F35 - Money well spent.

Slime

LE
While ignoring the point of the post.

I didn’t ignore it, just didn’t comment on it :)
The fact the video was so awful, loaded with errors or misnamed words kind of over shadowed the rest of the post.

If and when the NGAD programme delivers aircraft there are likely to be a selection of people bleating on that updating the F22 was a stupid thing to do, and all the fault of bean counters ;)

Having just double checked the thread title, maybe the latest developments/experiments being seen on the F22 right now aren’t relevant to this thread…………even if the chrome finish IS attracting a lot of comment.
 

Slime

LE
Video replaced, your objection noted.

Guess beancounters are there to guard the bottom line...not the country.

The thing with bean counters is that you and I could have told them that the production run of F22 wasn’t large enough to take on the Chinese, but they wouldn’t have listened :)

Adding an IRST, or a chrome finish just can’t be enough of a force multiplier for the F22 imho, but then as times have moved on the addition of F35 and future loyal wingmen may try to address the deficit.

If the NGAD programme can deliver enough aircraft, and the modular concept works, the lack of F22 numbers might not matter so much in the long term. :)
 
There is no denouncing how advanced the F-22 was at its time, and I was a bit younger starting work shortly before the JSF begun, but the hype has always been the YF-23 was arguably better, and yet as far as I can tell, the F-35 follows much more form from the F-22 than the YF-23, yes it could be the VTOL requirement but anyway, was the F-22 bagged as much as the F-35?

Aside from Aim-9x most missile advancements since F-22 seem to be Medium to BVRAAM so the philosophy seems to still be, missiles missiles missiles and dog fighting is a no, even some typhoons were not to get guns and the F-35 only has them dirty.

I wonder how much F-22 hype is driven by fanboys similar to the A-10 and if it is all that?

America making F-15 carrying 18 AMRAAMs with slight radar cross section improvements as ‘bomb trucks’ as an interim to NGAD and F-35 as one of the most sensor infused platforms in a single seat ever, I’m just not sure what the F-22 brings apart from fan boys/girls/lgbqt.
 
This is Russian Stealth


A200BFA8-3607-4075-B801-9A6BAF439E19.jpeg
 
It is interesting to note the change of opinion regarding the early termination of the F22 production run.

A political step by a particular administration, that has now, in the light of time, been considered as unfortunate.

The costs and difficulties of pushing the boundaries of technology will always be formidable.

The control of the funding of these projects by political entities with a particular agenda, will always play a huge part in the success...or failure of these endeavours, regardless of the value of the particular project being considered.

Bean counters/political appointees in control of development funds aren't always right, in the life or death of a particular weapon development program.
Far from certain that the termination decision was the wrong one.

The Raptor programme was conceived as a counter to the (at the time) "scary" Fulcrum and Flanker, with their airshow manoeuvres and long range BVR AAM, which were a step change from the Flagon/Flogger/Foxbat/Foxhound of the 70s and 80s.

Trouble was, by the time they'd solved the development issues (supercruise, unstable FBW, vectored thrust, LO materials etc), the main threat had collapsed and the new threats weren't really on the horizon. While there were exported Fulcrum/Flanker variants to counter, experience had shown that unless operated by peer/near-peer threats, they weren't going to be enough of a problem to justify several hundred brand-spanking new uber-fighters costing a gazillion dollars each.

In some ways the cousins may have dodged a bullet. The component equipments in those aircraft are nigh-on twenty years old now and possibly not as supportable as one might like. Supporting hardware and software of that vintage is not cheap. At least the F15 and F16 have remained supportable through export-led upgrades and slow pensioning off to AMARC.

Arguably, NGAD and FA XX could have been pulled forwards so they weren't quite so far off, but it's not as if the oppo are fielding clouds of Firefox at the minute.
 

TamH70

MIA
Far from certain that the termination decision was the wrong one.

The Raptor programme was conceived as a counter to the (at the time) "scary" Fulcrum and Flanker, with their airshow manoeuvres and long range BVR AAM, which were a step change from the Flagon/Flogger/Foxbat/Foxhound of the 70s and 80s.

Trouble was, by the time they'd solved the development issues (supercruise, unstable FBW, vectored thrust, LO materials etc), the main threat had collapsed and the new threats weren't really on the horizon. While there were exported Fulcrum/Flanker variants to counter, experience had shown that unless operated by peer/near-peer threats, they weren't going to be enough of a problem to justify several hundred brand-spanking new uber-fighters costing a gazillion dollars each.

In some ways the cousins may have dodged a bullet. The component equipments in those aircraft are nigh-on twenty years old now and possibly not as supportable as one might like. Supporting hardware and software of that vintage is not cheap. At least the F15 and F16 have remained supportable through export-led upgrades and slow pensioning off to AMARC.

Arguably, NGAD and FA XX could have been pulled forwards so they weren't quite so far off, but it's not as if the oppo are fielding clouds of Firefox at the minute.

If the airframes are still well within their fatigue life, then who cares about equipment? Yon stuff can get yanked out, replaced with better COTS stuff, with up-to-date software support, and carry on for dozens more years. Like what they've been doing with the B-52 for absolute yonks now. Lockheed Martin must have lots of engineers who've been bursting to have a go at bringing the Raptor up to a new standard of lethality.

And all the tooling required to build new Raptors, should the US government listen to common sense and do it, is still available in storage, despite Lockheed Martin's attempts to "lose" it, and many rumours to the contrary.
 
In some ways the cousins may have dodged a bullet. The component equipments in those aircraft are nigh-on twenty years old now and possibly not as supportable as one might like. Supporting hardware and software of that vintage is not cheap. At least the F15 and F16 have remained supportable through export-led upgrades and slow pensioning off to AMARC.

Arguably, NGAD and FA XX could have been pulled forwards so they weren't quite so far off, but it's not as if the oppo are fielding clouds of Firefox at the minute.

From what I have read about NGAD, the Cousins want to seriously shorten the lifespan of the various systems/platforms that will comprise the programme.

Their thinking following on from the extremely long and expensive development cycles of the F22 and F35 is that shortening the development cycle and lifespan should mean you always have state-of-the-art technology in the front line, rather than 30-year old planes that cost a fortune. They want to spread the contracts around industry, rather than selecting one massive Prime like Lockheed to manage the whole programme, leaving Boeing and Northrup to starve. It should also keep the designers fresh as they retain the ability to innovate and iterate more frequently.

All sounds great in theory but it will be interesting to see how it works in practice.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
There is no denouncing how advanced the F-22 was at its time, and I was a bit younger starting work shortly before the JSF begun, but the hype has always been the YF-23 was arguably better, and yet as far as I can tell, the F-35 follows much more form from the F-22 than the YF-23, yes it could be the VTOL requirement but anyway, was the F-22 bagged as much as the F-35?

Aside from Aim-9x most missile advancements since F-22 seem to be Medium to BVRAAM so the philosophy seems to still be, missiles missiles missiles and dog fighting is a no, even some typhoons were not to get guns and the F-35 only has them dirty.

I wonder how much F-22 hype is driven by fanboys similar to the A-10 and if it is all that?

America making F-15 carrying 18 AMRAAMs with slight radar cross section improvements as ‘bomb trucks’ as an interim to NGAD and F-35 as one of the most sensor infused platforms in a single seat ever, I’m just not sure what the F-22 brings apart from fan boys/girls/lgbqt.
There's no hype. Raptor is the top-end solution.

A Typhoon will beat it in a dogfight but has to get close enough without getting shot down first. That's a very big 'but'. Typhoon working with F-35 is the subtle knife, though.

These days, unless theatre rules apply, the assumption is BVR.

Typhoon should have been the solution for the Americans instead of new F-15s. But see Not Invented Here.
 
There's no hype. Raptor is the top-end solution.

A Typhoon will beat it in a dogfight but has to get close enough without getting shot down first. That's a very big 'but'. Typhoon working with F-35 is the subtle knife, though.

These days, unless theatre rules apply, the assumption is BVR.

Typhoon should have been the solution for the Americans instead of new F-15s. But see Not Invented Here.

According to whom?
 
From what I have read about NGAD, the Cousins want to seriously shorten the lifespan of the various systems/platforms that will comprise the programme.

Their thinking following on from the extremely long and expensive development cycles of the F22 and F35 is that shortening the development cycle and lifespan should mean you always have state-of-the-art technology in the front line, rather than 30-year old planes that cost a fortune. They want to spread the contracts around industry, rather than selecting one massive Prime like Lockheed to manage the whole programme, leaving Boeing and Northrup to starve. It should also keep the designers fresh as they retain the ability to innovate and iterate more frequently.

All sounds great in theory but it will be interesting to see how it works in practice.
That was my understanding too, I would hazard a guess that if it all kicked off tomorrow, neither China nor Russia nor anyone else could match F-35 being ramped up which I believe are far in advance of either nations capability and being in production, movement from LRIP to full production in it current state would more than meet, certainly the Russians capability for attrition and probably the Chinese with the X:1 ratio of F-35 vs anything.

By the time the Chinese (forget the Russians) could on paper put up legitimate 5 Gen airframes, USA could be fielding 6th Gen in early development based on the concept above, better than F-35 but only planning a couple of years before v2 replaces it.
 
According to whom?
I wouldn’t believe anything I read from the ‘flags’, they tend to give much away, that said, @Cold_Collation knows this so I suspect he isn’t relying on these ‘reports’.

I honestly believe if we are dogfighting in this day and age of sensors, stealth and long range missiles you are in trouble, does any aircraft actually carry more than 2 sidewinders or equivalent??

The new Eagles, see the Saudi one with what almost 18 AMRAAMS?? No intention to get up close up and personal, if you can’t hit something with double figure missiles you probably don’t want to be mixing with it!
 
According to whom?
The F22 community - who in exercises where BVR was forced (ie not allowed to kill everything BVR - so they can train at WVR) - have come out acknowledged Rafale and Typhoon are threats in WVR - which isnt saying a lot but confirms the aircraft have achieved kills in reasonable circumstances.

As opposed to the Indian Airforces (unproffessionally) boasted about 8 - nil victory over RAF Typhoons - which when the truth is dug out transpires to have been Typhoon playing moving target to whilst radar controllers and Indian pilots practiced procedures.
 
Last edited:
who cares about equipment?
The people who have to support it through life.

Don't forget, while the Buff will probably achieve a service life approaching a century, it's doing so with 70-odd airframes from a total of 700. I'd hazard a guess the systems are a tad more accessible compared to an LO fighter as well. Not sure COTS is going to cut it when you're talking about a military aircraft that will have to operate, fight and survive in a contested EW environment, among other nasties.

Nothing at all against the Raptor, merely pointing out that having hundreds of those frames would not have stopped a single conflict since service entry.

From what I have read about NGAD, the Cousins want to seriously shorten the lifespan of the various systems/platforms that will comprise the programme.

Their thinking following on from the extremely long and expensive development cycles of the F22 and F35 is that shortening the development cycle and lifespan should mean you always have state-of-the-art technology in the front line, rather than 30-year old planes that cost a fortune. They want to spread the contracts around industry, rather than selecting one massive Prime like Lockheed to manage the whole programme, leaving Boeing and Northrup to starve. It should also keep the designers fresh as they retain the ability to innovate and iterate more frequently.
All of which sounds eminently sensible to me. There's a happy medium between the economy of single-type fleets with long lifetimes and multiple fleets with shorter lives.

I think their initial concept is more to do with fielding stuff quickly, rather than multi-decade development programmes - a la F35.

Of course these things tend to meet resistance when you ask the Treasury (US or UK) for money for a new system. The exam question is nearly always "do you really need this capability?", followed inexorably by "is it cheaper to make do with what you've got by deferring doing anything major?"
 

Slime

LE
And may yet have its day, being the seed for Japan's new 5th Gen.



As long as Japan continue with Tempest for their 6th gen fighter it’s all good :)
 
And may yet have its day, being the seed for Japan's new 5th Gen.


So the US won’t sell the F-22 but are happy to let the ‘as experts say more stealthy aircraft’ YF-23 go to Japan?

If the yanks let that go, and not the F-22, IMO something doesn’t smell right about our ‘experts’.
 
The people who have to support it through life.

Don't forget, while the Buff will probably achieve a service life approaching a century, it's doing so with 70-odd airframes from a total of 700. I'd hazard a guess the systems are a tad more accessible compared to an LO fighter as well. Not sure COTS is going to cut it when you're talking about a military aircraft that will have to operate, fight and survive in a contested EW environment, among other nasties.

Nothing at all against the Raptor, merely pointing out that having hundreds of those frames would not have stopped a single conflict since service entry.


All of which sounds eminently sensible to me. There's a happy medium between the economy of single-type fleets with long lifetimes and multiple fleets with shorter lives.

I think their initial concept is more to do with fielding stuff quickly, rather than multi-decade development programmes - a la F35.

Of course these things tend to meet resistance when you ask the Treasury (US or UK) for money for a new system. The exam question is nearly always "do you really need this capability?", followed inexorably by "is it cheaper to make do with what you've got by deferring doing anything major?"
Agree 100% but isn’t the treasury question supposed to be, ‘oh you want $100m to enhance the capability’ (or whatever peanuts are in the treasury) or ‘WHAT, you want $1bn for a new aircraft only 5 years later’ taking note they only purchased 109 airframes?
I don’t know if it will work, the concept sounds good but I don’t think you are wrong!
 
Top