Airliners.net

I dont think that if the USAF decides they want to redefine what their fighter force can do, they are going to get a cent after the F-22 and F-35 blowing their budgets.

A new anything will be prohibitively expensive, congress will shove anything they want down the USAFs throat if they feel it is a better choice. A new jet wont happen. The USAF has already backed away from the 6th gen that is being talking up and stated that the generational thing is over and it will be incremental upgrades. This also isnt the century series where they can field a new fighter every decade. The F-35 is supposed to have a 40 year life, and there will probably be life extensions to the program, so 50 years is a reasonable estimate.

Rebuilding the F-22 line is still cheaper than building a new line from scratch for a new jet.

*IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.

And realistically... the F-22 took 20 years, as did the F-35. We are looking at 2035-2040 before anything is in the air. by that time the F-35 will have had a major upgrade and the F-22 will be on its second.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150): I dont think that if the USAF decides they want to redefine what their fighter force can do, they are going to get a cent after the F-22 and F-35 blowing their budgets.

Given all three services have blown their budgets on a host of acquisition programs, in some cases like the US Army FCS program with no deliverables for somewhere close to US$15 billion spent, I don't see any of the services not continuing to develop systems. Yes they need to reign in their dev programs, have greater control and almost certainly stop scope creep that keeps occurring but there are few if any military dev programs across the globe that haven't gone over budget.

For example, it is clear the PAK-FA is taking longer to develop than planned, probably somewhere between 3-5 years and that is a less ambitious program than either the F-22 or F-35. We hear little on the J-20 but it would be reasonable to expect a similar delay.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150): A new jet wont happen. The USAF has already backed away from the 6th gen that is being talking up and stated that the generational thing is over and it will be incremental upgrades. This also isnt the century series where they can field a new fighter every decade. The F-35 is supposed to have a 40 year life, and there will probably be life extensions to the program, so 50 years is a reasonable estimate.

Not sure where you are getting that from, the USAF and USN are both pretty committed to 6th gen aircraft.

Quote: Kendall told Maine Sen. Angus King during the hearing that there wasn’t a great chance of the Navy and Air Force developing an aircraft together any time soon, as happened with the F-35. Both services are in the early stages of developing sixth generation fighters. “We’re now thinking about the follow-on aircraft for the Navy and the Air Force, and I don’t think we’re going to repeat this [joint acquisition],” Frank Kendall said. “The design parameters are going to be quite different for the follow-on aircraft of the two services. We did get some benefit from the commonality, but there’s very little commonality in the [airframe] structure,” Kendall said. At the same time, Kendall told King that the Pentagon “could still get some of those benefits without having to have a single program,” by building cockpits and sensors with a great deal of commonality.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/m...35-bulk-buy-kendall-says-it-works/

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150): *IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.

All of that can happen, while expensive and risk prone, without re-opening a line and producing more aircraft.

The question remains, does the USAF need more F-22s to complete its core mission of defeating a near peer adversary or will existing and planned 5th gen aircraft numbers be enough?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151): Given all three services have blown their budgets on a host of acquisition programs, in some cases like the US Army FCS program with no deliverables for somewhere close to US$15 billion spent, I don't see any of the services not continuing to develop systems.

That is not how politicians will see it. One guy will go on a campaign to make do with what they have, and following the dirty trail the F-35 and F-22 left... it will spread.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151): Not sure where you are getting that from, the USAF and USN are both pretty committed to 6th gen aircraft.

Quote: “F-X would have been most likely like a sixth-generation fighter and would have had a 20 or 30-year development programme,” Holmes said at an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 7 April. “What we want to try to do is solve the problem faster than that by looking out across the range of options and building what we’re capable of building instead of waiting for the next generation.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-backs-off-sixth-gen-fighter-in-quest-for-air-423994/

They dont rule out new airframes, but they are not going to do everything in them all new.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151): All of that can happen, while expensive and risk prone, without re-opening a line and producing more aircraft.

Yes, but you might as well get more bang for your buck if you are doing heavy rework anyways. The risky part is the integration of the F-35 avionics, which is nearing completion so it is not some big unknown, the airframe is just time and money. They are spending money upgrading the F-15C, an air frame that may only have another 15 years of service. The USAF wants to retire 50+ of the F-15C and only upgrade 178. That money would be better spent on something that will be around longer than 15 years. Let the F-22 do the hard work, let the F-15s age (they still are not obsolete), get a true replacement for them built as originally intended.

Id love to see a 6th generation fighter, but I come from a management background, and I dont see an overall appetite for a new fighter being viable. Sure it could be started, but it would be a hell of a fight to keep it funded, and one small hick-up, it will join the VH-71 and RAH-66, and you know there WILL be a hick-up with any new program. It will start life with a giant bullseye on its back in an atmosphere of people just itching to shoot something to make a point.

What if they just stopped spending money on F-22a upgrades and used that money to Develop F22b (F35 Avionics, Use technology from the Advanced Fighter Engine) and restart production?

I don't know the exact number but isn't it something like $10-$20 Billion further to be spent on F22a upgrades? And probably more to come when they eventually remanufacture it with new avionics as they can't get spare parts for the old one.

I think they would be a lot further ahead to stop with this remanufacturing nonsense, and just keep the line going long term building the latest and greatest into new builds and stop retrofitting - which is incredibly expensive.

The original F-22's become the the Trainer's and new Builds are the front line fighters. Eventually there is a C and D model and the original's are retired just like the F-15 A/B/C/D series.

Build them for a 20 year service life but keep the line going (20 per year?) so you always have 200ish of the latest and greatest.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 152): https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-backs-off-sixth-gen-fighter-in-quest-for-air-423994/ They dont rule out new airframes, but they are not going to do everything in them all new.

Thanks for the source. I don't think the concept has changed but like the LRS-B there is probably a focus on using proven technology where possible. Not sure I like that concept very much but it is probably fiscally prudent. The requirements are likely to be very flexible on adversary advances though. If for instance the Chinese come out with something super in the late 20s or early 30s 6th gen development is going to have to ensure they are maintaining a technology advantage.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 152): and you know there WILL be a hick-up with any new program. It will start life with a giant bullseye on its back in an atmosphere of people just itching to shoot something to make a point.

Yes, the internet age... I am waiting for the start of the LRS-B threads about delays, issues, people who loved the Boeing/LM concept, POGO comments on it. Given what has happened to the F-35, the reception for both the LRS-B and 6th gen fighter will be savage...

Quoting morrisond (Reply 153): What if they just stopped spending money on F-22a upgrades and used that money to Develop F22b (F35 Avionics, Use technology from the Advanced Fighter Engine) and restart production?

That isn't an effective use of funding and it makes maintaining the overall fleet of jets incredibly complex. Could you imagine sorting out the spares and maintenance issues of a fleet of jets all at different stages? If we take the F-16 as an example, when blocks were built they were built often greater than the entire production run of the F-22, whereas what you’re proposing ends up being a series of almost orphaned jets, perhaps 20-40 per block upgrade. Maintainers would struggle to transition from one squadron to another given the differences.

Better to spend the dollars and keep the fleet at as close to one block upgrade point as possible.

One should not forget that if you ignore the avionics and just look at the plane, the F-22 is kind of 6th gen. compared to the F-35. It is said to have a lower RCS and the flight performance is also way better.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 155): One should not forget that if you ignore the avionics and just look at the plane, the F-22 is kind of 6th gen. compared to the F-35. It is said to have a lower RCS and the flight performance is also way better.

Not quite, the US has stated the F-35 is actually stealthier than the F-22.

Quote: The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

The F-35 also has a longer range, more diverse selection of weapons, more advanced sensors and significantly improved sensor fusion than the F-22.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 156): Not quite, the US has stated the F-35 is actually stealthier than the F-22.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Do you have an article with that statement? The statements (granted, they are now a decade old) I recall reading compared the F-22 to a metal marble vs F-35 being a metal golf ball. Since the F-35 was advanced in its design when that comparison was made, I wonder what changed?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 154): That isn't an effective use of funding and it makes maintaining the overall fleet of jets incredibly complex. Could you imagine sorting out the spares and maintenance issues of a fleet of jets all at different stages? If we take the F-16 as an example, when blocks were built they were built often greater than the entire production run of the F-22, whereas what you’re proposing ends up being a series of almost orphaned jets, perhaps 20-40 per block upgrade. Maintainers would struggle to transition from one squadron to another given the differences.

Okay then - Block 1 F-22a just take it as it is and stop pouring money down the hole and Block 2 F-22b

Although with 2 minutes searching I found the following - there are already mulitple F22 Blocks

Block 10: Baseline IOC configuration. A-A only, external tanks and AMRAAM carriage

Block 20: JDAM capable (Global Strike Basic)

Increment 2: supersonic JDAM release, improved IFDL

Block 30: APG-77(v)1

Block 30 Increment 3.1: SAR modes, self targeting for JDAM, SDB capability (Global Strike initial Enhanced)

Block 35 Increment 3.2: MALD, Enhanced SDB capability, multi-ship geo-location, AGCAS, AIM-9X, AIM-120D. (Global Strike Enhanced)

Block 35: Increment 3.3: (Unfunded presently) Mode 5/S transponder, additional automatic radar modes, GMTI


This comes from the F-22 PO from a June 2008 document. While it doesn’t give the upgrades in specific detail it does give an outline of capabilities.

Image

[Edited 2016-04-29 11:47:01]

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 157): That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Do you have an article with that statement?

Yes. I posted a blog that had the reference but not the primary source itself which is here, http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/g...growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

Quoting morrisond (Reply 158): Okay then - Block 1 F-22a just take it as it is and stop pouring money down the hole and Block 2 F-22b Although with 2 minutes searching I found the following - there are already mulitple F22 Blocks

Correct, but right now, and has been the plan for awhile, all jets are Blk 20 or Blk 30. The training jets are at Blk 20 and I believe will stay that way, these are called the non combat coded jets, while the rest of the fleet will continue to be upgraded to Blk 35 and onward.

Important thing to note is how much that source document indicates the cost of these upgrades are, if I remember correctly somewhere in the region of US$7 billion dollars...

That's my point - don't spend the $7billion use that to develop the F22b and restart production.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 160): That's my point - don't spend the $7billion use that to develop the F22b and restart production.

It will cost a lot more than that to restart F-22 production. Try adding more than $20 billion dollars to that, and you'll get a better number, and that's a very conservative estimate. The RAND study that looked at restarting F-22 production with no design changes for a lot of 75 aircraft was $17 billion dollars. And that study was done when the F-22 production line was already starting to wind down. Bump that production number up to 194, and adjust for inflation, it would be $30 billion dollars. And that's assuming that all of the tooling can be located and readied, factory spaces are available, and subcontractors readied.

Any design changes would jack up the costs, immensely. And you bet there will be some design changes, some reflecting that certain components are out of production, and some to improve maintainability (such as changing the F-22's skin to what is being used on the F-35). It could easily be double that, and by then, you might as well just develop a brand new fighter that doesn't have all of these supportability and maintainability issues in the first place!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 147): The software work alone on the F-22 is prohibitively expensive.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 148): Such an exercise to add a second seat to the F-22 would make such a variant prohibitively expensive, for what is already an extremely expensive aircraft.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 149): The F-22 is already prohibitively expensive. Re-opening the line is a folly unless you can meet another requirement with this.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150): A new anything will be prohibitively expensive, congress will shove anything they want down the USAFs throat if they feel it is a better choice. A new jet wont happen.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150): *IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 153): I think they would be a lot further ahead to stop with this remanufacturing nonsense, and just keep the line going long term building the latest and greatest into new builds and stop retrofitting - which is incredibly expensive.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 161): It will cost a lot more than that to restart F-22 production. Try adding more than $20 billion dollars to that, and you'll get a better number, and that's a very conservative estimate.

I am quoting all of you who are saying it will be expensive. Even if you support the F-22 or do not support the F-22. I really like the F-22 and F-35. I am by no means an engineer and have no idea about the complexity. But as a global citizen, protected by NATO and the U.S it gives me comfort, assurance of peace everytime the U.S sends out their F-22 nearby a potential conflict zone. With the F-22 it sends out a signal. Don't even think about it. I do not like war, but I like the idea that NATO with the U.S are so powerful, that we get to keep our peace. I am glad norway gets their F-35 to send the signal, that we are prepared. I worry that the cost of the F-35 will also make our ground force much smaller, but if it can protect our borders I am all for it.

For those of you who oppose to restart the F-22, saying it is too expensive compared to the more advanced F-35, would a modified F-35 with a mach 2.5 capability and same air superiority capabilities as the F-22 be less costly? Lets say an F-35 on steroids? To make an illustration that may be out of context, but the European VW Passat and Golf share the same platform. Fhe F-35 is already a three member family. What about introducing a 4th member?  

Quoting Oykie (Reply 162): For those of you who oppose to restart the F-22, saying it is too expensive compared to the more advanced F-35, would a modified F-35 with a mach 2.5 capability and same air superiority capabilities as the F-22 be less costly? Lets say an F-35 on steroids?

That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 115): If an interim solution is required, an out of left field option may be to Super the existing F-35 similar to what happened to the Hornet but with the focus on A2A. Increase the airframe size 35%, increase the thrust, radar size and the internal weapons load for A2A weapons. With an active production line and using parts from the same technology and supplier base a new airframe could be built and put into service for a similar cost to an F-22 restart. After all, the current F-35 program has done all the hard work. An upsized F-35 would re-use all the sensor fusion, radar, stealth coatings etc already developed and focus on improved supersonic performance and range. The most difficult issue would be the engine and total thrust. You will probably need to move to dual engines but for that you cut down the F135, retain the core and move to a lesser BPR fan. With a 35% increase in airframe size you gain the internal volume necessary to place two smaller diameter fan engines and increase the fuel load with lower BPR engines.

An already active production line and host of engineers who have recent experience working with the F-35 would make this just about the lowest risk option available. It just becomes an issue of how much performance you could extract from an F-35 modded for pure A2A. As I said above mods would include increased thrust from one or two engines, perhaps larger structure but greater wing sweep for better supersonic performance and modified bays to improve A2A carriage at the expense of A2G.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 163): That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous.

Very high top speeds are extremely irrelevant. Often, such top speeds can only be obtained under certain conditions, and with the aircraft basically clean of external weapons or pylons, fuel at a certain level, and the engines in good shape. And even then, the aircraft can only sustain such speeds for just a few seconds because the engines will be gulping down fuel.

For example, the amount of time the global F-15 fleet has reached anywhere near the rated top speed of Mach 2.5 is no longer than the length of a standard movie... and usually, high speed runs of Mach 2.0 are only attained during check rides when the aircraft is just out of maintenance... Even then, you are running a risk if you tried to stay at such high speeds for any length of time as the canopy could melt due to heat friction, and you could also damage the engines.

A new jet will need a new line (in a building), which is more expensive than rebuilding an existing line. Then the design work, prototyping, rework...etc. The F-22 is not that far out of production that no one remembers anything. The F-22 is sucking up money for upgrades, when a superior system is being built for the F-35. They could take a EMD F-22 and start reworking it as the prototype of the F-22B.

The F-35 is a bit of a brick, it was not designed to be particularly fast without blasting fuel out its end. It is the greatest of compromises in design, and would look alot more like the J-31 if a STOVL ability wasnt needed. What it traded in natural speed was countered by raw power on demand. The F-22 wasnt designed to be a strike bomber, the F-35 wasnt designed to be an air superiority fighter. Shoehorning those abilities into either would compromise eachs skills.

The F-35 will do the bulk of the work, but the F-22 is the king of the skys (as designed). 186 is not enough once the F-15C is put out to pasture. In an average engagement the F-35 would splash opponents BVR, unseen, but if it is somehow ambushed by a SU-30... its going to be a much more risky prospect. That is what the F-22 was designed for.

Heck, the F-35 avionics could probably serve as the backbone for the B-21.


Also, anyone see that the life expectancy of the F-35 was extended to 2070!
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-service-life-extended-to-2070-423536/

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165): A new jet will need a new line (in a building), which is more expensive than rebuilding an existing line.

The F-22 line no longer exists. Remember, the F-22's major components were built in these locations:

Aft Fuselage and wings: Boeing, in Seattle, WA. Currently involved building 787's.
F119 engines: Pratt at Middletown, CT. Factory switched over to F135 production, no new F119 engines built. Overhaul is conducted at Tinker AFB
Forward fuselage: Lockheed Martin at Ft. Worth, TX. Production line currently assembling F-35's
Final assembly: Lockheed Martin at Air Force Plant 6 in Marietta, GA. Currently producing F-35 centre wing sections, C-130J's, and C-5 upgrades.

So, no the production line doesn't exist. It currently exists in a bunch of ISO shipping containers, and even then, some tooling and jigs are apparently missing. And that's ignoring the subcontractors; there probably are thousands of subcontractors that made parts for the F-22 and F119 engine. Many of these may continue to produce spares or a shared part with the F-35/F135, but there is likely an equivalent or larger number that have either shut down their production lines producing those parts, or the company just no longer exists.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165): Then the design work, prototyping, rework...etc.

A major modification program is just as involved and requires just as much testing as a whole new aircraft.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165): The F-22 is not that far out of production that no one remembers anything.

Yes it is. The last F-22 rolled off the line in 2011. Many of the workers have moved onto other programs, or have retired. Add in the time to find a new factory space, put all of the tooling together, replace missing tooling, train new people, get sub contractors going and it will easily be a decade until production could theoretically restart.

I recommend you do some research on 'production learning curve'... you are effectively starting from the very beginning again, not only for the factory assembling new F-22's, but at the various subcontractors as well. Not as easy as you make it out to be.

All of these restart ideas are complete and utter nonsense; its prohibitive for so many reasons, including time, NRE for the all new stuff you think you can just 'tweak' or import from F-35, engine development, DMSMS problems that will send many a project manager running-in-the-streets-naked-screaming-we're-all-doomed for the stuff you retain, a full test slate, the effective restart at zero for manufacturing learning curve (and a resulting eye watering fly away cost for a small production run as a result), and not exportable so you cant realize any economies of scale (The F-22 was already extremely expensive in the first place).

This idea of a F-22 restart is essentially the mil-av version of the 757 revival threads that keep popping up in civil-av, with much of the same problems only magnified by 1000x. F-22 production ended for very good reasons, and these reasons are costs and parts obsolesce, both of which were caused by decisions made very early in the program.

[Edited 2016-05-01 01:07:45]

Sorry, I keep using 'line' for tooling.

Tooling exists, spare parts exist and possibly still in production. Even if restarting the F-22 would be 80% new, that is still better than starting from zero. Any issues that would be applied to restarting the F-22 are more so for a new jet. F-22 line is gone, new jet line never existed. F-22 tooling is stored, new jet tooling doesnt exist. F-22 work force moved on, new jet workforce never existed. A new F-22 would be a small batch, a new jet would be a small batch.

Modifying the F-35 avionics to work in the F-22 is hard and expensive, but creating new avionics is even harder and more expensive, and most likely will be based on the F-35 avionics anyways.

The USAF is spending large sums of money to bring the F-22 into being just compatible with the F-35, and it will still be a patched together solution.


IMO

Quoting Ozair (Reply 163): That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous

I think this could be an option, but what about maneuverability? As you say A2A maybe its weakest point. That being said, a pilot from my hometown, that has flown both the F-16, as well as the F-35, says the F-35 is superior when compared to the F-16. But maybe not like the - king F-22. Maybe 2 engines with thrust vectoring nozzles could work on an F-35XL?   

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 164): Very high top speeds are extremely irrelevant.

The NORAD flights seems to fly very fast when they need to intercept aircrafts. The F-15 are often used in these kinds of missions. In Norway the F-16 are often braking the sound barriers over land to intercept Russian planes near our Northern borders. Sometimes they have to replace windows that break on the ground.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165): but the F-22 is the king of the skys (as designed)

   We need an air superiority fighter in the future. I have seen the F-22 at airshows and, sometimes it looks like that jet is flying against physical laws. I look forward to see the F-35, but I doubt it will come near what the F-22 is capable of.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 167): Tooling exists,

Not all. They've discovered that they are missing tooling. And having the tooling doesn't mean anything, especially if design changes and reengineering takes place; for example, a particular tool may cut holes in forging of metal that conforms to the design of a particular bulkhead. If the design changes to the aircraft results in changes to where the holes are located in the bulkhead, then the tooling is either totally useless so you are forced to build a new one, or extensively modify the tooling to change where the holes are cut.

And that's assuming that they would intend on building the F-22 the say way they did when the production line was running; you can bet that there would be major changes as to how a new production F-22 would be assembled, which could mean that most of the stored tooling is indeed useless.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 167): spare parts exist and possibly still in production

Not the important bits, such as the engines and avionics. The issue is that while the F-22 is a very impressive and potent machine, the development of the F-22 held onto obsolete systems and architectures for WAY too long. By the time the F-22 actually went into production, the OEM's for some of those systems were telling the USAF, LM, and Boeing that they were going to discontinue production of those systems in a few years time.

Adding to the problems was that none of the systems used were in anyway related or had any compatibility with other aircraft in the inventory, nor were they easily replaceable and upgradable; the F-22 is a one-off design in many of its key systems, which means that the short production run could not in any way support long term production of those key systems. And because those systems aren't easily up-gradable or substituted, that resulted in production being cut short.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 156): http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22 The F-35 also has a longer range, more diverse selection of weapons, more advanced sensors and significantly improved sensor fusion than the F-22.

I somehow doubt that statement. The whole interview is a bit strange to be honest.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 170): I somehow doubt that statement. The whole interview is a bit strange to be honest.

Gen Hostage did make some rather strange claims and certainly had a very specific threat scenario in mind, which he didn't reveal, but it is certainly possible for the F-35 to be stealthier than the F-22. There is 15+ years of newer materials and modelling between the two airframes and the F-35 brings all the lessons learned from the F-22 program.

As for the other claims, all are valid and verifiable.

But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export. And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172): But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export.

Can you show me the requirement that states the F-35 must be less stealthy than the F-22? It doesn't exist, what the F-35 was required to do was bring stealth to the market in a way that was exportable. In this case, the stealth coating is baked into the skin at the time of manufacture and needs little maintenance throughout it's lifetime. The manufacturing technique is almost certainly still classified but exportability is preserved and stealth performance maintained.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172): And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

Why is it so hard to believe that the F-35 could have a lower RCS? Given within the time frame you are talking about the F-35 was still in development they would have had RCS predictions not accurate measurements. Looks like in the RCS department the F-35 over delivered...

Not impossible, but there is one source claiming this, others were l´much less positive on the topic.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/f...-f-35s-radar-evading-tech-4332950/

I´d give the US version the benefit of better coatings, which could make this a reality, but those coatings could be used on a new built F-22 too.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172): But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export. And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

IMHO, its entirely plausible that the F-35 would have a lower RCS from the front than the F-22 based on 15 years advances in knowledge and single engine layout, but the F-22 could have better all aspect characteristics.

Quoting oykie (Reply 168): We need an air superiority fighter in the future. I have seen the F-22 at airshows and, sometimes it looks like that jet is flying against physical laws. I look forward to see the F-35, but I doubt it will come near what the F-22 is capable of.

Im totally pumped, I found out the F-22 Demo team is confirmed for an air show in Canada that I will be attending in sept. I have seen everything the RCAF has a bazillion times, heck I spend 6 weeks at CFB Cold Lake about a kilometer from the flight line. Since the US sequestration a few years back, American gear became very rare, to the point I skipped alot of airshows. Now if they would just sent up a F-35 for publicity purposes...

Quoting oykie (Reply 168): Maybe 2 engines with thrust vectoring nozzles could work on an F-35XL?

The F-35XL already exists, just buy those.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 169): Not the important bits, such as the engines and avionics

I cant imagine that there will never be another F119 built over the life of the F-22. At some point there is always an upgrade to a newer more efficient or reliable engine. Also, the avionics from the F-35 can be whatever shape needed to fit the F-22. It has the space, more so than the F-35.

The USAF wanted a minimum of 381 when the F-35 was being designed, they got less than half, they need 195 jets to fill the gap. A new 6th gen fighter will end up being another white elephant like the F-22 if started from scratch with only 195 ordered, and there is no political will after the F-22 and F-35 to fund a new program. would yet another stealth fighter be better, from lessons learned by the F-22 and F-35 programs? It would. Is there money for that... I dont think there is. The development money for the F-22 and the F-35 is spent... alot of it would still be valid on a upgraded F-22. Heck, they want to be dirty about it, get funding to use a surplus aircraft as a F-35A avionics testbed to mature design and integration... use a EMD F-22 as the surplus aircraft.

My line of work often has me dealing with people who confuse the words 'cant' and 'wont'. Sometimes out of the box thinking is needed. You can engineer any existing idea to any thing with enough time and money, but it takes creativity and new approaches for real advances. You have an amazing airframe with stunted guts, and a average airframe with amazing guts... If the F-22 is fierce now, imagine it on par with a F-35 in avionics?

The USAF should require the B-21 to use F-35 avionics. The biggest part of all that is the coding... and the F-35 is designed to have new software added to its base OS... apps. Using a F119 engine instead of a F135? Install the F119 engine parameters, verify it is working, away you go (yes I know that is over simplified). Stuff shouldnt be done over and over and over.


Im going to drop this either way, debating opinions is as useful as pissing into the wind.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176): I cant imagine that there will never be another F119 built over the life of the F-22.

Better believe it because the factory that built the F119 is GONE. Pratt has already dismantled their tooling to build the F119.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176): At some point there is always an upgrade to a newer more efficient or reliable engine.

Unless the engine is an exact drop in replacement, or has the same dimensions, nope.

And don't bring up the F-16; the F-16's alternative engine program was much more of a fluke; GE was already developing a similarly sized engine for the B-1 Lancer that just happened to be available as an alternative engine. If GE wasn't working on such an engine, the F110 engine would not exist period.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176): You can engineer any existing idea to any thing with enough time and money, but it takes creativity and new approaches for real advances.

Yes, and it will easily cost at least $20 billion dollars under a very conservative estimate. $30-40 billion would be more like it. There are plenty of things the USAF would want over spending $30-40 billion on more F-22's, such as expediting F-35 production, upgrades to the existing fleet, LRB, nuclear weapon modernization, replacement of the UH-1N's in nuclear missile silo defence, T-X, etc.

There is this thing called opportunity cost. Given finite resources, the USAF must make choices as to how its limited budget is going to be allocated. The F-22 was an extremely expensive fighter to begin with, and USAF is riding a large bow wave of aircraft that either need modernization or replacement right now. The USAF would like a fighter to replace the F-22, but that's decades down the line. The USAF has time to think about it and refine their requirements while waiting for the technology to mature.

The USAF has already come out said to stop wasting time and money on thinking about a F-22 restart. Why don't we just listen to what the generals have to say?

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176): Im totally pumped, I found out the F-22 Demo team is confirmed for an air show in Canada that I will be attending in sept. I have seen everything the RCAF has a bazillion times, heck I spend 6 weeks at CFB Cold Lake about a kilometer from the flight line. Since the US sequestration a few years back, American gear became very rare, to the point I skipped alot of airshows. Now if they would just sent up a F-35 for publicity purposes...

You are in for a treat!   

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176): The F-35XL already exists, just buy those.

I will start saving up for onw  

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 177): Given finite resources, the USAF must make choices as to how its limited budget is going to be allocated.

A valid point. Lessons learned from the F-35 and F-22 is that their insane cost, maybe the biggest danger to the USAF. They simply cannot afford to buy enough of them.

Quoting oykie (Reply 178): A valid point. Lessons learned from the F-35 and F-22 is that their insane cost, maybe the biggest danger to the USAF. They simply cannot afford to buy enough of them.

You can't call that a lesson learned from the F-35 program. Given it hasn't yet reached full production but is already the same cost or cheaper than its competitors the final lesson learned may actually be "More dev money up front for joint programs still provide overall cost savings during full production with the F-35 the most capable and affordable fighter jet in the last 50 years..."

Quoting Ozair (Reply 179): You can't call that a lesson learned from the F-35 program. Given it hasn't yet reached full production but is already the same cost or cheaper than its competitors the final lesson learned may actually be "More dev money up front for joint programs still provide overall cost savings during full production with the F-35 the most capable and affordable fighter jet in the last 50 years..."

The lesson is dont bite off too much at once. The F-22 was a leap ahead of the F-15, and technology wise, the F-35 is a leap ahead of the F-22 (not to mention being 3 jets in one). Stealth, new avionics, new radar, new engines, new materials... too much new, to many things to go wrong. Any new 6th gen will use alot of existing systems, the 2 new additions will be optionally manned (which the F-35 probably could do with some software), and LASERS!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 180): The lesson is dont bite off too much at once.

I would say the lesson is that we have reached the limits where one could gain a significant step up in capabilities without having to spend a vast amount of resources to achieve said advance.

With the F-22 and F-35, we've reach the aircraft generation where there will be no major improvements in aircraft performance with the current state of technology (re: someone needs to invent a warp drive and inertial dampener), but instead, improvements in capabilities will be achieved via how the integration of sensors, low observability and self-launched or networked weapons is achieved.

Its important to understand that a 5th generation aircraft uses data in a totally different way compared to previous aircraft designs. In the current generation much of the aircraft's processing is hardcoded: The data is pushed through dedicated filters and processes and displayed to the pilot, who must interpret them and make a decision. The pilot is then required must develop a mental image of the scenario in their head, based on previous data displayed in order to develop a concrete course of action.

In 5th generation aircraft, the data is instead held and fused together and can be queried by a number of different processes at the same time, in order to provide a much better sensor picture. Thus, instead of the pilot looking at various different screens to see what the sensors are picking up, the pilot is looking at one screen that has all of the various bits of information collected and merged into a single picture. Moreover these processes are not hardcoded, but can (and in some cases do) incorporate true machine learning systems. Thus, the data can be stored for later use, and examined to develop better algorithms that can better understand a similar situation later.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 181): With the F-22 and F-35, we've reach the aircraft generation where there will be no major improvements in aircraft performance with the current state of technology

Sort of my thoughts as well, but one should never say never. Although I agree that as with commercial aviation, we seem to be at the apex of what current techologies can achieve. W

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 181): With the F-22 and F-35, we've reach the aircraft generation where there will be no major improvements in aircraft performance with the current state of technology (re: someone needs to invent a warp drive and inertial dampener), but instead, improvements in capabilities will be achieved via how the integration of sensors, low observability and self-launched or networked weapons is achieved.

There are plenty improvements to be had in the fields of stealth, operating costs and avionics.

Looks like Gen Welsh is really working hard on that post at LMCO....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-warms-to-f-22-raptor-revival-proposal-425794/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Don't see how they will get that authorized...at all. I think Welsh is daydreaming about this being a "cheaper" option.

A upgraded F-22 instead of a new 6th gen. seems to make sense.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 183): There are plenty improvements to be had in the fields of stealth, operating costs and avionics.

There are infinite improvements to be had, question is how much money is the US DOD willing to throw at it as they couldnt properly fund the F-22 and is off to a slow start funding the F-35. A improved F-22 may come out a bit cheaper, yeilding a stealthier, cheaper to operate 5.5 gen fighter with the tech developed for the F-35.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 186): There are infinite improvements to be had, question is how much money is the US DOD willing to throw at it as they couldnt properly fund the F-22 and is off to a slow start funding the F-35. A improved F-22 may come out a bit cheaper, yeilding a stealthier, cheaper to operate 5.5 gen fighter with the tech developed for the F-35.

I have not ruled this out. Even a more or less unchanged airframe for a F-22B would benefit greatly from the advances made in avionics, processing power and improved stealth coatings as well as better processing power for RCS calculations.

I think that it would be a good idea, but some very knowledgeable people think otherwise, for good reasons I would add. Retrofitting the F-22 would be difficult and expensive, but making a new jet would also be difficult and expensive, though I dont see any political appetite for a new fighter after the difficulties with the F-22 and F-35.

IMO the biggest task of a modern fighter is the avionics and engines. The avionics software of the F-35 are designed to be able to take 'apps' for new software, rather than being written right into the basecode of the operating system, using the F-35 avionics on other systems should be alot simpler than building a new system every time. With the bulk of avionics and engine work already done with the F-35, most of what is left is the airframe, and if you are tweaking it to accept F-35 stealth, why not modify it more into something that is appropriate for today's warfighter. At that point you have a new jet.

Tooling:

Moreover, the Air Force is auditing the Sierra Army Depot to make sure that the F-22 manufacturing tooling is secure—and thus far everything is in order. The audit is 85 percent complete and thus far all of the tooling has been found. Earlier, some Air Force officials had expressed concerns that the equipment had been misplaced—however, those concerns were unfounded as it turns out.

“When you store 40,000 tools in a bunch of Connexes, it’s probably like my garage, I know something is out in it, but it takes me a while sometimes to find it,” McIntyre said.

“They’ve found no issues with finding any of the tooling.”

Interesting update - followed by:

As for restarting the F-22 production line, that is a non-starter for the Air Force.

“The Air Force has no plans to restart the F-22 production line because it wouldn’t make economic or operational sense to do so,” Maj. Carrie Kessler, a spokeswoman for Air Combat Command told me.

Source: https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Air-Force-F-22-Will-Fly-to-2060-101459768

It would make more sense to me to spend the money on developing a stealth drone to work in conjunction with the F-35 than an upgraded F22 or new fighter.
The drone could carry an AAMRAM as well as a synthetic aperture radar and ECM capabilities.
Nobody would want to chase after an F-35 if those things might be in the air.

Maybe the F-35 will be the last jet fighter.

Instead of an F-22 revival, let’s bring out the F-22 RIVAL.

Build the F-23 Black Widow!!!

(I know, just fantasy talk)