F-22 tooling to be preserved

[F-15 Eagle]

Lockheed to preserve F-22 tooling for future use

Just in case the next administration decides the air force needs more than 186 F-22s, the production tooling will be preserved.

Lockheed Martin confirms the US Air Force has decided to retain tooling for the F-22 after the production line in Marietta, Georgia, shuts down as scheduled in 2012.
The decision means that USAF officials will be able to repair and modernize the service's aircraft, or manufacture new Raptors.
Lockheed says tools with "near-term needs" will be retained on site. Others will be preserved and stored in large, bar-coded steel containers commonly used by the shipping industry, which it says reduces "costs associated with conventional warehousing".
Air force officials were not immediately available to comment, but have previously said that a decision to preserve F-22 tooling would be intended to support a future service life-extension program for the stealth fighter.

At the same time, the decision also implicitly preserves the option to restart production if future administrations decide that the USAF needs more than 186 F-22s.

Congress in 2009 approved the Obama administration's decision not to extend F-22 production beyond the program of record set by the Bush administration in 2006. But the Congressional approval came only after several months of heated debate.
Meanwhile, Rand's Project Air Force analytical group published a study on 3 March showing that the F-22 supply chain could be reactivated after a two-year gap. Rand studied not only the availability of tooling, but also whether key suppliers could leave the industry within this period of time.
However, Rand concluded that restarting production after a two-year work stoppage would significantly increase costs.
Assuming a 75-aircraft production run over five years, it found the cost per aircraft would be $227 million. If production continued without interruption, the average unit cost would be $173 million.

 

[PolSciIR]

I just hope I'm still in when they sheepishly decide to bring it back to the factory and pump out more because we run into a hot situation requiring Air Dominance that the F-35s can't contribute to.

 

[Cailet]

Sorry if this is a debate that's been done to death before now but what does the F-22 offer over the F-35 other than higher top speed, less RCS* and a bigger individual payload?

From my understanding, the F-35 is better-networked, has equivalent or better avionics and can carry all the munitions types available to the F-22. And with the greater numbers of F-35's costing less to acquire and maintain the difference in quality is more than made up for by quantity.

The F-22's original mission profile died with the Soviet Union and with that gone it seems like the programme ran on with pure momentum rather than actual purpose. In the US' current conflicts it's like driving an F1 car to the shops and I can't think of many scenarios where the F-35 would prove cripplingly inferior.

*I'm not dismissing the advantage lower RCS provides but from what I know there's more to signal management than just native RCS.

 

[PolSciIR]

Well, as far as Avionics... yes, the F-35 has that wonderful helmet mounted cueing system and the EOTS system mounted beneath the cockpit. However, in the end the F-35 is a stealthier, slightly more powerful F-16.

The F-22 is larger, faster, stealthier, more maneuverable, twin-engined (redundancy+power), carries more ordnance, and still has much more space for expansion of avionics and capability.

Also, one key feature is one that can be observed in the F-15 vs the F-16, a suitable comparison given the roles of those aircraft and the roles of the F-22 and F-35. You can note the size of each aircrafts nose section forward of the cockpit, and note the vastly larger size of the F-22s nose (as well the vastly large nose cone of the F-15 vs the F-16). That vastly larger nose cone contains a much larger radar, capable of picking up targets at much greater distance.

EDIT:

Quick afterthought. The F-22's price had peaked and could have only gone lower. The F-35 isn't meeting its goals, and its price seems to just keep climbing.

As for the price... the F-35 was originally supposed to cost how much per unit? 67M is a number I recall them boasting about. It has far exceeded that mark and now has reached $191M flyway cost per unit in the FY11 budget, with the F-22 having topped out at $150M in 2009.

So... the F-35 is behind schedule, isn't even meeting its own capability requirements, and immensely over budget. For the amount they are spending on developing the F-35 and ramping up for production, they could have easily expanded the strike capability of the F-22.

Mind you, this is all my personal view. And I realize there is a complex game of politics and whose constituencies build what parts and get what business and jobs. So the F-35 certainly has some leg up in that aspect. At this point, its almost too big to let fail.

Edit:
Afterthought... the F-22 had peaked in price, the F-35 doesn't seem to be reaching the summit quite yet. Even from a business sense the F-22 seems the way to go.

[Mod Edit: @PolSciIR, most of your points have either been debunked or explained with greater insight in other threads. Your points are neither original nor filled with insight. In fact, you seem not to let facts get in the way of your posts. Please take the time to read the older threads, most of what you are attempting to discuss has been done in the past and with numerous links to back up the points made by the different forum members.

I would have really preferred to give you a warm welcome rather than a warning but it's time you learn. You can start by reading the Forum Rules and getting acquainted with our Hall of Shame - Ban List.

There is plenty of space to intelligently discuss the short comings of the JSF programme and to praise the continued relevance of older airframes but we frown on people arguing the indefensible. Thread closed for arguing the indefensible, for attempting to pass-off half digested misinformation for fact and lack of basic common sense in approaching a discussion. In other words, you are trolling for a response.

PolSciIR, you are hereby officially warned against posting further nonsensical spam and I strongly recommend quoting and citing sources, if you are to proceed in future posts. Let me give an example of a citation for reference purposes: "Rethinking the Basis of Infantry Close Combat" by David Kilcullen (pages 29-40, Vol. 1 No. I, June 2003 of the Australian Army Journal).]

 

[charles34]

f-22 restart?

Do you guys think there is any way they would restart making the f-22?

[Mod Edit: The chance is slim to none and has been discussed to death in other threads. Please take the time to read the older threads.

Kindly do not start another thread on any F-22 topic without searching the forum first. And pending a Mod Team decision, we will keep this thread closed.]