F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Originally Posted by LO
There were upgrade plans for the F-22, as well. How's that worked out for ya?
Any reason to pick the F-22 rather than another more successful aircraft?
You might as well say the West should give up building new aircraft because it will never succeed.
No reason whatsoever except that the F-22 is the immediately preceding US fighter program, built by the same company, which advertises both of them as the world's only 5th GenerationTM fighters, and is more like the F-35 than any other aircraft in terms of technology, design philosophy and avionics architecture.
And if anyone has ever said "and this is why we have spent $500m - $1 billion in R&D a year on F-22 upgrades and accomplished much less than we expected, and here's how we'll do better next time", I missed it.
And if anyone has ever said "and this is why we have spent $500m - $1 billion in R&D a year on F-22 upgrades and accomplished much less than we expected, and here's how we'll do better next time", I missed it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Perhaps these few thoughts could help.
I agree with LO that using the labels '5th Gen', '4.5 Gen' or whatever are not especially helpful. They're really a marketing tool to use with senior officer types, a sort of shorthand, and as ever with shorthand, the meaning can get lost in the translation.
Where I would gently depart from LO is the characterisation of the relationship between F-22 and F-35. Yes, both LM products - but one from Georgia, one from Fort Worth. That makes more difference than one might expect. And very different requirements. Taking the aspects as listed by LO,
Technology, yes, big pull through of stealth technology from F-22, but with major changes to address maintainability and the need for big moving panels and doors on a smaller aircraft. I was never 'read into' the details of LO signatures (even if I was I wouldn't be able to talk much about it) but what is open source is the fact that the F-35 has gone for a different balance between LO, aerodynamic performance and avionics capability, involving less aggressive targets for signature. Time will tell if it's a better balance. Airframe technology was very different to F-22, especially in choice of materials.
Design philosophy - F-22 was, in my view (please feel free to differ) the last of the 'ultimate' fighter projects, along with Typhoon, where the design was driven by very challenging aerodynamic performance requirements, including super cruise. These drove a large, twin engined design, dominated by two very powerful engines, big wings, and fuel. It's no surprise, therefore, that the F-22 weapons bays are relatively low volume - any design of that type will have severe restraints on internal space. It's also no secret that LM Fort Worth had decided some time back that the basic F-22 layout (side intakes, twin tails, blended wing/body) was the way forward for F-35, but with less aggressive air vehicle performance objectives. They may have been right - recent Russian and Chinese designs appear to have gone a similar way. Again, time will tell. F-35 is a more 'balanced design' than F-22, but the constraints of LO (restrictions on external pods as a solution to lack of internal space) still apply.
Avionics Architecture - this is one area where there are a number of significant differences in the way F-35 has gone about its business . The phrase 'it's not like legacy' (by which they meant F-22) was a constant refrain from LM avionics engineers. In particular, the software architecture is totally different, with the state aim of allowing easier downstream insertion of new technology. Upgradeability was a key target from the outset. Is it good enough? I don't know, and nobody else will until it gets into service. All i can say is that F-22 lessons were being heavily 'leveraged' (to use a 'yuk' US word) all the time in F-35 avionics design.
I suppose what i'm trying to put over is that any aircraft design is a response to requirements, and uses the best technology available at acceptable risk. F-35 is a full 20 years on from F-22, so it's not a surprise that it has used what worked on the Raptor, and used new stuff where it was available. It's a very different beast - time will tell if it ticks all the boxes.
Best Regards as ever to those who care about delivering the goods,
Engines
Perhaps these few thoughts could help.
I agree with LO that using the labels '5th Gen', '4.5 Gen' or whatever are not especially helpful. They're really a marketing tool to use with senior officer types, a sort of shorthand, and as ever with shorthand, the meaning can get lost in the translation.
Where I would gently depart from LO is the characterisation of the relationship between F-22 and F-35. Yes, both LM products - but one from Georgia, one from Fort Worth. That makes more difference than one might expect. And very different requirements. Taking the aspects as listed by LO,
Technology, yes, big pull through of stealth technology from F-22, but with major changes to address maintainability and the need for big moving panels and doors on a smaller aircraft. I was never 'read into' the details of LO signatures (even if I was I wouldn't be able to talk much about it) but what is open source is the fact that the F-35 has gone for a different balance between LO, aerodynamic performance and avionics capability, involving less aggressive targets for signature. Time will tell if it's a better balance. Airframe technology was very different to F-22, especially in choice of materials.
Design philosophy - F-22 was, in my view (please feel free to differ) the last of the 'ultimate' fighter projects, along with Typhoon, where the design was driven by very challenging aerodynamic performance requirements, including super cruise. These drove a large, twin engined design, dominated by two very powerful engines, big wings, and fuel. It's no surprise, therefore, that the F-22 weapons bays are relatively low volume - any design of that type will have severe restraints on internal space. It's also no secret that LM Fort Worth had decided some time back that the basic F-22 layout (side intakes, twin tails, blended wing/body) was the way forward for F-35, but with less aggressive air vehicle performance objectives. They may have been right - recent Russian and Chinese designs appear to have gone a similar way. Again, time will tell. F-35 is a more 'balanced design' than F-22, but the constraints of LO (restrictions on external pods as a solution to lack of internal space) still apply.
Avionics Architecture - this is one area where there are a number of significant differences in the way F-35 has gone about its business . The phrase 'it's not like legacy' (by which they meant F-22) was a constant refrain from LM avionics engineers. In particular, the software architecture is totally different, with the state aim of allowing easier downstream insertion of new technology. Upgradeability was a key target from the outset. Is it good enough? I don't know, and nobody else will until it gets into service. All i can say is that F-22 lessons were being heavily 'leveraged' (to use a 'yuk' US word) all the time in F-35 avionics design.
I suppose what i'm trying to put over is that any aircraft design is a response to requirements, and uses the best technology available at acceptable risk. F-35 is a full 20 years on from F-22, so it's not a surprise that it has used what worked on the Raptor, and used new stuff where it was available. It's a very different beast - time will tell if it ticks all the boxes.
Best Regards as ever to those who care about delivering the goods,
Engines
Engines - You might want to be careful there. The public line has always been to play down any signature differences between F-22 and F-35.
In any event. reasoned thoughts and welcome as always. One of the things that troubles me, however, is that exactly the same things were said about F-22 maintainability, before IOC. And here is a chap fixing an F-22:
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/shared/med...-DY859-004.JPG
In avionics terms, clearly the F-35 ditched Ada, which is good; and made a move towards COTS. Some of that may help. However, there are two areas where the F-35 and F-22 are similar.
1 - Stealth means that the process of adding or changing an aperture, or a system that has an aperture associated with it, is not easy, because the antenna or window has to be stealthy and custom-fit to the right hole in the airframe, or you need a new cavity, or because you need more antennas to cover the space around the aircraft. Saab just announced that they were buying an Elisra MAWS for the 39E - and I bet that was easier than trying to swap out the EO-DAS.
2 - The architecture is still similar in that the front-ends are relatively dumb and the big processing is in the ICP. That's not where the rest of the world is going (although it was the only way to go in 1995). So should I want (for example) to take advantage of less costly AESA technology I have to design a full custom device, not just slap on a new array.
In any event. reasoned thoughts and welcome as always. One of the things that troubles me, however, is that exactly the same things were said about F-22 maintainability, before IOC. And here is a chap fixing an F-22:
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/shared/med...-DY859-004.JPG
In avionics terms, clearly the F-35 ditched Ada, which is good; and made a move towards COTS. Some of that may help. However, there are two areas where the F-35 and F-22 are similar.
1 - Stealth means that the process of adding or changing an aperture, or a system that has an aperture associated with it, is not easy, because the antenna or window has to be stealthy and custom-fit to the right hole in the airframe, or you need a new cavity, or because you need more antennas to cover the space around the aircraft. Saab just announced that they were buying an Elisra MAWS for the 39E - and I bet that was easier than trying to swap out the EO-DAS.
2 - The architecture is still similar in that the front-ends are relatively dumb and the big processing is in the ICP. That's not where the rest of the world is going (although it was the only way to go in 1995). So should I want (for example) to take advantage of less costly AESA technology I have to design a full custom device, not just slap on a new array.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
USAF Sgt Quote re Chalk & Cheese F-22/F-35 LO Maintainability
Hmmm.... exactly what is happening in the photo and why and what and any info would be noice ('fixing an F-22' doesn't wash) but I digress...
Another quotable quote quoth them...
USAF praises early performance of Lockheed Martin F-35 06 Nov 2012 Dave Majumdar
US Air Force praises early performance of Lockheed Martin F-35
Another quotable quote quoth them...
USAF praises early performance of Lockheed Martin F-35 06 Nov 2012 Dave Majumdar
"...Sgt Skyler DeBoer, a senior maintainer with the 33rd Fighter Wing, who has previous experience on the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-117 Nighthawk programmes, says the F-35 has the edge on the Raptor. "Compared with the [F-22], this programme is way ahead of where the [F-22] was, software-wise, aircraft-wise," DeBoer says, "Lockheed has made great strides with this aircraft." DeBoer attributes part of the improvement to better maintenance training. F-35 maintainers have received far more extensive instruction at this early stage of the JSF programme than on the F-22, he says....
...Additionally, the F-35's stealth coatings are much easier to work with than those used on the Raptor. Cure times for coating repairs are lower and many of the fasteners and access panels are not coated, further reducing the workload for maintenance crews. According to Lockheed, some of the F-35's radar-absorbent materials are baked into the jet's composite skin, which means the JSF's stealthy signature is not easily degraded."
...Additionally, the F-35's stealth coatings are much easier to work with than those used on the Raptor. Cure times for coating repairs are lower and many of the fasteners and access panels are not coated, further reducing the workload for maintenance crews. According to Lockheed, some of the F-35's radar-absorbent materials are baked into the jet's composite skin, which means the JSF's stealthy signature is not easily degraded."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for coming back.
I'm taking some care to stay the right side of any lines on LO matters, fully aware that a lot of sensitive information has to stay away from 'forum view'. However, the point I was trying to make was that F-35 LO has moved on from F-22, and Spaz's handy quote shows that an amount of information is out there. I absolutely agree that bold claims were made for supportability - I have been told that it was 'better then B-2' but that may not have been saying much..
Your point about apertures is correct, and it's a penalty you pay for a highly integrated airframe and sensor fit. However, it's not insurmountable. Just harder.
You are not quite 100% accurate on avionics architecture - there are a number of 'front end loaded' systems on the aircraft, but you are right that the ICP suites are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Your example of a new AESA array (although that one will be some years off) is one where the system is designed to accept upgraded components. I don't know of any current or 'traditional' radar system that could easily handle a new scanner.
However, nice to swap views..
Best regards as ever
Engines
Thanks for coming back.
I'm taking some care to stay the right side of any lines on LO matters, fully aware that a lot of sensitive information has to stay away from 'forum view'. However, the point I was trying to make was that F-35 LO has moved on from F-22, and Spaz's handy quote shows that an amount of information is out there. I absolutely agree that bold claims were made for supportability - I have been told that it was 'better then B-2' but that may not have been saying much..
Your point about apertures is correct, and it's a penalty you pay for a highly integrated airframe and sensor fit. However, it's not insurmountable. Just harder.
You are not quite 100% accurate on avionics architecture - there are a number of 'front end loaded' systems on the aircraft, but you are right that the ICP suites are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Your example of a new AESA array (although that one will be some years off) is one where the system is designed to accept upgraded components. I don't know of any current or 'traditional' radar system that could easily handle a new scanner.
However, nice to swap views..
Best regards as ever
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
t's no surprise, therefore, that the F-22 weapons bays are relatively low volume - any design of that type will have severe restraints on internal space
Spaz - O ye of little faith.
Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth
Feature - AVHOF: Giving jets a checkup
Engines - It's good that some lessons have been read back, and yes, "better than a B-2" in terms of supportability means "you won Miss Congeniality, but the only other competitor was Rosa Klebb".
Mind you there was an excuse for the B-2, which was that there was only one mission planned. The alert aircraft would have sat in shelters, gorped and sealed and ready to go; the aircraft on training flights could be allowed to degrade, and the fleet would have rotated depot-alert-training on a regular cycle.
Upgrades will have to be much less expensive to develop than the F-22 if the punters are not going to get sticker shock. $0.5-1 bn in annual R&D is $1-2 m a year per aircraft on a 500-aircraft fleet and is still a lot at 1,000-aircraft out in the mid-2020s.
Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth
Feature - AVHOF: Giving jets a checkup
Engines - It's good that some lessons have been read back, and yes, "better than a B-2" in terms of supportability means "you won Miss Congeniality, but the only other competitor was Rosa Klebb".
Mind you there was an excuse for the B-2, which was that there was only one mission planned. The alert aircraft would have sat in shelters, gorped and sealed and ready to go; the aircraft on training flights could be allowed to degrade, and the fleet would have rotated depot-alert-training on a regular cycle.
Upgrades will have to be much less expensive to develop than the F-22 if the punters are not going to get sticker shock. $0.5-1 bn in annual R&D is $1-2 m a year per aircraft on a 500-aircraft fleet and is still a lot at 1,000-aircraft out in the mid-2020s.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO and others,
Useful posts on F-22 LO maintenance, which confirm how hard it has been to keep that jet stealthy. It's been publicly released (and I can confirm) that the F-35 uses a different set of treatments and compounds to achieve LO, one of the main drivers being the need to be able to maintain an LO jet without the need for as many of the special facilities mentioned in the F-22 report.
However, this doesn't mean that LO maintenance won't be a challenge - it will. Yes, my reference to B-2 was made in the knowledge of how bad that aircraft was. As I say, I don't believe the publicity - I try to work on facts. The facts are that F-22 learnt from B-2 and F-35 has learnt from F-22. The US have spent a shedload of money on getting smart people to work the issues. They won't have fixed all the problems. But they will have fixed some.
ORAC, I stand by my view on weapons bay capacity (but please feel free to differ). The F-22 has broad, but relatively shallow bays which were designed for AIM-120s. The two side bays take just one AIM-9X each. Early in the design, they were looking at bigger bays with a better air to ground load out, but that had to be traded out to meet air to air requirements. F-22 has been able to accept 250 pound Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), and there have been test drops of 1000 pound JDAMs, but I've not seen that released to service (anyone know if it has been fielded?)
F-35 bays are deeper than F-22 bays, so as to be able to accommodate the 1000 and 2000 pound stores, plus AIM-120s, as well as SBDs plus AIM-120s.
As I've previously posted, the F-22 is not a bad aircraft - it's an astonishingly good air superiority machine. But it's not a strike aircraft - F-35 is. Different requirements, different result.
Best Regards as ever to all those working to meet those requirements
Engines
Useful posts on F-22 LO maintenance, which confirm how hard it has been to keep that jet stealthy. It's been publicly released (and I can confirm) that the F-35 uses a different set of treatments and compounds to achieve LO, one of the main drivers being the need to be able to maintain an LO jet without the need for as many of the special facilities mentioned in the F-22 report.
However, this doesn't mean that LO maintenance won't be a challenge - it will. Yes, my reference to B-2 was made in the knowledge of how bad that aircraft was. As I say, I don't believe the publicity - I try to work on facts. The facts are that F-22 learnt from B-2 and F-35 has learnt from F-22. The US have spent a shedload of money on getting smart people to work the issues. They won't have fixed all the problems. But they will have fixed some.
ORAC, I stand by my view on weapons bay capacity (but please feel free to differ). The F-22 has broad, but relatively shallow bays which were designed for AIM-120s. The two side bays take just one AIM-9X each. Early in the design, they were looking at bigger bays with a better air to ground load out, but that had to be traded out to meet air to air requirements. F-22 has been able to accept 250 pound Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), and there have been test drops of 1000 pound JDAMs, but I've not seen that released to service (anyone know if it has been fielded?)
F-35 bays are deeper than F-22 bays, so as to be able to accommodate the 1000 and 2000 pound stores, plus AIM-120s, as well as SBDs plus AIM-120s.
As I've previously posted, the F-22 is not a bad aircraft - it's an astonishingly good air superiority machine. But it's not a strike aircraft - F-35 is. Different requirements, different result.
Best Regards as ever to all those working to meet those requirements
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weapons bay on the F22 is indeed limited to 1000lbs bombs but only because they won't compromise (like the F35 has all over its body) and accept something like a bulbous weapon bay door design, it is by far a more flexible and voluminous bay than the one on the F35, certainly compared with the even more limited F35B which IIRC has also a 1000lbs weapon limit (not 100% sure but I recall reading that somewhere).
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KBrock,
I have to disagree, but it's a discussion forum. I'm familiar with the relative sizes of the bays and I don't think the F-22 bays can be described as 'more flexible and voluminous'. If it were they'd put a 2000 pounder in it. But I don't think they can. But happy if we disagree.
The F-35A and F-35C bays were each sized to accept a 2000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. The F-35B bay is the same cross section, but shorter, and accepts a 1000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. Plus other load outs. These bays meet the stated requirements for the variants. F-35B always had the smaller weapon inn its requirement. LM tried for a bigger (2000 pound capable) bay on the STOVL, but physics (weight, drag, space) beat them in the end.
The F-22 bay couldn't accept a 'bulbous' door because it has to get its drag down far enough to do super cruise. The F-35 has certainly compromised 'all over its body'. So did the F-22. That's called the design process.
What might help is this: there is no mileage in trying to compare the F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their designs are equally good, but with different compromises. The big difference is that there are 180 ish F-22s, and there will very probably be over 3,500 F-35s. Not 'good', not 'bad', just different.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
I have to disagree, but it's a discussion forum. I'm familiar with the relative sizes of the bays and I don't think the F-22 bays can be described as 'more flexible and voluminous'. If it were they'd put a 2000 pounder in it. But I don't think they can. But happy if we disagree.
The F-35A and F-35C bays were each sized to accept a 2000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. The F-35B bay is the same cross section, but shorter, and accepts a 1000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. Plus other load outs. These bays meet the stated requirements for the variants. F-35B always had the smaller weapon inn its requirement. LM tried for a bigger (2000 pound capable) bay on the STOVL, but physics (weight, drag, space) beat them in the end.
The F-22 bay couldn't accept a 'bulbous' door because it has to get its drag down far enough to do super cruise. The F-35 has certainly compromised 'all over its body'. So did the F-22. That's called the design process.
What might help is this: there is no mileage in trying to compare the F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their designs are equally good, but with different compromises. The big difference is that there are 180 ish F-22s, and there will very probably be over 3,500 F-35s. Not 'good', not 'bad', just different.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 4th Dec 2013 at 18:27. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Only USAians would care about maintaining F-22 stealf. But anyways....
still no explanation about the particular photo cited by 'LO' earlier.
F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 07 Apr 2011 Shane McGlaun
DailyTech - F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22
still no explanation about the particular photo cited by 'LO' earlier.
F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 07 Apr 2011 Shane McGlaun
“...With the F-35 being the newer aircraft, it has more advanced radar-absorbing coatings on the surface than the F-22. Lockheed has announced that it is now integrating some of the more advanced coatings the F-35 uses onto the F-22 fighters coming off the assembly line.
"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president & general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable & we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, & the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."..."
"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president & general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable & we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, & the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."..."
As Engines has stated, these are very different platforms for very different purposes. I wouldn't say "the F-22 isn't a bad aircraft", I would say it is a magnificent aircraft for Air Supremacy - exactly what it says on the tin. The whole idea of an uncompromising design ethic comes from its intended role - remember, they did exactly the same with the F-15. "Not a pound for air-to-ground." The later development there was massively successful, but came at a price to the original role. Of course.
Back to today (or tomorrow in the case of F-35), it's designed as a light strike fighter. It will do AD for itself to a point, but is unlikely to match F-22 in that area - again, not designed to, but gradually being talked up in that area.
Horses for courses and a lot yet to be proven.
If you think of F-22 as as a 21st century F-15 and F-35 as a 21st century F-16/Harrier, it makes sense.
Back to today (or tomorrow in the case of F-35), it's designed as a light strike fighter. It will do AD for itself to a point, but is unlikely to match F-22 in that area - again, not designed to, but gradually being talked up in that area.
Horses for courses and a lot yet to be proven.
If you think of F-22 as as a 21st century F-15 and F-35 as a 21st century F-16/Harrier, it makes sense.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
As a companion to the 'ORAC' graphic above: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%20f-22%20brief.pdf (2.4Mb)
If I was looking to do air-to-mud from high level, above cloud in an contested environment would I prefer a:
F-35B carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120
or
F-22 carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120 + 2 x AIM9 + 480 x 20mm
(Clearly I also know which one has lower RCS, goes further, higher, faster, bleeds less energy and can fire or release its weapons from a greater stand-off range.)
F-35B carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120
or
F-22 carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120 + 2 x AIM9 + 480 x 20mm
(Clearly I also know which one has lower RCS, goes further, higher, faster, bleeds less energy and can fire or release its weapons from a greater stand-off range.)
Spaz - If you follow the first link I gave this morning and scroll through the photos at top right, you will find the pic that I linked, with the caption:
Airman 1st Class Keenan McCormack, 325th MXS Low Observable apprentice, chisels damaged coating off of a panel Aug. 1 in the LO shop at Tyndall Air Force Base. The 325th Maintenance Squadron Low Observable makes sure the F-22 raptors at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the Low Observable coatings on the aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Alex Echols)
CM - An AV-8B/F-16 replacement is fine if it had an AV-8B/F-16 price tag, for acquisition and operation. The B and C, even at full rate, are much, much closer to the F-22.
Airman 1st Class Keenan McCormack, 325th MXS Low Observable apprentice, chisels damaged coating off of a panel Aug. 1 in the LO shop at Tyndall Air Force Base. The 325th Maintenance Squadron Low Observable makes sure the F-22 raptors at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the Low Observable coatings on the aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Alex Echols)
CM - An AV-8B/F-16 replacement is fine if it had an AV-8B/F-16 price tag, for acquisition and operation. The B and C, even at full rate, are much, much closer to the F-22.