Raptor in dogfight for its future

[jmig]

Looks like the F-22 could be on the way out? The fighter pilot in me cries. The realist hopes the people making the decision are wise and correct?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-02-25-lockheed-martin-raptor_N.htm

 

[Navy Chief]

Me thinks there will be a lot more cuts like this one. NC

 

[Wulf190]

Well it's an expensive piece of equipment. To be honest I have always kind of wondered why the F-5 wasn't a greater success. It was smaller, from what little of know of it, easier to maintain and cheaper.

 

[tigisfat]

I guess the whole world is starting to catch on that the Raptor isn't that capable, and is a horrible deal for the money. The AF will always want it's toys. They had to force more C-17s on the USAF, and dollar for dollar, the C-17 is the most effective asset we've bought in a long time.

 

[cheezyflier]

I guess the whole world is starting to catch on that the Raptor isn't that capable, and is a horrible deal for the money.

not that capable? that's not the impression it left on me the last time i saw it fly. that plane did things i didn't even know could be done in an airplane.

 

[Allen]

I thnk it best to take what F-22A's we have now and keep them flying and put the plan for more on the shelf with the tag "next-gen fighter F-22A" should we every need them.

When the F-22's go to Iraq or Afghanistan, the Pacific, Alaska and work as Lockheed says. (I don't thnk they can when put in sand, moisture and snow all year around.) Maybe then buy them chaper than $191 million apiece. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 can be fited with Thrust Vectoring even though they don't even need them and there no fighter out there that can beat them out there.


F-15: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_S/MTD
F-16: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_VISTA
F-18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Alpha_Research_Vehicle

 

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

I guess the whole world is starting to catch on that the Raptor isn't that capable, and is a horrible deal for the money.

Aviation Week just had an article recently saying quite the opposite, that the F-22 is in many important respects more capable than originally intended/reported.

I thnk it best to take what F-22A's we have now and keep them flying and put the plan for more on the shelf with the tag "next-gen fighter F-22A" should we every need them.

Aside from the fact that the current fleet is woefully small, the concern is that there is a lot of specialized talent on hand at Lockheed for production of the F-22 which will be needed once F-35 production picks up speed. Stopping F-22 production now not only is expensive to do, but also has talent going on to other projects or being fired, making it harder for that talent to be reconstituted later. That's why there's a push to get at least a couple dozen more airframes built in the next couple years until F-35 ramps up.

The F-15, F-16 and F-18 can be fited with Thrust Vectoring even though they don't even need them and there no fighter out there that can beat them out there.

Government inertia being what it is, it's unlikely that option will be explored again. There's a graph which has been widely quoted showing that against the Su-35, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 fair rather poorly, with no better than 0.8:1 odds versus the Sukhoi. The graph is controversial as many say it doesn't realistically account for pilot training and other factors, but regardless there are a number of very good foreign 4th generation fighters out there, and with 5th generation aircraft being studied by our dear friends in Russia and China, we need to maintain our own 5th generation programs - F-22, F-35 - lest our pilots find themselves outclassed with only their superior training to get them by.

 

[stiz]

heres an idea, send half of what they have out to iraq and afganistan and see how they cope doing opps, if they fail, scrap em, its a but ugly plane anyway

 

[demorier]

I'm not sure why the US military wanted such an expensive fighter in the first place when pilotless aircraft can do just as good a job with high tech equipment for strike missions. Not sure why our Australian military want to send us broke buying them either.
Nothing personal...just progress.

 

[wombat666]

I'm not sure why the US military wanted such an expensive fighter in the first place when pilotless aircraft can do just as good a job with high tech equipment for strike missions. Not sure why our Australian military want to send us broke buying them either.
Nothing personal...just progress.

It's traditional, the RAAF have always argued for the top of the range hardware, need it or not!
THe 111 saga was a classic example, while they've served their purpose in a cost-efficient way, a half dozen squadrons of 'Tombs would have done just as well for a fraction of the cost.
Back when the F86 was chosen, the decision to fit an Avon set the program back 5 years and upped the unit cost alarmingly, at least the 'Avon-Mirage' plan fell over .............
We really have no need of the Raptor, certainly not in our region.

Agreed stitz, it is really Fugly!

 

[Blackbird686]

...its a but ugly plane anyway

It's "ugly" by design...

What little I know about the F-22 Raptor for one, is that it had one of the most successful developmental programs in aviation history. From the design stage, to the prototype... to the finished product, the F-22 consistantly performed above expectations and finished each stage of these programs ahead of schedule and under budget.
Despite it's outward appearance, the F-22 is an incredibly stealthy airplane, projecting the radar image of a large bird, as well as having the ability to 'supercruise' make it an incredibly lethal and effective combat aircraft. To judge the F-22 before it really has a chance to prove itself in combat is unfair.

There was a recent program hosted on the Discovery channel where an F-22 Raptor squared of against an F-15E Strike Eagle. In all categories the F-22 bested the F-15E except one... vertical accelleration. In that category, it was a near match, whith the F-15E having a slighter advantage.

It would be such a wast to put the F-22 on the preverbial "shelf", before giving her the "chance to dance"... so to speak. So much time, effort and money was spent on putting the plane together.... I agree that we should run the jet through the guantlet before canning the program altogether.

I believe the F-22 will prove its worth many times over, and shut the mouths of the 'naysayers'.

BB686:USA-flag:

 

[wombat666]

It's "ugly" by design...
Despite it's outward appearance, the F-22 is an incredibly stealthy airplane, projecting the radar image of a large bird, as well as having the ability to 'supercruise' make it an incredibly lethal and effective combat aircraft. To judge the F-22 before it really has a chance to prove itself in combat is unfair.

Best to not have it prove itself in combat ......
And that's 'FUGLY' Blackbird686, not just plain old 'ugly' .........................

 

[BPbobafett1982]

The Raptor never was on schedule or under budget from the get go. I should know, I worked in Lockheed in Marietta Georgia right out of college before being layed off a year later.


It looked pretty on paper until you saw it in person and it's huge for a fighter.

 

[Blackbird686]

The Raptor never was on schedule or under budget from the get go. I should know, I worked in Lockheed in Marietta Georgia right out of college before being layed off a year later.


It looked pretty on paper until you saw it in person and it's huge for a fighter.

Hmmm... I know some folks who were involved in the development of the F-22 who would have a difference of opinion with you about the development of the F-22 and it's success rate. I will agree with you on the plane's overall size. They had to make room for all of those internal stores and such. But compared to the YF-23, (the plane built by Northrop that didn't win), as well as the Russian Su-33, the F-22 looks like a "fire plug" compared to those.

OK Wombat, I'll drink to that... the jet is "Fugly", by design.

BB686:USA-flag:

 

[stiz]

i wasnt doubting its abilitys, just that its not gonna win any beuty contests any time soon

 

[Allen]

heres an idea, send half of what they have out to iraq and afganistan and see how they cope doing opps, if they fail, scrap em, its a but ugly plane anyway

That I'll go for! I got a buck that says that they ALL will have to be rebuilt when the get back iraq and afganistan IF they were use there at all. They will just put them in a air tight hanger and say the were used.

Let's play with some cost numbers. All thought some are old there not to far off. Since the cost would have gone up now.
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998)
F-15C/D: US$29.9 million (1998)
F/A-18: US$29-57 million (2006)
F-35: US$83 million (flyaway cost in Then-Year dollars 2003)
F-22: US$137.5 million (2008 flyaway cost)

For one F-22 we could get 7 to 6 F-16's. 4 to 3 F-15 C/D's. 4 to 3 Base F-18's or 2 top of the line F-18's. Little over 1 and 1/2 of a new F-35.

 

[tigisfat]

It's "ugly" by design...

What little I know about the F-22 Raptor for one, is that it had one of the most successful developmental programs in aviation history. From the design stage, to the prototype... to the finished product, the F-22 consistantly performed above expectations and finished each stage of these programs ahead of schedule and under budget.

You're so wrong, you're mad max beyond wrongdome. The F-22 was always over budget and underperforming, even when it came to trivial things such a reliability. It's win over the YF-23 was hotly contested, and it's stil debateable which was the better aircraft overall. What's not debateable was that the YF-23 flight test program was frequently halted while they fixed the YF-22--It was supposed to be a side by side test program for publicity. The raptor is the proud owner of one of the longest development times for any vehicle in history.

Despite it's outward appearance, the F-22 is an incredibly stealthy airplane, projecting the radar image of a large bird, as well as having the ability to 'supercruise' make it an incredibly lethal and effective combat aircraft.

Despite it's publicity, The F-22 is not that stealthy, and it was planned from the get go that it would never maintain the same level of radar elusivity it enjoyed during pylon testing. Those who know stealth and radar know what i'm talking about. For those who don't, I apologize; it would take a whole thread to explain why. Supercruise has proven to be elusive as well.

To judge the F-22 before it really has a chance to prove itself in combat is unfair.

Oh, but it's not unfair. The F-22 has proven many things. Among them is the fact that the fleet has been grounded for MAJOR structural problems three times under a veil of secrecy. Thes brand new half billion dollar fighter jets were TRUCKED to Hill AFB. It's also proven that it doesn't bring much to the table-Right now it ONLY brings air to air capability (that is widely contested). We are not the only civilized nation that trains great pilots anymore, and there are several fighters with avionics that exceed the raptor's capabilities. The raptor is more than 20 years old; it's competitors are not. Did anyone forget that? It can do many incredible maneuvers at airshows, but hovering has never won a dogfight. In the real world, it stands on a level playing field with such aircraft as the Typhoon and SU-30MKI. Some might argue that SU-30MKIs are superior, given that you can buy a squadron with all-encompassing capabilities for the same price as ONE F-22 without A/G or engines. Not only that, the SU-30MKIs are proven competitors and reliable as a Honda civic.

It would be such a wast to put the F-22 on the preverbial "shelf", before giving her the "chance to dance"... so to speak. So much time, effort and money was spent on putting the plane together.... I agree that we should run the jet through the guantlet before canning the program altogether.

It's been done, and it's a failure. In addition to all the failures I listed above, I must add that F-22s failed their initial operation test and evaluation (whence the first operational unit must prove that the weapon can be used and deployed) SIX times. Several times, the aircraft couldn't even make it to the exercise location. On their way to Japan for the first time, 2 made it, and the rest either landed code three all over the pacific at divert fields or turned back.

I believe the F-22 will prove its worth many times over, and shut the mouths of the 'naysayers'.

It is rumored that one of the reasons our Chief of Staff was fired was because he refused to send raptors to the middle east. It's also been said by many that commanders and politicians wanted to cancel the program long before production even began, but saving face became more important. we got ripped off.


Here's another tidbit: only a few highly modified test F-22s have ever dropped weapons, yet they talk about the aircraft as if it has a A/G role.

 

[viking3]

Fighter Mafia

This leads to the same argument made in the 1970's by the 'Fighter Mafia' boys. Are you better off with X number of high priced high technology aircraft or 5X or 10X of less capable but more than adequate aircraft. Technology is a multiplier but at the cost of complexity and costs.
I myself lean towards simple and effective. Technology can almost always be overcome by counter-technology and complexity can lead to maintenance nightmares in the field. The first rule taught in avionics troubleshooting is KISS. Keep it simple stupid!

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[krazycolin]

Well, having worked closely with the F-23 by Northrop, I can safely say that it was and is, imho, a much better plane than the F-22.

And, given that a robot plane can do pretty much what any plane can do now and do it better cause it's got no pilot, is 200 times cheaper and is easier to maintain.... well... I wouldn't count on the F-22 being around in 10 years.

The F-35 is already being looked at as an unmanned plane. Think about that for a moment.

Now, please, don't get me wrong here: I certainly like the idea of a person flying an AC rather than a machine, at least, in theory... However, when I see what the cost is for a plane that's so complex merely to keep the pilot alive rather than concentrating on it's objectives... it's not got bang for the buck. 140 million dollars. That's a lot of UCAV's.

I agree with KISS as well. A SU-30MKI can take off without FOD being cleared. Can the F-22 say the same?

Remember Germany in the 40's? The Germans had a serious tech advantage but the Allies threw outrageous quantities of materiel at them and won. 5 Shermans to one Tiger. I wouldn't have wanted to be in the first four, mind you, but you get the idea.

Imagine capability mixed with numbers.... and the US still trains their people to the limit. Wonder what they would/could do with the MKI?

Flame away...

 

[wombat666]

Flame away...

Thus far this thread has been very informative and adult, no need for any flaming thank you gentlemen.
:wave:
I'm a big fan of the "Indian" Sukhois BTW, as they are now configured the Indian Air Force flies a reliable and highly capable aircraft.
:focus: