the new fighter will be under development, its just a matter of timing.
The F-22A's production line was shut down because of the supportability issues we are talking about, not just because of the budget deficit. The total R&D budget is actually growing. Its more a question of value for money than availability of money.
There is now way in hell 6th gen development will markedly slow, as stated earlier Boeing is already working on it.
Now if you are already developing a new platform, and for some reason your current platform is found wanting (but your other 5th gen alternative is a fundamentally flawed platform in terms supportability & cost) then buying more of them when you have something that's a full gen better around the corner doesn't make a heap of seance, especially considering the additional cost.
All this assumes the F-35A is not capable enough, and there's nothing to suggest that will be the case (the opposite in fact).
The fundamental reason for the cancellation of F-22A production is the through life development issues outlined by GF, not because it is too advanced for potential threats. The F-35A is more advanced in many aspects. Without these issues it is likely that the USAF would have 384 F-22A's and they would all be multi-role just like they wanted.
6th gen R&D is going a head at full steam. The perceived lack of requirement for advanced high end warfighting capability is a symptom of the US's current geopolitical circumstance, i.e. no peer. That will change in the next 20 years thus you can not use current funding arguments as evidence of likely issues in that timeframe.
There are still significant drivers for miltech development in the US, and allthough things may not be moving forward at Cold War pace something as fundamental as a new generation of fighter will not be slowed down or sacrificed. The US is now in a position of global dominance, unparralelled by any other nation in history, that is something extremely valuable and worth the investment (that's why the US spends almost more on defence than the rest of the world combined). Anyway Washington will be back in the business of peer competition quick smart so those drivers will be there yet again. Remember the current geopolitical circumstance is am exception, not the norm.
There is no slow down in military spending, the F-22A was doomed by design flaws not a lack of funds. The US will be spending more on defence in the 2020's than it is now anyway so that's not an issue.
Sure there are some design limitations in the airframe, but they are account for significantly less of the platforms war fighting capability than in previous generations. Sensors, VLO, communications, weapons and the ability to operate in a networked environment are the defining factors in 5th gen combat, and the airframe has little impact on those. The traditional Hi/Lo mix is less critical because the integration of platforms, weapons and supporting assets make fighter performance less relevant than it once was.
In any case the USAF will have several wings of F-22A's to deploy in support of its 1,800 F-35A's in a Hi Lo mix. Hardly lacking in 5th gen platforms considering no one has even produced a prototype 5th gen platform yet. By the way the F-35C will be the USN's primary air superiority fighter.
Yep, after reading GF`s post I no longer feel the same inregards to our beloved F-22. If the F-35 is that capable as a multi role aircraft then that should be where our emphasis be placed.