Pentagon to end F-22 program

[Feanor]

Bonza hit the nail on the head.

By the way, Bonza, I notice you're a new member here. Please do take the time to introduce yourself in the Intros and Off-Topic forum, and to read the rules. Your first post was intelligent and well written, I look forward to reading more from you.

 

[Bonza]

Thanks for the kind words mate

On the whole I think it's best for the F-22 production line to take a bow and call it a day. Granted the aircraft is an amazing piece of technology but if you could put a list of its capabilities and that of the F-35 next to a list of the USAF's requirements, the decision makes a lot of sense.

I admit I'm a recovering F-22 junkie but the more I read about the F-35, the more capable and fascinating an aircraft it becomes.

(just edited this so it wasn't a one line reply, didn't notice that rule before, heh)

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

Thanks for the quick reply Bonza. I understand that combat effectiveness can not be determined and is not merely the result of comparing individual assets, but the result of a combination of all avaliable capabilities or "synergies". But in the case of the F-35, I still wonder about the lack of an internal gun for the B & C varients.

On the issue about ending the F-22, adding another batch of 20 planes would probably provide further assurance about the dominance of U.S. airpower, but such assurance would simply result in further overkill. With the economic situation as it is, killing the F-22 is a rational and understandable move. Furthermore, the place vacated by the f-22 in the DOD budget could be used to fund the jumpstart of the f-35, as well as other acqusitions

 

[Bonza]

Thanks for the quick reply Bonza. I understand that combat effectiveness can not be determined and is not merely the result of comparing individual assets, but the result of a combination of all avaliable capabilities or "synergies". But in the case of the F-35, I still wonder about the lack of an internal gun for the B & C varients.

The thing is, the B and C variants still have a gun capability, just that it's provided by a podded gun rather than internal carriage. Granted there are disadvantages to an external pod but as this capability has been part of the program from the beginning (as far as I know) I think these disadvantages will have been measured and neutralized to the best of the manufacturer's ability.

 

[rjmaz1]

can you add a link for the information on the inferior kinematics?

Just check wikipedia

The combat radius is "greater than 590 miles" for the F-35 and only 410 miles for the F-22.

The F-35 has MORE internal fuel even though it is 70% the size and weight of the F-22. That paints a very interesting picture.

Even though the F-22 can cruise faster, the F-35 will have so much extra internal fuel that it can use afterburners for weapons release negating the speed advantage.

 

[backlash92]

Just check wikipedia

The combat radius is "greater than 590 miles" for the F-35 and only 410 miles for the F-22.

The F-35 has MORE internal fuel even though it is 70% the size and weight of the F-22. That paints a very interesting picture.

Even though the F-22 can cruise faster, the F-35 will have so much extra internal fuel that it can use afterburners for weapons release negating the speed advantage.

As i understand that wikipedia is a quick and easy resource i dont really think it can be trusted for its credibility as it is not updated reguraly

 

[Pingu]

I have always been a keen advocate of increased F-22 production. Based largely on the fact that it would provide a better balance of fighters and lower unit costs.

I always thought the "F-15 will do" argument was short sighted given that when all fully retired in 2025 timeframe, nothing will be in production (other than the F-35) to replace them. Granted, the F-35 provides a large increase in capability over the F-15 but the US's edge may be lost when relying largely on the F-35, especially in 2025.

However, it's good to see that the money will be diverted into a surge of very rapid initial F-35 production. Lowering initial unit costs of the F-35 is paramount and this will give it the boost it needs. I also, don't see job loss as a concern, given that the F-35 is an LM product and therefore many employees could be transfered. The only issue would be geographically.

It is just a shame that the money had to be found at the cost of the F-22. Personally I feel that programs such as the V-22, EFV and some components of the excessive FCS program, should have taken a backseat to the F-22.

With regard to the RAF's use of F-35s and Typhoons, I believe that this is where a split tranche 3 schedule would come in handy. Once the F-35 is in RAF service any weeknesses or strengths found in the F-35 would help inform a decision on a final typhoon buy.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Congress could still very well save the F-22 program by restoring funding for it. This has happened countless times in the past when the DOD tried to cancel a program but Congress restored it to save jobs in their sate. Take the V-22 Osprey for example, when Dick Chenny was secretory of defense in 1991 he tried to cancel the V-22 3 times I think it was but it was saved by Congress and 17 years later it is now flying combat operations in Iraq.

Maybe the F-22 will be saved by Congress another other programs like the new air force tanker and bomber.

 

[Salty Dog]

Congress could still very well save the F-22 program by restoring funding for it. This has happened countless times in the past when the DOD tried to cancel a program but Congress restored it to save jobs in their sate. Take the V-22 Osprey for example, when Dick Chenny was secretory of defense in 1991 he tried to cancel the V-22 3 times I think it was but it was saved by Congress and 17 years later it is now flying combat operations in Iraq.

Maybe the F-22 will be saved by Congress another other programs like the new air force tanker and bomber.

The V-22 is a unique case. The USMC had no follow-on air assault vehicle to the CH-46 Sea Knight which were still chugging around with Vietnam era bullet holes. So the V-22 had to work else there would be a serious gap in USMC air assault capability.

The F-22 has over 80 major suppliers supplying components and services. These companies are further distributed throughout the USA. While a stop in F-22 production will not put these companies out of business, it will produce employee layoffs vice them being re-distributed. No Congressman will not want to see any constituents loose their jobs. They will fight to keep F-22 production going.

 

[AegisFC]

The F-22 has over 80 major suppliers supplying components and services. These companies are further distributed throughout the USA. While a stop in F-22 production will not put these companies out of business, it will produce employee layoffs vice them being re-distributed. No Congressman will not want to see any constituents loose their jobs. They will fight to keep F-22 production going.

Yes there will be a fight to keep production open, but I'd be willing to be most of those suppliers are also involved in F-35 as well.

The current contract for 183 was known for a couple years now, all the suppliers have had plenty of time to draw up plans on what to do after Raptor production ends.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What will Mr Kopp do now???

Keep complaining.

 

[alexsa]

Keep complaining.

He appears to be living in hope at this stage. All the April news articles refered to in APA on the F-22 appear to relate to the hope for a reprieve and the 'anger' at the policy. In any case I would expect him to burst into volumous print.

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#APA_NEWS

 

[The_Zergling]

Does anyone understand the rationale for having F-22 production-related facilities spread all over the United States? I'm not sure how the production process actually works, but this doesn't seem particularly efficient, and perhaps is part of the problem driving up costs? (shipping, for example)

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Does anyone understand the rationale for having F-22 production-related facilities spread all over the United States? I'm not sure how the production process actually works, but this doesn't seem particularly efficient, and perhaps is part of the problem driving up costs? (shipping, for example)

There are probably economies in having specialist production facilities that are already in place in say Seattle for other projects doing the work instead of either moving them or starting from scratch at a central point. Transport costs would be much less than the costs involved with either of those options. This is usually the case with most production lines, factories all over the country supply components to be assembled at the production line. There are significant economies involved in this practice.

Another major issue is politics. Jobs mean votes, and votes mean seats. By spreading the wealth you spread the votes. That is important to decision makers.

 

[Sea Toby]

The US military industrial complex is coast to coast. Just about every state is involved for political purposes. I doubt whether any nation has all of its military industrial complex in one state or city. If you know of one nation that has, please inform us.

 

[Moebius]

I would have to say Singapore.
I might be wrong, but I wanted to state a quick and easy answer, that on face value may be considered correct.

 

[OPSSG]

I would have to say Singapore.
I might be wrong, but I wanted to state a quick and easy answer, that on face value may be considered correct.

Off topic: Yes, but my whole country is in reality 1 mid-to-small sized island city of 4 million people (with some even smaller islands) with 1 listed defence contractor. Singapore's defence contractor is called Singapore Technologies (which has quite a few subsidiaries including some in various locations in the US).

 

[Moebius]

OPSSG

Now, why did you have to call me out on that one? That's why I said on face value. You weren't supposed look into the details and make me look bad.

Don't you see I'm trying to increase my post count. It's been a year since I registered here and I'm still below 20 posts.

p.s I do realize you're from Singapore, which gives you an unfair advantage.

 

[Falstaff]

There are probably economies in having specialist production facilities that are already in place in say Seattle for other projects doing the work instead of either moving them or starting from scratch at a central point. Transport costs would be much less than the costs involved with either of those options. This is usually the case with most production lines, factories all over the country supply components to be assembled at the production line.

That's right; in addition, the cost for a F-22 or parts of it simply are that high, shipping costs don't really matter. Imagine e.g. an engine or radar, what would a few 10,000$ matter? Esp. compared to the costs involved with moving workforce, building new facilities and so on for just 183 F-22's.

 

[Salty Dog]

The Lockheed Martin F-22 production line. <<photo link

The Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga., is home to the final assembly line for the F-22 Raptor, the world’s only 5th Generation fighter in full rate production. The Marietta workforce is joined by more than 25,000 Americans in 44 states making up the industrial base behind the most advanced fighter in history. More than 100 F-22 Raptors are flying at five bases across the nation and will be the nation’s air dominance vanguard for the next four decades.