Case for restarting Raptor Production

[Manonthestreet]

A. Nothing matches it
B. Dont have to rush so-called 6 gen
C. Rescue F-35 from its futility....
Here’s why the U.S. should restart the F-22 Raptor production line instead of developing a sixth generation fighter
But, assuming that a new fighter would require no less than twenty years to be developed, restarting the F-22 production linewould be for sure a more cost-effective move for the service.

The procurement of additional Raptors would also make the JSF more capable, given that as we have already explained, the Air Force said that without the support of a dedicated air superiority fighter such as the F-22, the F-35 would be irrelevant.

Furthermore reopening the Raptor production would give the chance to fix the few shortcomings the aircraft has.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A. Nothing matches it
B. Dont have to rush so-called 6 gen
C. Rescue F-35 from its futility....
Here’s why the U.S. should restart the F-22 Raptor production line instead of developing a sixth generation fighter
But, assuming that a new fighter would require no less than twenty years to be developed, restarting the F-22 production linewould be for sure a more cost-effective move for the service.

The procurement of additional Raptors would also make the JSF more capable, given that as we have already explained, the Air Force said that without the support of a dedicated air superiority fighter such as the F-22, the F-35 would be irrelevant.

Furthermore reopening the Raptor production would give the chance to fix the few shortcomings the aircraft has.

While I agree that maybe we should restart the Raptor line, I find a couple your statements rather odd.

Saying that the F-35 can't do air interdiction is just wrong. Around the world, the F-16 does double duty since they are short on bucks. All the F-16 has to do to go from dedicated ground attack is to drop his ground attack load and he becomes stealthy and very lethal against air assets. This is not ideal for the F-35 though since it will be kept very busy taking out select radar sites where the legacy fighters can operate. At that point, you are winning the war. Don't establish the corridors and own the air and you are losing.

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-35 is so late AF and Navy are worn out,,,,,,and it will be even later.......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 is so late AF and Navy are worn out,,,,,,and it will be even later.......

Meanwhile, McCain is more or less holding his hands to his ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA" over and over again when someone from the AF or Navy tries to explain reality to him. Damned, just how much does Arizona do in replacement parts fo the A-10.

 

[waltky]

Part of what helped win the war in WWII...

... was the continued production of 'legacy' aircraft...

... keeping the skies full of full of all types of planes...

... meant we kept our air superiority by sheer numbers alone...

... a lesson we must not forget.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Part of what helped win the war in WWII...

... was the continued production of 'legacy' aircraft...

... keeping the skies full of full of all types of planes...

... meant we kept our air superiority by sheer numbers alone...

... a lesson we must not forget.

Starting in 1943, the Luftwaffe operational Aircraft lost it's technological edge. By the middle of 1944, they were flying flying coffins. Even the ME-262, even if it got it's bomber, would probably not make it to landing since one of the big 3 US Fighters would be orbiting above their air base catching them in landing phase. They made over 1000 of those little monsters. But it had a weakspot. The exotic metals needed were being choked out before they could reach the factories and mills. Can you imagine the outcome of WWII had the Titanium gotten through in decent supplies? While the US (primarily) was bagging those pilots, they just plain ran out of decent pilots and even put their flying clubs into fighters and sent them off to war. These kids didn't even know to turn into the enemy when attacked. And the US had a Fighter in 1944 that could have gone toe to toe with the ME-262, the P-80. Had it been necessary, the US could have put those into service late 1944. But the P-51, P-47 and P-38 outclassed everything the Axis had in numbers.

Technology was the victor in WWII for Aircraft. The US and Brit Fighters pushed the Piston Engined Prop Fighters right to the edge of it's capability. It wasn't the fighters that actually won WWII, it was the bombers. Like the F-35 and F-22 making that corridor, the Fighters hit ground targets, destroyed transportation, attacked missile batteries, AA but the bulk of the damage was done by the bombers that the fighter allowed to get to the industrial complexes.

Technology has changed or marched on but the need to make those corridors is still there.

 

[shadow355]

Here is where the money should go.

The F/A-18 Ground or Air Combat & Multi-Role fighter. Combat
proven and is always within budget. Proven lethality.

The F/A-18 is also more mobile.......and global, than F-22 Aircraft. Cheaper and more
versatile than the F-35.

Quote = "The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was designed for aircraft carrier duty and was the first tactical aircraft designed to carry out both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions."

Quote = "In 1986, Hornets on the USS Coral Sea flew their first combat missions. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, while performing an air-to-ground mission, Hornets switched to fighter mode and destroyed two Iraqi MiG-21s in air-to-air combat, then switched back to attack mode and successfully completed their air-to-ground mission. During 2001, Hornets provided around-the-clock battlefield coverage in the Afghanistan Theater of operations."

• F/A-18 Hornet Fighter

First flight Nov. 18, 1978
Wingspan 37 feet 5 inches
Length 56 feet
Height 15 feet 3.5 inches
Takeoff weight Fighter, 36,710 pounds; attack, 49,224 pounds
Speed 1,360 mph plus
Ceiling 50,000 feet
Power plant Two 16,000-pound-thrust GE F404-GE-400 low-bypass turbofan engines
Accommodation One crew (F/A-18A/C); two crew (F/A-18B/D)
Armament One 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan six-barrel cannon with 570 rounds, plus up to 17,000 pounds ordnance, including bombs, rockets, missiles and drop tanks on nine external points


Boeing: Historical Snapshot: F/A-18 Hornet Fighter


----------------------------------------------------------------

Super Hornet Stats :

Quote = "Hornets taking direct hits from surface-to-air missiles, recovering successfully, being repaired quickly, and flying again the next day proved the aircraft's survivability. The F/A-18 is a twin engine, mid-wing, multi-mission tactical aircraft. The F/A-18A and C are single seat aircraft. The F/A-18B and D are dual-seaters. The B model is used primarily for training, while the D model is the current Navy aircraft for attack, tactical air control, forward air control and reconnaissance squadrons. The newest models, the E and F were rolled out at McDonnell Douglas Sept. 17, 1995. The E is a single seat while the F is a two-seater."


*** Quote = "The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement."

The US Navy -- Fact File: F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter


---------------------------------------------------------


Quote = "Fulfilling a variety of roles-air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close air support, and day and night strike missions-the F/A-18 has proven to be the most versatile combat aircraft in service."

F/A-18 Hornet


----------------------------------------------------------


F/A-18 Electronics Warfare Variant - The EA-18 "Growler"

EA-18G Growler | U.S. Navy Aircraft | Military.com

Three Minute Video




---------------------------------------------------------------

Seven Minute Video





Shadow 355

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is where the money should go.

The F/A-18 Ground or Air Combat & Multi-Role fighter. Combat
proven and is always within budget. Proven lethality.

The F/A-18 is also more mobile.......and global, than F-22 Aircraft. Cheaper and more
versatile than the F-35.

Quote = "The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was designed for aircraft carrier duty and was the first tactical aircraft designed to carry out both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions."

Quote = "In 1986, Hornets on the USS Coral Sea flew their first combat missions. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, while performing an air-to-ground mission, Hornets switched to fighter mode and destroyed two Iraqi MiG-21s in air-to-air combat, then switched back to attack mode and successfully completed their air-to-ground mission. During 2001, Hornets provided around-the-clock battlefield coverage in the Afghanistan Theater of operations."

• F/A-18 Hornet Fighter

First flight Nov. 18, 1978
Wingspan 37 feet 5 inches
Length 56 feet
Height 15 feet 3.5 inches
Takeoff weight Fighter, 36,710 pounds; attack, 49,224 pounds
Speed 1,360 mph plus
Ceiling 50,000 feet
Power plant Two 16,000-pound-thrust GE F404-GE-400 low-bypass turbofan engines
Accommodation One crew (F/A-18A/C); two crew (F/A-18B/D)
Armament One 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan six-barrel cannon with 570 rounds, plus up to 17,000 pounds ordnance, including bombs, rockets, missiles and drop tanks on nine external points


Boeing: Historical Snapshot: F/A-18 Hornet Fighter


----------------------------------------------------------------

Super Hornet Stats :

Quote = "Hornets taking direct hits from surface-to-air missiles, recovering successfully, being repaired quickly, and flying again the next day proved the aircraft's survivability. The F/A-18 is a twin engine, mid-wing, multi-mission tactical aircraft. The F/A-18A and C are single seat aircraft. The F/A-18B and D are dual-seaters. The B model is used primarily for training, while the D model is the current Navy aircraft for attack, tactical air control, forward air control and reconnaissance squadrons. The newest models, the E and F were rolled out at McDonnell Douglas Sept. 17, 1995. The E is a single seat while the F is a two-seater."


*** Quote = "The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement."

The US Navy -- Fact File: F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter


---------------------------------------------------------


Quote = "Fulfilling a variety of roles-air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close air support, and day and night strike missions-the F/A-18 has proven to be the most versatile combat aircraft in service."

F/A-18 Hornet


----------------------------------------------------------


F/A-18 Electronics Warfare Variant - The EA-18 "Growler"

EA-18G Growler | U.S. Navy Aircraft | Military.com

Three Minute Video




---------------------------------------------------------------

Seven Minute Video





Shadow 355

I have always like the F-18 Superbug. The problem is, anytime you make a carrier capable fighter then you have have tradeoffs. You have have to carry more gas, you have to strengthen up the Air Frame. You have to overbuild on the landing gear and more. You have to limit your payloads. And you have to keep the size down. The F-18 is equal or better than anything out there that is carrier qualified including the new versions of the SU-30.

but you can't compare it with the F-22 which has a completely different mission. One that the F-18 cannot do very well. And that is to go head to head with ANY aircraft on the face of the earth and win and also penetrate the best radar and missile systems for the next 10 years or so. Had the F-22 been converted to carrier duty then you would lose most of what it is designed to do. And it would be something similiar to the F-111 in size and we all know how that turned out for the navy.

 

[shadow355]

I have always like the F-18 Superbug. The problem is, anytime you make a carrier capable fighter then you have have tradeoffs. You have have to carry more gas, you have to strengthen up the Air Frame. You have to overbuild on the landing gear and more. You have to limit your payloads. And you have to keep the size down. The F-18 is equal or better than anything out there that is carrier qualified including the new versions of the SU-30.

but you can't compare it with the F-22 which has a completely different mission. One that the F-18 cannot do very well. And that is to go head to head with ANY aircraft on the face of the earth and win and also penetrate the best radar and missile systems for the next 10 years or so. Had the F-22 been converted to carrier duty then you would lose most of what it is designed to do. And it would be something similiar to the F-111 in size and we all know how that turned out for the navy.

I just looked up the specifics for the F/A-18 and the F-35. Source is Wikipedia


F/A-18

Maximum speed:

• • High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,034 knots, 1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
  • Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (795 knots, 915 mph, 1,473 km/h)[131]
• Range: 1,089 nmi (1,250 miles, 2,000 km) with only two AIM-9s

F-35

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[276][635] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[415]
• Range: >1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel

F/A-18 has a better speed, and only lacks 50 miles in range and that is with two AIM-9s ( due to drag I suspect - if no missiles on board range would be same or better.

I cannot find the max altitude for the F-35, but Altitude for the F/A-18 is 50,000 feet.

The F/A-18 is proven many and numerous times in air to air combat, as well as Air to Ground combat....as I posted in my above post just and hour or so earlier.

The F-22 has been described as having many design flaws, and the entire fleet of aircraft has been "grounded" , what I describe......as an excessive amount of time - due to design problems and safety reasons. I see the F-22 Program as a failure to the US Govt, and the taxpayers.

The F-22, I see it as a cash cow. A poor investment and the Government Accounting Office ( a bi-partisan investigative arm of Congress ) says that aircraft is a safety concern and way over budget. Even the politicians on the hill are beginning to have doubts. Doubts equals cancelled projects.

The F-22 as I see it, is too big of an aircraft for carrier duty.

No need for two "Chiefs" ; Congress needs to pick the F-22 or the F-35 ; and not fund both of them. The F-35 being the versatile aircraft that it is with the capability for many configurations, I would go with it. But even then, that aircraft does not impress me. The current F-22s can stay stationed here in the United States for air defense of this country - and Combat Air Patrols if needed. F-15s and F-16s in inventory can handle overseas missions.

I like the F/A-18 Super Hornet first and the F-16 Second. Both are maneuverable and highly mission capable aircraft. Both are responsible for many "Kills" against enemy forces......both in the air and on the ground. Liking the F/A-18, I believe that the F-16 can dance and manuver like no other.

Air Force has a swollen head, and will not bow down and say that a Navy Fighter is a surpurb aircraft. "We must design our own". Enter the F-22 - a overpriced and over budget aircraft that has cost more in setbacks and delays than any aircraft before it.

NO - I am not a pilot, civilian or Military. BUT - I am prior service and since 1985 the U.S. Military has flowed through my veins, and I come from a large Military family. So aircraft, weapons, tanks and tactics.....I have done research and studied. I am a combat vet. I have witnessed some "awe" in my life.

Again as I have posted before, God Bless the Air Force ; but Navy Pilots.....Both Fixed and Rotary wing, stand next to no one..... and as far as I am concerned they have no equals. They stand at the head of the line. I have done some research.....which I have become good at, in writing two books and Military research.

The F/A -18 is supreme leader of the skys in the vision of my eyesight. I would love to set in the back seat of a "F" series and take a ride for about 45 minutes.

F/A-18s are mobile on U.S. Navy Aircraft carriers, and can assist U.S. Interest, or Troops..... anywhere in the world in a short amount of time. Air Force can't do that.

As I stated above in my prior post in the last hour or so - Reconnaissance, Air to Air attack and Air to Ground attack in the same mission, Forward Air Control, Target Spotting, Photo Reconnaissance and a host of other missions that the F/A-18 is capable of and already proven in.

In the Gulf War ( 1990 ) and subsequent conflicts, its air to air combat history is extraordinary and worth commendation. Before, in 1986 the F/A-18 fought in Libya.

Some people on this site try extra hard to get me frustrated and angry, they research a topic for a thread and post a comment ; then use the research to crush my posts / thoughts / opinions.

I have made my argument for the F/A-18, posted videos and research along with statistics and facts. Respectfully - I will not argue this or debate anymore.

Shadow 355

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are only two types of AC when dealing with a F-22, The F-22 and Targets.