RE-Open F22 Production??
Discussion
The cost per aircraft would be below that of the now grossly over priced F35 and it's a proven airframe. The way Senators and congressmen push their own agendas on New Aircraft killed the F22 production line. With the Unit cost dropping below $90 million and the USAF still bitter about the low numbers in service it would make sense to buy more and develop it as a Strike Aircraft. Another case of Politicians with their nose in the trough unable to see any further than how much money would go to their area.
Unfortunately it's Combat effectiveness against Modern fighters might be lacking. The USAF think the F35 is going to need protecting to carry out strike missions and they do not seem to have any faith it can protect itself. Hence the need to have more than the 187 they ended up with. Originally over 700 were requested. Usual Mistake. Build to fight the war you are expecting as opposed to what you have fought. In 2009 there was no Russian threat. Today the USAF is deploying fighters to oppose the Russian threat. We built the Typhoon for the Russian threat and fortunately we can still build and form our Typhoon forces to meet it.
The problem you've got with that is that a lot of the costs for the F35 have already been spent: A huge amount on design costs, tooling, capital expenditure and so on, all of which will have been amortised against the per unit cost.
It would be far more costly to reestablish the F22 line than to continue down the current path because the vast majority of this couldn't transfer. Whilst the F22 project physically existed, all of the tooling, equipment and floor space will have been redeployed or scrapped now. Basically a great deal of the expensive bits of setting up the line (design aside, of course) would have to be done again. Plus it would take a long time. And of course have a phenomenal amount of opposition.
It would be far more costly to reestablish the F22 line than to continue down the current path because the vast majority of this couldn't transfer. Whilst the F22 project physically existed, all of the tooling, equipment and floor space will have been redeployed or scrapped now. Basically a great deal of the expensive bits of setting up the line (design aside, of course) would have to be done again. Plus it would take a long time. And of course have a phenomenal amount of opposition.
andymadmak said:
Why don't we do a deal with the Yanks and sell them some upgraded, thrust vectoring, strake equipped Typhoons to protect the F35s? After all, its probably what we will end up needing ourselves!
When I saw this thread earlier I was going to suggest they buy a few Rafale. I'm sure it'd do the world of good to the general US populations attitude.Yertis said:
Munter said:
When I saw this thread earlier I was going to suggest they buy a few Rafale. I'm sure it'd do the world of good to the general US populations attitude.
They'd just assume it was their own creation, like the Harrier, or rocketry in general.As for rockets, it was an American who first flew a liquid fueled rocket (Robert Goddard in the 1920s) and the US had a very active rocket programme from the mid 1930s onwards. Don't forget that both the US Army and the US Navy had active rocket laboratories in operation all through World War 2. The Army lab was known as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now best known for its interplanetary probes.
It is true that the Germans had the most spectacular rockets. That is mainly because they went straight down the long range ballistic missile route. The Americans used their rocket technology for more mundane tasks - such as assisting heavily laden aircraft take off. However, the US developed some areas of rocketry that were superior to the Germans - such as guidance and telemetry. It was the marriage of the two programmes in the late 1940s that allowed America to develop such a wide variety of rockets in the 1950s.
telecat said:
Unfortunately it's Combat effectiveness against Modern fighters might be lacking. The USAF think the F35 is going to need protecting to carry out strike missions and they do not seem to have any faith it can protect itself. Hence the need to have more than the 187 they ended up with. Originally over 700 were requested. Usual Mistake. Build to fight the war you are expecting as opposed to what you have fought. In 2009 there was no Russian threat. Today the USAF is deploying fighters to oppose the Russian threat. We built the Typhoon for the Russian threat and fortunately we can still build and form our Typhoon forces to meet it.
To be fair, I can't think of many aircraft which when heavily laden with ground attack ordinance, can still defend themselves very well in the air.The Usual Mix is to have some of the F35's setup for Ground Attack and some to defend the formation. In this scenario the F22 would be "up top" fending off the majority of Enemies. Because the USAF has little faith in the F35's fighting capabilities they feel the need for more F22's. It's a kick in the teeth for such as the RAAF who were planning to use them in a Defensive role.
Now I see the US has brought some OV-10 Broncos's out of retirement. That's going back a bit.
Now I see the US has brought some OV-10 Broncos's out of retirement. That's going back a bit.
This site gives examples of US Strike packages from the Vietnam War. It gives a good example of the amount of Aircraft needed to take on a peer opponent.
http://www.airbattle.co.uk/d_combatants.html
http://www.airbattle.co.uk/d_combatants.html
Edited by DMN on Tuesday 12th December 08:38
Eric Mc said:
The Americans had a very big input into the Harrier - right from the start. Although the basic engineering was British, the original idea was French and a lot of the initial funding, especially for the Kestrel trials, came through the US Military Defence Aid Programme.
As for rockets, it was an American who first flew a liquid fueled rocket (Robert Goddard in the 1920s) and the US had a very active rocket programme from the mid 1930s onwards. Don't forget that both the US Army and the US Navy had active rocket laboratories in operation all through World War 2. The Army lab was known as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now best known for its interplanetary probes.
It is true that the Germans had the most spectacular rockets. That is mainly because they went straight down the long range ballistic missile route. The Americans used their rocket technology for more mundane tasks - such as assisting heavily laden aircraft take off. However, the US developed some areas of rocketry that were superior to the Germans - such as guidance and telemetry. It was the marriage of the two programmes in the late 1940s that allowed America to develop such a wide variety of rockets in the 1950s.
Always with the details... As for rockets, it was an American who first flew a liquid fueled rocket (Robert Goddard in the 1920s) and the US had a very active rocket programme from the mid 1930s onwards. Don't forget that both the US Army and the US Navy had active rocket laboratories in operation all through World War 2. The Army lab was known as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now best known for its interplanetary probes.
It is true that the Germans had the most spectacular rockets. That is mainly because they went straight down the long range ballistic missile route. The Americans used their rocket technology for more mundane tasks - such as assisting heavily laden aircraft take off. However, the US developed some areas of rocketry that were superior to the Germans - such as guidance and telemetry. It was the marriage of the two programmes in the late 1940s that allowed America to develop such a wide variety of rockets in the 1950s.
No new production so they have to spend a long time fixing them
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/damaged...
6 years ..... wonder what the loan plane was, F18 with big stickers ?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/damaged...
6 years ..... wonder what the loan plane was, F18 with big stickers ?
F22 chased off by SU-35
https://www.rt.com/news/412590-russia-us-syria-air...
Separately I'm wondering why the US has commissioned designs for a new 'pure' fighter, to protect the F35... Looks like this may be needed in the changing global landscape and the rise of China.
https://www.rt.com/news/412590-russia-us-syria-air...
Separately I'm wondering why the US has commissioned designs for a new 'pure' fighter, to protect the F35... Looks like this may be needed in the changing global landscape and the rise of China.
robm3 said:
F22 chased off by SU-35
Separately I'm wondering why the US has commissioned designs for a new 'pure' fighter, to protect the F35... Looks like this may be needed in the changing global landscape and the rise of China.
Why don't they just sign up with us to develop a super Typhoon? Separately I'm wondering why the US has commissioned designs for a new 'pure' fighter, to protect the F35... Looks like this may be needed in the changing global landscape and the rise of China.
Strakes kit, plus thrust vectoring, plus dumping all the A2G gubbins would make for one super agile killing machine. It can already hold its own against an F22 WVR... give it a better A2A radar, and some conformal tanks and it can provide top cover for the F35 bus anywhere, for a fraction of the cost of building something new, from scratch....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff