Possibility of F-22 production re-start?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibility of F-22 production re-start?
HASC directs USAF to look at Raptor production re-start! | Combat Aircraft
Could this be a tacit admission that someone thinks that the F-35 ain't actually gonna be 'all that'?
-RP
Could this be a tacit admission that someone thinks that the F-35 ain't actually gonna be 'all that'?
-RP
Last edited by Rhino power; 19th Apr 2016 at 23:06.
Have to do some research. How much did we pay to shut the line down? The tooling was not mothballed was it? Presumably we have the drawings, but otherwise it be starting from scratch? Good luck with this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP. Thank you. I had heard differently, but if you are correct, great! Having experienced labor for the manufacturing process will likely be hard to find after all these years.
To further amortize the immense costs of R&D would be great for the tax payer, but adding significantly to our air power will be even better. IMHO, the F-22 and F-35, in time, would work very well together (once all the S/W issues are worked out).
To further amortize the immense costs of R&D would be great for the tax payer, but adding significantly to our air power will be even better. IMHO, the F-22 and F-35, in time, would work very well together (once all the S/W issues are worked out).
From the linked article:
Do I sniff a hint of panic at the implied threat to the F-35? However expensive the production restart might be, the decision rests with industry and politicians rather than USAF officers ruling it out!
Senior USAF officers have recently told CA that re-starting F-22 production would be prohibitively expensive, and some even ruled it out completely.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if the jigs etc are all available, there will be a lot of work involved in redesigning the IT systems on the F22 as the original processors etc are no longer available, yes the USAF has a stock of them for repairs etc to the present fleet.
An F22 with updated systems, borrowing some of the tech from the F35, particularly if it had a larger internal weapons bay, would I would have thought be just what the USAF, Canada, Australia and other countries would want, it does create a problem from the UK, USMC and USN though.
An F22 with updated systems, borrowing some of the tech from the F35, particularly if it had a larger internal weapons bay, would I would have thought be just what the USAF, Canada, Australia and other countries would want, it does create a problem from the UK, USMC and USN though.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is entirely political and would disagree it's a tacit admission of the F-35's shortcomings. I think the answer will be once again, no. Too much to re-generate production for what you will get. LM hire and fire all the time and I suspect a lot of the expertise and workforce is now long-gone elsewhere. Diminished Manufacturing Resources all play into this too so it would perhaps be a new standard compared to those jets in current service.
This leads me to conclude that this is all about congressmen getting facts to voters within their state who have been calling for more F-22 due to the negative perceptions of the F-35. I think the HASC are asking the USAF to go back and show clear working to the answer they already know or suspect they know. The F-35 is vital to the USAF and its synergy with F-22 equally so.
I'd also doubt any further F-22s built would be available to foreign buyers but they've been ironing out hose wrinkles in the F-35 Program for years, so you never know!
This leads me to conclude that this is all about congressmen getting facts to voters within their state who have been calling for more F-22 due to the negative perceptions of the F-35. I think the HASC are asking the USAF to go back and show clear working to the answer they already know or suspect they know. The F-35 is vital to the USAF and its synergy with F-22 equally so.
I'd also doubt any further F-22s built would be available to foreign buyers but they've been ironing out hose wrinkles in the F-35 Program for years, so you never know!
perhaps the USAF is concerned that a restart of F-22 production - just with a little adaptation here, a slight redesign there, a piggy-backing from F-35 tech here - would morph into yet another 20 year design/test/build nightmare that would suck the budget out of F-35 and existing F-22 like F-35 sucked the budget out of everything currently in service..?
an F-22 with F-35's avionics and weapons bay isn't an F-22, its F-35D, or worse, F-40.
F-35's shortcomings, in a fighty way, all stem from the weight of the thing and the power that comes out the back - an uprated engine and weight-saving engineering and materials science is going to be a great deal cheaper and quicker than an F-22 redesign and rebuild...
an F-22 with F-35's avionics and weapons bay isn't an F-22, its F-35D, or worse, F-40.
F-35's shortcomings, in a fighty way, all stem from the weight of the thing and the power that comes out the back - an uprated engine and weight-saving engineering and materials science is going to be a great deal cheaper and quicker than an F-22 redesign and rebuild...
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government owns the tooling, so it would be interesting to see what bids from Boeing, and Northrop Grumman would look like, in addition to LockMart's, to restart the line.
And the F-35's energy shortcomings are not all weight and power related. As pointed out in a separate thread, the F-105 could literally do everything better than a F-35 on less dry thrust (14,000 lbs) with equivalent thrust to weight ratios. The actual reason: the F-35 minimally conforms the Whitcomb area rule.
And the F-35's energy shortcomings are not all weight and power related. As pointed out in a separate thread, the F-105 could literally do everything better than a F-35 on less dry thrust (14,000 lbs) with equivalent thrust to weight ratios. The actual reason: the F-35 minimally conforms the Whitcomb area rule.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Remember the F15E. Turned out a viable alternative to the F111.
If the F35 cannot execute all F22 missions then makes sense to run both types
If the F35 cannot execute all F22 missions then makes sense to run both types
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the F-105 could literally do everything better than a F-35 on less dry thrust (14,000 lbs) with equivalent thrust to weight ratios.
...the F-35 minimally conforms the Whitcomb area rule.
I disagree that it should be F-22 vs F-35.
The F-15 and F-16 (and A-10) have worked extremely well shoulder to shoulder for decades - designed for different but somewhat overlapping roles. Like many USAF F-series airplanes, over time the roles evolve and expand according to the need and capability that modifications enable. So be it with the F-22 and F-35. We need more F-22's, 170 or so just isn't enough.
But now, I don't know how the economics will pan out, so I can't honestly conclude whether it really is a good idea. And politics being what is these days, maybe, as someone already suggested, that may be all this is.
Just too d*&n bad we squandered the immense F-22 R&D costs, spreading it over so few airplanes. All presumably because the F-22 isn't the airplane for the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, as if the threats we face remain stationary.
The F-15 and F-16 (and A-10) have worked extremely well shoulder to shoulder for decades - designed for different but somewhat overlapping roles. Like many USAF F-series airplanes, over time the roles evolve and expand according to the need and capability that modifications enable. So be it with the F-22 and F-35. We need more F-22's, 170 or so just isn't enough.
But now, I don't know how the economics will pan out, so I can't honestly conclude whether it really is a good idea. And politics being what is these days, maybe, as someone already suggested, that may be all this is.
Just too d*&n bad we squandered the immense F-22 R&D costs, spreading it over so few airplanes. All presumably because the F-22 isn't the airplane for the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, as if the threats we face remain stationary.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree that it should be F-22 vs F-35.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the F-14, F-15, F-17, F-18 F-22, Tornado, MiG 25, MiG 29, SU-27, etc etc "minimally conform to the Whitcomb area rule?" You now appear to be working hard to show how little you know about aerodynamics. Clu4U, the F-35, like many other modern tactical aircraft and UNlike the F-105, has lifting body aerodynamics.
Question for you KenV: The F-35 is the only aircraft on your list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced, annoying vibration at transonic speeds, a vibration that sometimes results in transonic rolloff. Why is that, KenV? Answer the question, KenV, or go away.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel 2., you're acting like a 10 yr old who got a science book for Christmas. Stop being so tiresome. Your incessant desire to punch F-35 every chance you get is circumspect. You have a clear agenda - where I come from we call it a "wind-up artist".
When I read something credible from you, or a link that hasn't already been debunked most of those flying F-35, I'll engage you in reasoned debate. Happily.
When I read something credible from you, or a link that hasn't already been debunked most of those flying F-35, I'll engage you in reasoned debate. Happily.
GlobalNav,
Correct - the F22 wasn't the right aircraft for those wars. However, lots of people died and some would, doubtless, have been saved if there were more dedicated manned CAS, UAV ISR/CAS, SF rotary lift and tac AT - none of which were the USAF's priorities as they gorged upon 5th Gen programmes. Gates brought some balance to the force; yes, I'd agree F22 numbers look a little thin, but in the context of a real shooting war ethereal "future wars" were not the game in town. Plenty has been spent on F22 and F35 NRE - and the USAF hierarchy resisted every $ taken for more of the kit that was needed to fight the war we had, rather than the war the USAF (and Industry) wanted. Lots of capabilities atrophied during those wars, now is the time to rebuild them - but not by restarting a production line with built in obsolescence or another huge NRE bill to bring it up to date. What would the USAF trade to make it happen? Clearly the A10 and A-X in a heartbeat, but what about the new bomber? Is this the point that F35 becomes too big to fail?
Correct - the F22 wasn't the right aircraft for those wars. However, lots of people died and some would, doubtless, have been saved if there were more dedicated manned CAS, UAV ISR/CAS, SF rotary lift and tac AT - none of which were the USAF's priorities as they gorged upon 5th Gen programmes. Gates brought some balance to the force; yes, I'd agree F22 numbers look a little thin, but in the context of a real shooting war ethereal "future wars" were not the game in town. Plenty has been spent on F22 and F35 NRE - and the USAF hierarchy resisted every $ taken for more of the kit that was needed to fight the war we had, rather than the war the USAF (and Industry) wanted. Lots of capabilities atrophied during those wars, now is the time to rebuild them - but not by restarting a production line with built in obsolescence or another huge NRE bill to bring it up to date. What would the USAF trade to make it happen? Clearly the A10 and A-X in a heartbeat, but what about the new bomber? Is this the point that F35 becomes too big to fail?
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay MSOCS, let's enjoy some reasoned debate. Question for you: The F-35 is the only aircraft on KenV's list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced and annoying buffet, a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff. Why is that, MSOCS? Here is a hint for you. Remember when Chuck Yeager encountered the exact same vibration and transonic buffet in the X-1 because the X-1 wasn't area ruled?
Last edited by Channel 2; 20th Apr 2016 at 18:52.
I think the latest version of the F-15 or F-16, or heaven forbid the Navy F/A-18 SuperHornet might be money better spent than reopening the line, and could augment the F-22 and F-35. Yes I realize they are not stealthy, but are quite capable for the majority of sceanarios- and are proven.