Thank you mate.
At most it's a partial replacement as the F-22 won't have the LGB self-designating capability for quite a while, if ever...
It doesnt need selff designateing LGB capability to fulfill the well defended HVT strike role of the F-117, a Mark 83 JDAM does that perfectly well, due to the fact that strategic HVT's are rarely moveing (i.e. C4ISR). The only major difference i can see is the inability to carry the Mark 84 warhead internally. As for the range issue, well all USAF assets are dependand on AAR, notably for deep strike. AFAIK the F-22A has a much smaller RCS (order of magnitude) than the F-117, but ofcource that is just public conjecture.
But you are then giving up an autonomous targetting capability (relying of course on non-jammed GPS signals, just cause they haven't been effectively targetted yet doesn't mean they won't or can't...) a "re" targetting capability "in the air" (limited though that might be) along with the moving target capability that laser guidance provides and GPS/INS doesn't.
I wonder if this capability was a trade-off with the F-22 design. The F-117 main and probaby only mission is precision bombing whilst the F-22 must also to fulfill an air superiority role. The F-117 was never intended to fight other aircraft.
The new gen PGM's may indeed be Laser/gps/ins guided (Laser JDAM and the new Paveway) and F-22A will need an internally carried targeting pod (which i doubt will be much of a problem) to take full advantage of their capability. But again in the current circumstances the vast majority of the F117's "bread and butter" strategic HVT's are static, so laser guidence is not needed for these.
As i said the inability to carry the Mk 84 warhead or its equivelent internally is the only major capability difference between the two in the strategic HVT strike role. However such weapons can be carried by the B2 in large numbers. Now a B2 wont have the flexibility of of an F117 simply becasue it is useually based in CONUS or Diego Garciea (i.e. outside the theater), however hardened targets that can not be dealt with by a mark 83 are both relatively few and far between and static. Therefore ceeding this role to the B2 should not have any noticeably adverce effects.
Fair enough, there will be some missions that the F-22A can not undertake that the F-117 could. However the majority of the nighthawks missions can be handled by the F-22A which should be both more survivable and achieve better sortie rates.
Thats only because there was a development disconnect between the the need to maintain the F-117 and the development of new guided munitions.
I wasnt aware MTK SDB II's were anywere near operational yet. The yanks must be fast-tracking a few programmes. 500/1000lbs of HE allways seemed excessive when targeting MT's to me anyway. SDB II's use a IR terminal seeker dont they, so no laser is nesisary?
This is really good news! I know this doesnt mean the USAF will get these planes, but it does mean they have a better chance..
I'm sure there are strong lobbies to keep the F-22 production line open. The US lawmakers have a tendency to "add" aircraft rather than "cut". Still there may be a play between the F-22 and F-35 programs.
Is it too much to ask for to have the full orders of both the F-22 and F-35?
Probably not. However, politics and politicians are never a given and difficult to figure out, just like trying to find which way the financial markets are headed!
Yes the the U.S. does need to replace its tanker and transport aircraft but they need to replace its fighters more than ever! I don't get how they think support aircraft is more important than combat aircraft. Now don't get me wrong but in order to be a superpower we need support aircraft, but how are we going to be a superpower with no combat aircraft? Then the support aircraft are useless.
Without these support assets your force is incapable of deploying its fighters and bombers and therefore will not be able to project force. Ask the guys on the ground what is more important another fighter more in the air or transports providing supplies. These assets are all equally important and despite the fact that numerous Eagles are unserviceable now, there are still a lot of fighters available.
Scorpion's right, support aircraft, morce multipliers and logistics are allways more inportant than a few more fighters, even F-22A's. Without tankers they will have no power projection capability at all beyond the USN. Therefore what point would haveing more F-22A's be if you couldnt deploy them? Boyond tankers the real power of the USAF lays in the variety of force multipliers they bring to a theater, not what fighters they bring. The capabilities of aircraft like E-3, JSATRS & Rivet Joint and the way they are intergrated into the wider system with spaced based ISR assets and other ground based C4ISR, means that if they were equiped with MiG 29's or F-4's they would still be the most powerfull airforce on the planet, by far. The platfrom is only a small part of the wider air combat system therefore its improtance is proportional to that. So yes a new KC is more important than more raptors, if I had to chose.