F35 - Money well spent.

Logically any modern system has that in mind.

If those methods and evolved LO manufacturing technology can be applied in a modernised F-22 with someone else willing to chip in with production...and, proves cheaper for a than ground up for the Japanese, then it remains a possibility.

The budget for the intended modernisation of the US military has to be spread over all services, and to cater with a new space command.

Why would anyone want a modernised F-22?

It is what it is, a cutting edge 'x plane' fighter that was very complex, and very expensive to make. Very much the SR-71 of fighters, fabulous performance, but…
Also, its a product of what they could develop with the software tools then available.
No 6th gen fighter would bother with all those sticky out control surfaces. Signature mapping and paints have evolved to the state you no longer have to cover an airframe head to foot in a plastic RAM coating. Yes, an F-22 is very very fast, but its no secret that going so means almost a complete rebuild of the airframes coatings.
Electronics have vastly improved since the days of the F-22, its the last of the brute power 'energy fighters', LO, long range AAMs and powerful sensors have done away with the needs for brute speed to close down an adversary. The systems on an F-22 are a couple of generations behind the F-35.
Its seeing out its days increasingly as a LO light bomber for a reason. Modern fighters are flying computers, not quarter horses.
 
...an F-22 is very very fast, but its no secret that going so means almost a complete rebuild of the airframes coatings.
Electronics have vastly improved since the days of the F-22, its the last of the brute power 'energy fighters', LO, long range AAMs and powerful sensors have done away with the needs for brute speed to close down an adversary. The systems on an F-22 are a couple of generations behind the F-35.
Its seeing out its days increasingly as a LO light bomber for a reason. Modern fighters are flying computers, not quarter horses.
What complete and utter bollocks.

Regards,
MM
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Anyway I would have thought that a pick and mix approach aimed at creating a hybrid F28 1/2 when each of the F22 and F35 is a unique, complete weapons system in its own right would only lead to the sort of clusterF the Canadians achieved when they decided to rip the Upholders' weapons system apart and pick and mix it. The sort of approach a politician might think sounds smart though.

P.S. if those boxes were found to be empty, I wonder who trousered what?
 
With regards to an F-22/F-35 hybrid for Japan, I haven't seen any news reports about it which consist of more than the author's guess at what was meant by this. I suspect that there are no actual plans so far which extend beyond marketing department blurbs.

Several companies have been asked to submit ideas to Japan for consideration. These are to be used to help the Japanese in planning for the replacement of their existing fleet of F-15s and related aircraft. At this stage I imagine the Japanese are less interested in evaluating actual planes than in getting an idea of what may be feasible within the time frame they are looking at.

The Japanese are already buying some F-35s. If LM want to have something to offer the Japanese other than "just buy some more of what you're already buying from us", they need a differentiator.

There were proposals at one time to sell the F-22 to Japan. Mention of the F-22 in this proposal may be simply PR bumpf to remind the Japanese that they were looking at one of LM's other products before.

I would not be surprised if this supposed F-22/F-35 hybrid was simply nothing more than an F-35 with updated electronics, sensors, and software, and a Japanese built engine and radar.

The post which kicked off this discussion is back here: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/f35-money-well-spent.195692/post-8531521
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Integrating a totally different engine may not be easy. Weights, centre of gravity and all that for starters.

Sticking a RR engine into our Phantoms produced quite a few extra costs.
 
Why would anyone want a modernised F-22?

It is what it is, a cutting edge 'x plane' fighter that was very complex, and very expensive to make. Very much the SR-71 of fighters, fabulous performance, but…
Also, its a product of what they could develop with the software tools then available.
No 6th gen fighter would bother with all those sticky out control surfaces. Signature mapping and paints have evolved to the state you no longer have to cover an airframe head to foot in a plastic RAM coating. Yes, an F-22 is very very fast, but its no secret that going so means almost a complete rebuild of the airframes coatings.
Electronics have vastly improved since the days of the F-22, its the last of the brute power 'energy fighters', LO, long range AAMs and powerful sensors have done away with the needs for brute speed to close down an adversary. The systems on an F-22 are a couple of generations behind the F-35.
Its seeing out its days increasingly as a LO light bomber for a reason. Modern fighters are flying computers, not quarter horses.
Dear Me, why would a 60+ year old man who has never worn a military uniform and continues to mock, question capabilities that he has either not experienced or operated.

This reminds of the time he claimed that the CR2 LEP had a smoothbore option.

Posted it bold as brass with out and links to referencing material.
 
Dear Me, why would a 60+ year old man who has never worn a military uniform and continues to mock, question capabilities that he has either not experienced or operated.

This reminds of the time he claimed that the CR2 LEP had a smoothbore option.

Posted it bold as brass with out and links to referencing material.
But he knows everything about everything that is to know about anything.

He is the all being, all singing, bastion of knowledge, that is formally known as the Oracle.
 
This article in UK Defence has a handy little guide to for those interested in the build up of our F-35B and carrier capabilities.

There is some slightly misleading nomenclature, such as ‘RAF’ and Naval Air Sqns; all units will of course be jointly manned. However, what these articles really miss are the aspects behind numbers and dates written on a PPT slide such as J6, accommodation and especially personnel.

Regards,
MM

Surely the labels "RAF" and "Navy" refer to Command relationships rather than how-many-pers-of-what-hue-are-on-the-unit; no matter how many dark blue you have on 617, it's still an RAF unit, under Full Command of CAS, OpCom/ OpCon HQ 1 Gp etc etc.

Joint Force Harrier was a case in point - despite the dark blue's (some might say minimalistic) contribution, it remained very firmly an RAF HQ 1 Gp unit. That's why there were RN Cdrs and a Capt detached to HQ 1 Gp, and there were no RAF OF-5s in The Waffle House HQ FLEET.
 
Surely the labels "RAF" and "Navy" refer to Command relationships rather than how-many-pers-of-what-hue-are-on-the-unit; no matter how many dark blue you have on 617, it's still an RAF unit, under Full Command of CAS, OpCom/ OpCon HQ 1 Gp etc etc.

Joint Force Harrier was a case in point - despite the dark blue's (some might say minimalistic) contribution, it remained very firmly an RAF HQ 1 Gp unit. That's why there were RN Cdrs and a Capt detached to HQ 1 Gp, and there were no RAF OF-5s in The Waffle House HQ FLEET.
17, 617, 207 and 809 will all fall under HQ Air. I just think it’s slightly ambiguous language which perpetuates the misapprehension that some have that they’ll be separate RN and RAF sqns and even jets.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top