Save the F22 Raptor fighter plane

[Epsilon Delta]

Ugh, $350 million on a fucking war plane. What a waste of money.

 

[Cafi_007]

I agree Sealy, always be ahead and invent with more advance planes...Russia already has T50 to compete with our F22.

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts ignored:
1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
4. 350 million a plane
5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.

 

[DiveCon]

Facts ignored:
1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
4. 350 million a plane
5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.

you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
that was a huge mistake

 

[ekrem]

Allthough not in serial production, it is anticipated to be produced by 2013.
It is the Russian equivalent to F-22

Sukhoi PAK FA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[woodjack]

Interesting enough the USAF is already talking about retiring the F-22 in 2025. and they have yet to even finish making all of em yet.

Plan lays out aircraft acquisition through 2040 - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

 

[JScott]

There isnt a reason why production couldnt be scaled back, at least for now.

I agree we need to keep our defenses up but the cost is way too high for those planes.

 

[Gadawg73]

Facts ignored:
1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
4. 350 million a plane
5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.

you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
that was a huge mistake

I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
Do you know what versatile means?
Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.

 

[DiveCon]

Facts ignored:
1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
4. 350 million a plane
5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.

you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
that was a huge mistake

I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
Do you know what versatile means?
Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.

please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them

 

[Samson]

I found how many are assigned and operational so far:

The F-22 Raptor is built by Lockheed Martin teamed with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney. Parts and subsystems are provided by approximately 1,000 suppliers in 44 U.S. states. Lockheed Martin has delivered 127 Raptors to the U.S. Air Force.

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Reaches Milestone In Maturity | Lockheed Martin

Sounds like another government employment program.

Yeah, we need another fucking fighter design: roads, and infrastructure be damned.

BTW after we spend a couple of 100 Billion on this program, will drones be ready to replace them?

NAHHHHHHH......of COURSE NOT!! LMAO.

 

[Gadawg73]

you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
that was a huge mistake

I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
Do you know what versatile means?
Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.

please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them

And what role is that in the war on terror?
A versatile F-35 is the best bang for the buck.
You are the one claiming I was ignorant and lying.

 

[DiveCon]

I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
Do you know what versatile means?
Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.

please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them

And what role is that in the war on terror?
A versatile F-35 is the best bang for the buck.
You are the one claiming I was ignorant and lying.

so, you are another one that thinks inside the small box of only the enemy we see now

ok,

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Funny...it now seems that the F-35 will be more expensive to operate than the now retired F-14. Funny how all that info comes out after dipshit cancelled the F-22 program.

 

[onecut39]

Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.

 

[Munin]

The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale

Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.

True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.


Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.

 

[onecut39]

The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale

Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.

True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.


Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.

As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional" war in the future? If so, with whom?

 

[Samson]

The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.

What "conventional enemies?"

 

[Munin]

Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.

True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.


Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.

As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional" war in the future? If so, with whom?

Yes conventional warfare is still possible, the biggest threat to US security at this moment is China. Ironically it is us that are funding their military indirectly, the reason for the war would be economical and political (ideology clash). Americans have fought the Chinese communists for more than decades (Vietnam + Korea wars) and the US is still indirectly at war with them: North (allied with China) vs South Korea (US ally). The war between the 2 Koreas is technically still going on.

Other than that there is the Taiwan Issue, which is a bit humiliating for the Chinese who consider themselves a superpower now (although they won't say it out loadly) but couldn't even finish the war they started when the communists started to take over the whole of China by force (a coup: communist revolution of China). Tawain is the only thing that is left of the original non-communist China, that is why the Chinese are so eager to get it back just like they took that other Chinese land back (Hongkong). I can also imagine that the Chinese communist dictatorial party can't stand an "democratic" country so close to their own proving by its very existence (the people of Taiwan are Chinese) that democracy is actually possible for the Chinese people in China as well.

China is expanding its sphere of influence into Africa (which provides the US with many extremely valuable recourses: some of which are very rare) and even america's own backyard: South America.

China is also gradually getting its hands on more technology (they are already advancing further into space, getting more advanced submarines, ...). China will probably translate its economic power into real power (militarely and political) in a matter of decades, compare it with the US at the time it only was an economic powerhouse and when WWII begun it evolved into the biggest superpower in history. I have a bit of a déja vu here look at when the British empire was the biggest superpower in the world and then was left behind by the United States of America because of the massive American economical growth. The US pushed the Brits then further into submission by using their debts (WWII debts) against them to take away their colonies from them. You better pray that there does not come a time that China is in a good position to abuse US debt to its advantage (Like the US did with the Brittish Empire)

There is already an espionage war going on that could be compared with the one during the cold war, Chinese spies are stealing American technology, military information, ... (the pentagon, the white house has been hacked by chinese hackers/spies).


Also the economic war has been raging for a long time now, the chinese government has been manipulating its currency for more than decades to get an unfair advantage over the US economy. This creates a massive trade deficit (much much more Chinese import than export to China) for the US economy, the Chinese economy is effectively draining the US economy.




Why conventional warfare will still be possible? Because nations with nuclear weapons are very restrained in using nuclear weapons against other superpowers that own them. They will probably only use them only as a last resort (if they feel threatend by a total destruction and are pushed into a corner by conventional warfare), as a result they will probably wage their wars more indirectly: for example by doing it through other countries (revival of the North- and South Korean war supported with both American and Chinese troops, funding, ...). An also bad side effect would be that there would be no unconditional surrender possible of either party as the war would probably be diplomatically ended before that (to avoid complete mutual destruction by nuclear weapons).

Another case in point: Russia attacks Georgia, Georgia is a befriended nation of the USA (Georgia had even send troops to Iraq to support the US). Russians even provoced the US by stealing advanced American weapons from Georgian weapon depots, Americans provoced the Russians by having US troops support the Georgians. Nato provoced the Russians by sending a Nato fleet to Georgia (Russian vessels were very close to them). No nuclear war, no real war between Russia and the US happened because both nations were to restrained in attacking each other. I imagine the same thing happening with a conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, a bit like a bluf-war: compare it with 2 cars driving right at each other to destroy each other and 1 car will drive himself in the ditch of fear for hitting it. This is what happened with the Soviet Union during the nuclear standoff, it drove itself into a ditch (collapse of the Soviet Union).

 

[onecut39]

True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.


Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.

As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional" war in the future? If so, with whom?

Yes conventional warfare is still possible, the biggest threat to US security at this moment is China. Ironically it is us that are funding their military indirectly, the reason for the war would be economical and political (ideology clash). Americans have fought the Chinese communists for more than decades (Vietnam + Korea wars) and the US is still indirectly at war with them: North (allied with China) vs South Korea (US ally). The war between the 2 Koreas is technically still going on.

Other than that there is the Taiwan Issue, which is a bit humiliating for the Chinese who consider themselves a superpower now (although they won't say it out loadly) but couldn't even finish the war they started when the communists started to take over the whole of China by force (a coup: communist revolution of China). Tawain is the only thing that is left of the original non-communist China, that is why the Chinese are so eager to get it back just like they took that other Chinese land back (Hongkong). I can also imagine that the Chinese communist dictatorial party can't stand an "democratic" country so close to their own proving by its very existence (the people of Taiwan are Chinese) that democracy is actually possible for the Chinese people in China as well.

China is expanding its sphere of influence into Africa (which provides the US with many extremely valuable recourses: some of which are very rare) and even america's own backyard: South America.

China is also gradually getting its hands on more technology (they are already advancing further into space, getting more advanced submarines, ...). China will probably translate its economic power into real power (militarely and political) in a matter of decades, compare it with the US at the time it only was an economic powerhouse and when WWII begun it evolved into the biggest superpower in history. I have a bit of a déja vu here, when the British empire was the biggest superpower in the world and was left behind by the United States of America because of the massive American economical growth. The US pusshed the Brits then further into submission by using their debts (WWII debts) against them to take away their colonies from them. You better pray that there does not come a time that China is in a good position to abuse US debt to its advantage (Like the US did with the Brittish Empire)

There is already an espionage war going on that could be compared with the one during the cold war, Chinese spies are stealing American technology, military information, ... (the pentagon, the white house has been hacked by chinese hackers/spies).


Also the economic war has been raging for a long time now, the chinese government has been manipulating its currency for more than decades to get an unfair advantage over the US economy. This creates a massive trade deficit (much much more Chinese import than export to China) for the US economy, the Chinese economy is effectively draining the US economy.




Why conventional warfare will still be possible? Because nations with nuclear weapons are very restrained in using nuclear weapons against other superpowers that own them. They will probably only use them only as a last resort (if they feel threatend by a total destruction and are pushed into a corner by conventional warfare), as a result they will probably wage their wars more indirectly: for example by doing it through other countries (revival of the North- and South Korean war supported with both American and Chinese troops, funding, ...). An also bad side effect would be that there would be no unconditional surrender possible of either party as the war would probably be diplomatically ended before that (to avoid complete mutual destruction by nuclear weapons).

Another case in point: Russia attacks Georgia, Georgia is a befriended nation of the USA (Georgia had even send troops to Iraq to support the US). Russians even provoced the US by stealing advanced American weapons from Georgian weapon depots, Americans provoced the Russians by having US troops support the Georgians. Nato provoced the Russians by sending a Nato fleet to Georgia (Russian vessels were very close to them). No nuclear war, no real war between Russia and the US happened because both nations were to restrained in attacking each other. I imagine the same thing happening with a conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, a bit like a bluf-war: compare it with 2 cars driving right at each other to destroy each other and 1 car will drive himself in the ditch of fear for hitting it. This is what happened with the Soviet Union during the nuclear standoff, it drove itself into a ditch (collapse of the Soviet Union).

Forgive me but I think manned fighter planes are things of the past. Right now the most limiting thing on a fighter aircraft is the pilot. He simply cannot bear the stresses imposed by the kind of performance that the modern craft can put upon him. (at least not in a conscious state.

Couple that with the cost and the only thing keeping pilots in the cockpit is nostalgia.

As for conventional war? No way. Someday we may even learn that surrogate wars are stupid.

Drones. There is the wave of the future.

 

[Intense]

Overview F-22
The F-22 program is developing the next-generation air superiority fighter for the Air Force to counter emerging worldwide threats. It is designed to penetrate enemy airspace and achieve a first-look, first-kill capability against multiple targets. The F-22 is characterized by a low-observable, highly maneuverable airframe; advanced integrated avionics; and aerodynamic performance allowing supersonic cruise without afterburner.

Stealth: Greatly increases survivability and lethality by denying the enemy critical information required to successfully attack the F-22

Integrated Avionics: Allows F-22 pilots unprecedented awareness of enemy forces through the fusion of on- and off-board information

Supercruise: Enhances weapons effectiveness; allows rapid transit through the battlespace; reduces the enemy’s time to counter attack

The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well.

For its primary air-to-air role, the F-22 will carry six AIM-120C and two AIM-9 missiles. For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles. With the Global Positioning System-guided JDAM, the F-22 will have an adverse weather capability to supplement the F-117 (and later the Joint Strike Fighter) for air-to-ground missions after achieving air dominance.

The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range. The F-22 has four under wing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 5,000 pounds. A single pylon design, which features forward and aft sway braces, an aft pivot, electrical connections, and fuel and air connections, is used. Either a 600-gallon fuel tank or two LAU-128/A missile launchers can be attached to the bottom of the pylon, depending on the mission. There are two basic external configurations for the F-22:

• Four 600 gallon fuel tanks, no external weapons: This configuration is used when the aircraft is being ferried and extra range is needed. A BRU-47/A rack is used on each pylon to hold the external tanks.
•Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations.
An all-missile external loadout (two missiles on each of the stations) is possible and would not be difficult technically to integrate, but the Air Force has not stated a requirement for this configuration. Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.

The F-22 passed milestone II in 1991. At that time, the Air Force planned to acquire 648 F-22 operational aircraft at a cost of $86.6 billion. After the Bottom Up Review, completed by DOD in September 1993, the planned quantity of F-22s was reduced to 442 at an estimated cost of $71.6 billion.

A $9.55 billion contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the F-22 was awarded to the industry team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in August 1991. Contract changes since then have elevated the contract value to approximately $11 billion. Under terms of the contract, the F-22 team will complete the design of the aircraft, produce production tooling for the program, and build and test nine flightworthy and two ground-test aircraft.

A Joint Estimate Team was chartered in June 1996 to review the F-22 program cost and schedule. JET concluded that the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program would require additional time and funding to reduce risk before the F-22 enters production. JET estimated that the development cost would increase by about $1.45 billion. Also, JET concluded that F-22 production cost could grow by about $13 billion (from $48 billion to $61 billion) unless offset by various cost avoidance actions. As a result of the JET review the program was restructured, requiring an additional $2.2 billion be added to the EMD budget and 12 months be added to the schedule to ensure the achievement of a producible, affordable design prior to entering production. The program restructure allowed sourcing within F-22 program funds by deleting the three pre-production aircraft and slowing the production ramp. Potential for cost growth in production was contained within current budget estimate through cost reduction initiatives formalized in a government/industry memorandum of agreement. The Defense Acquisition Board principals reviewed the restructured program strategy and on February 11, 1997 the Defense Acquisition Executive issued an Acquisition Defense Memorandum approving the strategy.

The Quadrennial Defense Review Reportwhich was released in mid-May 1997, reduced the F-22 overall production quantity from 438 to 339, slowed the Low Rate Initial Production ramp from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 aircraft per year.

The F-22 EMD program marked a successful first flight on September 7, 1997. The flight test program, which has already begun in Marietta, Georgia, will continue at Edwards AFB, California through the year 2001. Low rate production is scheduled to begin in FY99. The aircraft production rate will gradually increase to 36 aircraft per year in FY 2004, and will continue that rate until all 339 aircraft have been built (projected to be complete in 2013). Initial Operational Capability of one operational squadron is slated for December 2005.
The F-15 fleet is experiencing problems with avionics parts obsolescence, and the average age of the fleet will be more than 30 years when the last F-22 is delivered in 2013. But the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later. None of the 918 F-15s that were in the inventory in July 1992 will begin to exceed their expected economic service lives until 2014.



Federation of American Scientists :: F-22 Raptor