Production to be stopped on F-22 Raptors.

[JMS]

What part of "whenever we actually need to fight a war, we don't need to fight it in 12 hours" are you willfully ignoring?

Actually our last handful of military engagements have seen the battle stages over in hours or days rather than months. Panama, Granada, Balkins, Dessert Storm, and Gulf War II; all saw quick decisive air war victories followed by quick decisive ground engagements.....

In the second gulf war and Afghanistan fighting continues for years asymetrically, with IED's and small engagements; but the invasions and actual major force on major force was over in hours.

It's actually pretty unlikely we will fight a major war of attrition like WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam again... Our military is just to expensive to opperate for such long periods of time, and it's outfited with the best of all sorts of weapons to ensure a quick conclusion to major engagements.

It's one of the lessons we've learned watching the Israeli's fight for 40 years.

Go ahead, name me a war in which we didn't have time to build up our forces.

Well our last few wars, we attacked first; so our opponent didn't set the time table. In gulf war One (Desert Storm/Shield) it took up about 8 months to build up our forces in Saudi before retaking Kuwait. It was the major liability of our doctrine.

Even our entry into WWII didn't require the successful completion of such ridiculous scenarios, and that was a damn sneak attack. (Sort of. I'd say that enough evidence is out there to believe that FDR knew it was coming.)

It's a documented Fact FDR knew the Japanese attack was imminent. He wrote a letter the friday before the sunday attack on December 5th to 1940 GOP Presidential nominee Wendal Wilkie in which stated.

"There is always the Japanese to consider. The situation is definitely serious and there might be an armed clash at any moment...Perhaps the next four or five days will decide the matters."

From Dorris Kern's Goodwin's book No Ordinary Time.

Wilkie had run against FDR in 1940, but his policies were nearly identical to FDR's, including preparing for war. After the election and Wilkie's loss, FDR used him as a special ambassidor to promote the war effort. On December 5 1941 Wilkie was in Australia doing work for Roosevelt and the letter Roosevelt sent him was to be related to the Austrailian PM.

What Roosevelt didn't know, is where the Japanese would attack.

[Sticksboi05]

JMS are you going to address where you said the F22's are being retired?

[JMS]

I know it seems like I always pick at you but JMS, as usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I personally would love to have an air superiority fighter. Having the best one in the world seems to me to be a pretty good thing. However, I don't believe we can afford the F-22. It's a pitty, but here is the case.

The F-22 is not being retired and won't be, it is our air superiority fighter. Although production has been curtailed the fighter is going nowhere in the near future.

You are right the current debate is not whether to retire the F-22 but whether to end the production of new jets. But you are wrong the F-22 is not going to be retired. That's the next shoe to drop. It's too expensive. The will, to work out all the bugs is not there. It's cheif defenders are congressmen and senators who are defending jobs in their district. Once they stop the production line, the defenders will be seriously weakenned and the plane will fade away. Our last two secretaries of defense and leading military voices from both parties have already voiced their oposition to it.

Rumsfeld, Gates, Obama and McCain haven't agree on much, but they all agreed the F-22 should be canned. Gates has stated he wants to transition away from the F-22 in favor of the F-35. The F-22 squadrans just started to go live 2005 and their maintanence record is attrocious, expensive, and the plane is unreliable. In one report to congress it took 34 (not 60) hours of maintanance in order to enable a single hour of flight time. significantly more than either the F-16 or the F-15.

The F-35 costs $100 million per plane, according to the Government Accountability Office. F-22s costs about $360 million apiece. Both figures include development costs.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4187281&c=AIR&s=TOP

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld convened a meeting with the three service secretaries today to tell them they needed to cut major weapons systems to finance new ''transformational technologies,'' including space surveillance systems and unpiloted weapons, officials said.

Big-ticket programs potentially on the block, beginning with the 2004 budget, include the Air Force's next-generation F-22 tactical jet

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/us/defense-secretary-wants-cuts-in-weapons-systems-to-pay-for-new-technologies.html

Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to cut back many of the military's weapons programs and transition from the F-22 to three models of Lockheed's Joint Strike Fighter F-35, co-developed with eight countries and built for export.

http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/reuters/2009/07/15/senator-temporarily-drops-bid-to-kill-f-22-funds

While the F-22 is an Air Force favorite and a staple of its fleet, Gates has dubbed the plane "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios." He prefers the F-35, which has more advanced stealth and air-to-ground capability.

http://www.military.com/news/article/wh-congress-f-22-clash-nears.html

As for your 60 hours of maint. time, where did you pull this number from? Maybe when the plane first started flying there were obstacles but I can assure you there isn't 60 hours of maint for every hour of flying. During my three week stay in AK last month the 6 F22's were doing two turns a day averaging two + hours of flying. This is after flying from NV to AK. If your numbers are correct one aircraft would have to remain in maint for 3240 hours after completing the exercise. Seriously dude? Where are you gettin your numbers.

The 60 hour and 60k numbers are wrong. I must have misremembered. It's 34 hours of maintanance for the F-22, compared to 19 hours for the 20 year old F-16 it will be replacing. The F-22 costs $44,000 per flight hour, compared to $30,000 for the 35 year old airframe of the F-15. Lockeed told the Airforce the F-22 would require only 10 hours of maintenance.

I agree with you that these numbers aren't all that unexpected. Any advanced weapon system is going to have it's problems initially. The issue is those problems have to be fixed and will cost more money to be committed to fix them. I remember when the Abram's tank first came out in the 1980. It also had an attrocious maintanance record. It's critics tried to kill it because of that record and failed. At the time I remember talking to a buddy of mine who had decades of experience in weapons systems. He said every major weapon system will have problems. That Abrams tank will turn out to be one of the best tanks in the world. It just will take a few years for them to work out the bugs. And it has, his words were prophetic. What's different about the F-22 is, they aren't going to continue to be building them like they were the Abrams. That means the incentive to fix them is not the same as the Arbams who's production line is still operational today. Also the Abrams didn't have a viable alternative already in production like the F-22 does...

Here are the numbers and the link from Congressional testomony two days ago.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090712.aspx

July 12, 2009: Congressional hearings over building more F-22s has led to the release of data about how much it costs, per flight hour, to maintain the aircraft. It's $44,000 per flight hour, compared to $30,000 per hour for the older F-15 that the F-22 is replacing. The F-22 per-hour cost is nearly twice what it is for the F-16. While it requires 19 man hours of maintenance for each F-16 flight hour, the F-22 requires 34 hours. The manufacturer originally said it would be less than ten hours. Most of this additional F-22 expense (and man hours) is for special materials and labor needed to keep the aircraft invisible to radar.

The main problem is the radar absorbent material used on the aircraft. The B-2 had a similar problem, which was eventually brought under control. But even then, the B-2 cost more than twice as much to operate than the half century old B-52. The B-2 and F-22 use different types of radar absorbent materials, so many of the B-2 solutions will not work for the F-22.

Some of the F-22 electronics are still not as reliable as the air force would like. The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals, and the manufacturer insists that F-35 maintenance costs will be closer to that for the F-15, than for the F-22. But Lockheed Martin has been saying, for years, that its F-22 would be cheaper to maintain than existing aircraft. The air force never challenged this, at least not in public. Instead, the air force tried to keep the high operating costs a secret.

Depending on the maint being performed there are some repairs that are labor intensive but nowhere near what you're claiming. The reason for this is to restore the paint which enables the stealthiness. Other than that the plane breaks down a hell of a lot less than the F16's and F15's we have.

Yep, the composite materials of the F-22 is a major problem. It desolves in the rain, from what I've heard.

Then again, what do I know? I mean, the guys who maintain them are in my unit and work on them everyday.

It's a very expensive airplane, without a mission, from a military which is about to be restructured away from expensive weapon systems in favor of more troops and Transformational capabilities for asymetical warfare.

lot of buz words there.

[jrockster21]

According to my sources, they've pulled the F-22 amendment from the budget.

[greenspandan]

why put something as squishy, fragile, and expensive as a human being into a fighter plane? take a turn too hard and whoops, the pilot's eyeballs exploded and blood is pouring out his ears. you can engineer a plane to successfully take g-forces that would pulverize the human body. imagine a plane with all the armaments of a fighter, but able to stop, turn, or accelerate well beyond human-sustainable limits. then put a dude on the ground with a lay-z-boy and a joystick, give him 360-degree monitors simulating the ****pit, and you can't tell me that guy wouldn't out-dogfight any manned aircraft.

[JMS]

JMS are you going to address where you said the F22's are being retired?

It is going to be retired. It's just too expensive to buy, too expensive to maintain, and it doesn't have a significant mission when measured against it's massive price tag. It's critics are broad spanning both parties, and it's defenders primary motivation is to defend the production cycle which has dwindled to only 5 planes a year. Even so it has taken a threat of a presidential veto of a multi hundred billion dollar defense bill to finally put a stake in the F-22's program's heart.

Once the production cycle is terminated, the defenders of the F-22 will be seriously weakened and the plane will just fade away.

[JMS]

why put something as squishy, fragile, and expensive as a human being into a fighter plane?

Speak for yourself, I'm not squishy.

take a turn too hard and whoops, the pilot's eyeballs exploded and blood is pouring out his ears. you can engineer a plane to successfully take g-forces that would pulverize the human body. imagine a plane with all the armaments of a fighter, but able to stop, turn, or accelerate well beyond human-sustainable limits. then put a dude on the ground with a lay-z-boy and a joystick, give him 360-degree monitors simulating the ****pit, and you can't tell me that guy wouldn't out-dogfight any manned aircraft.

I believe both the F-22 and F-35 have unmanned variants, not sure if they made it to production though.

[JMS]

According to my sources, they've pulled the F-22 amendment from the budget.

Yep, that only stops the handfull of planes the Airfoce was going to recieve in 2010. It was 7 then went down to 5. The important thing though is it stops the production line, which effectively cuts the program off from it's major supporters in congress who are defending their constituents interests...

[Sticksboi05]

Yep, that only stops the handfull of planes the Airfoce was going to recieve in 2010. It was 7 then went down to 5. The important thing though is it stops the production line, which effectively cuts the program off from it's major supporters in congress who are defending their constituents interests...

In June 2009, Gen. John D.W. Corley stated in a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss that, "To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy," "(a limit of 187 F-22s) puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to mid-term", and added, "(research) shows a moderate risk can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft" while opining that 381 Raptors would be the "ideal inventory".

[Sticksboi05]

If you think for a second, the F-35 Lightning II will be able to stand up to the new fifth generation fighters coming from Sukhoi etc. you're nuts. It is not designed for air superiority and sorry but the F-16 and F-15 are going to be seriously outclassed within the next decade and that includes the Silent Eagle.

[JMS]

In June 2009, Gen. John D.W. Corley stated in a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss that, "To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy," "(a limit of 187 F-22s) puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to mid-term", and added, "(research) shows a moderate risk can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft" while opining that 381 Raptors would be the "ideal inventory".

Ok, who is General Corley suggesting we fly this 350 million dollar plane against? I doubt Al Quada is going to shrink back into their caves cause we are flying F-22's overhead in afghanistan rather than F-35's....(*)

(*) No F-22's have ever flown over Afghanistan, or Iraq. First started being deployed to the Airforce in 2005.

[JMS]

If you think for a second, the F-35 Lightning II will be able to stand up to the new fifth generation fighters coming from Sukhoi etc. you're nuts. It is not designed for air superiority and sorry but the F-16 and F-15 are going to be seriously outclassed within the next decade and that includes the Silent Eagle.

Did I miss something? Since when has Russia deployed a first generation fighter; much less a fifth generation one..

I know they're calling their new bird a fifth generation stealth aircraft, but so are the Iranians. It's kind of a joke isn't it.

[Sticksboi05]

Did I miss something? Since when has Russia deployed a first generation fighter; much less a fifth generation one..

I know they're calling their new bird a fifth generation stealth aircraft, but so are the Iranians. It's kind of a joke isn't it.

Sukhoi PAK FA and Russia has kept up for the most part with our fighters. Besides the F-22 was developed because Russia's new fighters were going to be too strong of competition for the F15/F16. Now, the F 15 is probably the best fighter plane for AS built but the new planes coming out include...

Mitsubishi ATD-X (2011)

Sukhoi PAK FA (2009)

MCA (2012)

etc.

[jrockster21]

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but aren't F-22s responses to a Cold War threat from the USSR that never materialized, and never will materialize?

[JMS]

Correctiong.. the F-22 isn't a fifth generation fighter. It's a fifth generation stealth fighter. Russia hasn't come up with a first generation stealth fighter yet to my knowledge is what I should have said.

Sukhoi PAK FA and Russia has kept up for the most part with our fighters.

Actually they haven't. They've come out with new fighters with some interesting features like vector thusting and hyper manuverability which our 30 - 40 year old airframes can't match. But our fighters can fire misles from many miles away and the hyper manuverability isn't really much of a benifit except in the rare case of a dogfight; which is something we train for but not something many folks experience today.

What's important on fighters today is the packages, not the airframes. The radar, weapons, and avionics. Thats why a plan like the F15 designed in the 60's and which first flew in 1972 can still be a top airplane in the 21st century. Cause they update all the packages and only the airframe is old technology. The airframe is just the platform for the important technology...

The cool thing about the F-22 is it's designed to allow packages with greater capabilities, and it's stealthy which means the bad guys or even the F-15's can't see it.

Besides the F-22 was developed because Russia's new fighters were going to be too strong of competition for the F15/F16. Now, the F 15 is probably the best fighter plane for AS built but the new planes coming out include...

Do you have any idea of what the Russian defense budget is? It's 50 Billion dollars a year compared to our 650 billion annual defense budget. 50 billion that's everything, army navy and airforce. and that's in 2009 which is 10 billion larger than it was in 2008.

Our 183 F-22's at 350 million a piece cost 65 billion, would cost the Russians more than their entire freaking defense budget to field.

Russia isn't the boogie man she used to be.

Even if she does develop a superior aircraft for a fraction of what we budget for development costs, which is unlikely; Russia still couldnt' afford to field it in any numbers which would be strategically threatenning.

Mitsubishi ATD-X (2011) - Japan was also seeking F-22's, we didn't develop the F-22 to defend us against the Japanese. Fact is the ATD is probable using American stealth technology.

Sukhoi PAK FA (2009) - It's fast, big deal it's not faster than a missile. Also we have very little information on how stealthy it will be. It's the stealthy property which is going to be key understanding if it represents a larger threat than exists today.

MCA (2012) - again we aren't building the F-22 to defend ourselves against India.

[JMS]

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but aren't F-22s responses to a Cold War threat from the USSR that never materialized, and never will materialize?

Yes... But it's an air superiority weapon. It's the aircraft which we would send in who's primary job is to control the skies. It will replace the F-15 which fills that role today and is 40 years old. ( first flew in 1972, introduced to the Airfoce in 1976 ). The F-15 airframe is getting old and the plan needs to be retired.

The question is knowing we outspend the next 16 or so militaries combined for two decades, and are currently outspending the top 100 or so militaries, is their a potential threat on the horizon which would require us to have a fighter dedicated to air superiority? Or could we get buy with duel role aircraft like the F-18?

Could anybody seriously engineer an aircraft who's capabilities would significantly overmatch the F-35 in aireal combat? The composite answer from bipartisan military experts is no. That's not on the horizon and when and if it is on the horizon the F-22 won't be the answer. Thus they want to shut down the production line, and phase the F-22 out eventually. After only purchasing 183 of a fleet which was once envisioned to be close to 750.

[Sticksboi05]

Yes... But it's an air superiority weapon. It's the aircraft which we would send in who's primary job is to control the skies. It will replace the F-15 which fills that role today and is 40 years old. ( first flew in 1972, introduced to the Airfoce in 1976 ). The F-15 airframe is getting old and the plan needs to be retired.

The question is knowing we outspend the next 30 or so militaries combined, is their a potential threat on the horizon which would require us to have a fighter dedicated to air superiority? Or could we get buy with duel role aircraft like the F-18?

Could anybody seriously engineer an aircraft who's capabilities would significantly overmatch the F-35 in aireal combat? The composite answer from bipartisan military experts is no. That's not on the horizon and when and if it is on the horizon the F-22 won't be the answer.

The F-35 is not designed for air superiority though and despite what you want to think, other countries are beginning at the bare minimum, development of fifth generation stealth fighters and the only plane we have that will be able to combat these is the F-22.

[JMS]

The F-35 is not designed for air superiority though and despite what you want to think, other countries are beginning at the bare minimum, development of fifth generation stealth fighters and the only plane we have that will be able to combat these is the F-22.

Actually the F-35 is a fifth generation stealth fighter as is the F-22, and I don't know of any foreign fighter which has ever gone into production which is stealthy by our definition of the word. The other countries are developing fifth generation fighters some of which claim to be stealthy, big difference.

I think Iran is claiming to be building a third generation stealth fighter, which I don't think many folks find creditable.

It's true the F-35 was designed to fill multiple roles, like the F-18 is, rather than the F-22 which was really designed for only air superiority. But that doesn't mean the F-35 is insufficient to that role.

You know the F-18 doesn't exactly run in fear of foreign fighters today, and at times due to grouding the F-15 airframe, we have relied on the F-18 to fulfill that role.

We don't really have a boogie man out on the horizon who's technology scares us. Someone with Russia's technological capability and China's deep pockets.

[Sticksboi05]

Actually the F-35 is a fifth generation stealth fighter as is the F-22, and I don't know of any foreign fighter which has ever gone into production which is stealthy by our definition of the word. The other countries are developing fifth generation fighters some of which claim to be stealthy, big difference.

I think Iran is claiming to be building a third generation stealth fighter, which I don't think many folks find creditable.

It's true the F-35 was designed to fill multiple roles, like the F-18 is, rather than the F-22 which was really designed for only air superiority. But that doesn't mean the F-35 is insufficient to that role.

You know the F-18 doesn't exactly run in fear of foreign fighters today, and at times due to grouding the F-15 airframe, we have relied on the F-18 to fulfill that role.

We don't really have a boogie man out on the horizon who's technology scares us. Someone with Russia's technological capability and China's deep pockets.

Yes, but it is a STRIKE fighter. And its in air maneuverability is not even in the same league as the F-22. I don't know where Iran comes into this but for example the Sukhoi PAK-FA is a full fledged fifth generation fighter with a maiden flight planned this year by Russia (and yes, it is not a joke, its capable of supercruise, vector thrust etc.) and the F 15/F18 are getting old, in fact the F-18 doesn't even have as long a range or the ability to carry as much as the even older F-14 Tomcat. And it doesn't even carry weapons internally among other things so its not all that stealth...and the Sukhoi PAK-FA is just one model coming out in the next few years that are full fifth generation. I don't think we need any more F-22's but like Corley said, they will be needed, the F-35 ain't gonna cut it for air superiority. For everything else, yes.

[JMS]

Yes, but it is a STRIKE fighter. And its in air maneuverability is not even in the same league as the F-22. I don't know where Iran comes into this but for example the Sukhoi PAK-FA is a full fledged fifth generation fighter with a maiden flight planned this year by Russia (and yes, it is not a joke, its capable of supercruise, vector thrust etc.) and the F 15/F18 are getting old, in fact the F-18 doesn't even have as long a range or the ability to carry as much as the even older F-14 Tomcat. And it doesn't even carry weapons internally among other things so its not all that stealth...and the Sukhoi PAK-FA is just one model coming out in the next few years that are full fifth generation.

True the Air manuverability isn't as good as the F-22, but it's got alot of the same avionics, weapon systems, and weapons control systems. The F-35 is also supposed to be more stealthy than the F-22. Air manuverability is something, but it's not everything when typical fighter aircraft battles are fought extended over a distance of miles/many miles.

The F-14 was the navy's primary air superiority aircraft from 1970's up to the 21st century... ( retired 2006)... But the F-14 was also a bomber designed to take the place of the F-111's Reagan used against Libyia. It was a duel use plane. The advantage the F-18 had over the F-14 wasn't in capabilities it was in price. The F-18 is easier to maintain and cheaper to fly, just like the F-35 is to the F-22.

I don't think we need any more F-22's but like Corley said, they will be needed, the F-35 ain't gonna cut it for air superiority. For everything else, yes.

Are you old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter Cancelled the B-1 bomber? Congress and the military exploded cause the B-52 is so old and slow. Defenders of the B-1 cried we hadn't built a strategic bomer for 30 years ( B-52 first flew in 1952). Then Carter comes out and says we have radar invisible planes on the drawing board (B2) and we're going to buy those instead of the B1. Then Congress and candidate Ronald Reagan lambasted Carter for blowing the secrete of stealth for political gain.

Reagan latter restarted the B-1 program......

You have to figure if they're canceling the F-22 program it's because they've got something better on the drawing board. They only got 180 of the 750 they were originally seeking. Maybe air superiority fighters aren't going to be used anymore. After all we've got lasers in airplanes now which can destroy an ICBM from 350 miles away (600km). Maybe their going to use a few of those babies and an awacs for air superiority. How can you evade light? Can you even fire a SAM at that baby?...

Boeing's YAL-1 is supposed to go operational 2013.

Or maybe they finally got the scram jet engine working. NASA's had an unmanned X craft but the military has been silent. Scram jets can potentially go Mauch 25 or nearly 20,000 mph, nearly 10x the speed of the SR-71 Blackbird. The fastest plane we've ever acknowledged building. It's highly suspicous that NASA with it's almost non existant X-craft budget is experimenting with Ram jet engines going mach 12 and the military is just watching, looking at the cealing and whistling... Suposedly the Aurara, the spy plane which replaced the Blackbird in the 1980's was a scram jet. That was nearly thirty years ago? They must have the bugs worked out of that now.

[deejaydana]

If you want to delve into a fascinating book on the present and future of warfare weaponry I'd recommend "Wired For War." It basically details where the United States is at regards this industry and where we're headed. Unmanned flight (drones) is already upon us. It's an incredibly rich book. Kind of bent my mind actually.

http://www.amazon.com/Wired-War-Robotics-Revolution-Conflict/dp/1594201986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247721604&sr=1-1

[Hubbs]

The F-35 is also supposed to be more stealthy than the F-22.

That's the first time I've ever heard that.

[pvkeeper19]

Navy/Marines don't like single-engined airplanes--for obvious reasons. One engine fails and you go for an impromptu swim. That's one reason I don't buy F-35 as complete replacement for F-22, F/A-18, etc.

[Hubbs]

Actually our last handful of military engagements have seen the battle stages over in hours or days rather than months. Panama, Granada, Balkins, Dessert Storm, and Gulf War II; all saw quick decisive air war victories followed by quick decisive ground engagements.....

In the second gulf war and Afghanistan fighting continues for years asymetrically, with IED's and small engagements; but the invasions and actual major force on major force was over in hours.

It's actually pretty unlikely we will fight a major war of attrition like WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam again... Our military is just to expensive to opperate for such long periods of time, and it's outfited with the best of all sorts of weapons to ensure a quick conclusion to major engagements.

It's one of the lessons we've learned watching the Israeli's fight for 40 years.

Well our last few wars, we attacked first; so our opponent didn't set the time table. In gulf war One (Desert Storm/Shield) it took up about 8 months to build up our forces in Saudi before retaking Kuwait. It was the major liability of our doctrine.

I had to read this post three teams before I honestly believed it wasn't some sort of incredible sarcasm that I just wasn't picking up on.

Seeing as factually refuting the above paragraphs would amount to simply posting a history of the Gulf Wars and an explanation of airspeed to refueling time as it applies to the Balkans and the Western Hemisphere, I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that anyone who believes what you wrote is too far gone to convince otherwise.

[mistertim]

Ok, I don't get why people think this thing is actually necessary. It was a huge dollar project for what is essentially a cold war plane on steroids. Which countries or groups that we are up against at the moment have an armada of high tech planes to fight? I mean seriously.