USAF Woes

[Colin Parkinson]

They actually don't have the tooling anymore.

I'll try to find some sources in the morning, but if I recall, the USAF actually explored that option.  The crates that were supposed to contain the tooling, blueprints, etc etc - when the USAF went to explore the option, the crates were empty.  From what I remember of the articles (This was in various news articles within the last year) - it was good ol' Lockheed Martin that 'lost' the tooling & design specs.

If they did start up the production line again somehow, the cost could be offset by selling them to select allies.  The F-22 isn't super secret, brand new tech anymore.  They have been operational for quite some time, been running the airshow circuit for a while now, and have deployments all over the world.  Given how many allied air-forces are recapitalizing their fleets right now, it would be an option.

If the Americans wanted to have their own version of an upgraded F-22, and have a version available for export - to help them feel better about keeping their sensitive tech in their own hands, I would understand.  Upgraded engines, radar, various systems, would make one legendary lethal airplane even more lethal.

Charging people for Treason might fix that  [

 

[CougarKing]

More on the above: now becoming an election issue for key US congressmen?

Defense News

Facing Election Fight, Forbes Pushes F-22 Revival
Lara Seligman, Defense News 5:24 p.m. EDT April 21, 2016

WASHINGTON — Facing a competitive election battle in a new district, US Rep. Randy Forbes is leading a popular, if improbable, charge to restart production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 stealth fighter jet.

The longtime Virginia Republican recently spearheaded a proposal for this year’s defense policy bill that would urge the Air Force to look into restarting the F-22 Raptor production line. Although Forbes does not sit on the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee, the chairman incorporated Forbes’ language into the subcommittee’s markup, released Tuesday.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Reality check?  At Defense One:

Want More F-22s? Here’s What That Would Take
...
Finding the Money

First, the Air Force would need to find a boatload of money that it doesn’t have. The service is already buying fewer F-35 Joint Strike Fighters than it wants to because of the budget crunch. It also has plans to buy aerial refueling tankers, stealth bombers, radar planes, search-and-rescue helicopters, jet trainers, a new Air Force One, and ICBM-security helicopters. “If the F-22 is restarted, it will likely come at the expense of some of those other aircraft programs,” said Todd Harrison, a Pentagon budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Two years before Lockheed shuttered the F-22’s final assembly line, a RAND study calculate that restarting production to build 75 new jets would cost $17 billion. Adjust for inflation and boost production to 194 Raptors, and the total price tag likely approaches $30 billion...

Reengineering the Plane

A second problem, or perhaps an opportunity, is that the new Raptor would need new electronic guts. The original electronic specifications are long obsolete; the plane first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005. Indeed, the Air Force is now amid a $1.5 billion effort to bring all 183 existing F-22s up to a single software and hardware standard.

Redesigned, more modern electronics could breathe new life and longevity into the F-22. First off, the prospective new Raptors won’t start arriving for five years or even longer, meaning that to build them to today’s standard means they will be half a decade old coming off the line. For another thing, much of the internal hardware is dated, so it will have to be created from scratch anyway.

Some have suggested equipping the new F-22s — call them F-22Bs — with the more advanced computer processors and radar of its younger cousin, the F-35...

Finding a Place to Build it

Then there’s finding space to build the plane and its almost innumerable specialty components. Lockheed, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney were the three big F-22 contractors, but there were more than 1,000 F-22 suppliers from firms in 44 states, according to the Congressional Research Service. Lockheed said 25,000 jobs were directly tied to the project.

The factory floor spaces that once assembled the world’s most complex fighter jet have long since been given over to newer projects...

After the final F-22 was delivered to the Air Force in early 2012, all of the tooling and structures were packed up and sent to the Sierra Army Depot, in northeast California near the Nevada border.

Even if new space could be found and the tooling set up once more, it would take considerable effort to assemble and train a new workforce to build the F-22...
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/04/want-more-f-22s-heres-what-would-take/127729/

Mark
Ottawa
 

 

[Kirkhill]

A second problem, or perhaps an opportunity, is that the new Raptor would need new electronic guts. The original electronic specifications are long obsolete; the plane first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005. Indeed, the Air Force is now amid a $1.5 billion effort to bring all 183 existing F-22s up to a single software and hardware standard.

Heavens to Betsy! Shocked am I!

The Raptor has been flying for 19 years and in operation for 11 and its software and hardware is obsolete even before it has been stabiliized?

Meanwhile the F35, according to some, couldn't possibly be accepted into service before all its software issues are resolved for all 2500+ aircraft expected to be manufactured over the next 40 years.

 

[a_majoor]

Possibly the biggest issue is the proposed restart of F-22 production is still simply too small to get either economies of scale in the building, or to provide the USAF with sufficient air superiority fighters to deal with multiple contingencies. I would say if this idea is to have merit, by the end of the program there should be 4-500 F-22's in service (and these F-22s should be prepared to be fitted with conformal fuel tanks, the Boeing "stealth box" weapons carriage pod and whatever other goodies are needed to make the plane much more flexible and versatile in the long run).

If the F-22 blueprints and tooling are gone, then perhaps Northrop Grunmann can roll out 3-400 F-23's instead.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Somebody is forgetting a big deal here though: It wouldn't solve the problem of the Navy (even though the Navy might find it easy to keep on buying F-18E/F/G's as need be until it can find is own nextgen fighter). But, more importantly, it would put the Marines in a very bad spot: The Harrier lines are closed and unlikely to be restarted, and without the '35B's they will lose accompanying air power.

 

[tomahawk6]

The F-35 should be in the mix but its still having teething issues.

 

[SupersonicMax]

These hypothetical new F-22s won't replace the F-35.  Different missions, different requirements, different specifications.

No aircraft is ever fully mature in its software development.  Even our (old) Hornets undergo regular software upgrades and yes, bugs are found.

As far as physical mods to the F-22, forget it!  It will compromise it's stealthiness and I don't believe the USAF is willing to compromise this on the F-22.

 

[Good2Golf]

These hypothetical new F-22s won't replace the F-35.  Different missions, different requirements, different specifications.

No aircraft is ever fully mature in its software development.  Even our (old) Hornets undergo regular software upgrades and yes, bugs are found.

As far as physical mods to the F-22, forget it!  It will compromise it's stealthiness and I don't believe the USAF is willing to compromise this on the F-22.

If the Government's upcoming whitepaper reduces emphasis on global (extra-continental) strike, and reinforces the Country/Continental Air Defense mission, then F-22 would actually align more closely with Government policy than the F-35.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

A hypothetical Future F22 would just about be a perfect fit for Canada, wouldn't it?

It ticks all of the boxes (even the stupid ones):

- range
- twin engine
- proven design
- price (probably, if a big enough production run were to get going again).
- fully compatible with the NORAD mission

There is just that pesky issue of getting Congress to actually authorize export....

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't think they'd ever produce enough of the F-22 to get it sub $100M USD, which means it's a non starter.

 

[Good2Golf]

I know you're not saying it specifically, PC, but there is the spirit of "Never say never."  Canada has been permitted (using our own money, of course) to procure NOFORN equipment before...

Regards
G2G

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm sure we could get permission to purchase, but aren't some F-22s better than more F-35? That $9B is only going to get tighter... Or "deferred"

Edited to remove specific numbers

 

[jmt18325]

Yes.  But I think we'd need 24 at the bare minimum, perhaps 30.  Otherwise, it would be hard to maintain 4 pairs at all times.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Stealth vs SEAD--very detailed piece at War on the Rocks:

Low-Altitude Penetration and Electronic Warfare: Stuck on Denial, Part III
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/low-altitude-penetration-stuck-on-denial-part-iii/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Defense One has an article about the cost of restarting the Raptor.The cost would be $30b with purchase of 193 aircraft.The article suggests selling the F-22 ro close allies as a way to lower the cost.To do that Congress would have to repeal the Obey Amendment.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/04/want-more-f-22s-heres-what-would-take/127729/?oref=d_brief_nl

 

[MarkOttawa]

No new F-22s--at War on the Rocks by F-15E WSO:

Out of Time: Do Not Revive the F-22
...
Designed to last 30 years and 8,000 hours, new F-22s would approach retirement in 2060 if fielded in 2030. While the F-22 will remain the best air-to-air fighter in the world for decades, the same cannot be said for the F-22 as an air superiority fighter. The real threat to the F-22 is probably not a faster, stealthier, more maneuverable fighter. Anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems and highly mobile surface-to-air missiles provide a relatively low-cost asymmetric response with a persistent, enduring, and capable threat that is not easily countered. The most potent of these systems are specifically designed to counter stealth. It should be no surprise that they are being built by rising militaries of Russia, China, India, and now Iran. Not only is this detail lacking in a majority of pro-F-22 arguments, it also ignores the fact that these systems were developed after the YF-22 had won the fly-off competition.  Why launch a fleet of fighters to counter the F-22 when an adversary need only turn on a ground-based system? Jet-versus-jet comparisons are interesting, but not as compelling to an organization primarily concerned with force projection into foreign lands.

Beyond the avionics, the only things warranting improvement in a new F-22 are range and payload. Those also happen to be the only two things that can’t be changed, thanks to the mold-line restriction inherent in maintaining any semblance of stealth. Addressing these limitations broaches the FB-22 concept, further fragments the discussion, and starts looking more like an entirely new aircraft.

The current low-density, high-demand Raptor fleet is an evolution of preparation for air supremacy, but the character of air warfare is changing rapidly. The F-22 should not be resurrected; instead, the Air Force should continue its evolution to match the pace of the world. Time marches on; it’s time to get in step.

Maj. Mike “Pako” Benitez is an F-15E Strike Eagle Weapons Systems Officer stationed in Europe. He has over 2,000 flight hours, including 250+ combat missions spanning five combat deployments in the Marine Corps and Air Force, and is well-versed in F-22 combat integration. Maj Benitez is a graduate of the US Air Force Weapons School and a former Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) fellow. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. Government.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/out-of-time-do-not-revive-the-f-22/

Can RCAF members go public like that?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

What about USAF striking at low-level?  Conclusion of a very informed and detailed article by an F-15E WSO:

Stealth is King, the World is Flat
...
Until the operational culture changes, the Air Force will continue to masquerade low-altitude training as operationally viable despite not being organized, trained, or equipped to make it so. Make no mistake, exploiting the extreme low-altitude environment will ensure long-term viable interdiction and survivability well beyond the shelf-life of medium altitude stealth. Let’s stop going through the problem and seek to fight in the extremes again.

Maj. Mike “Pako” Benitez is an F-15E Strike Eagle Weapons Systems Officer with over 2,000 flight hours, including 250+ combat missions in the Marine Corps and Air Force. A graduate of the US Air Force Weapons School and a former Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) fellow, he is low altitude qualified to 100 feet in the F-15E (day and night). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. Government.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/stealth-is-king-the-world-is-flat/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Stupid question from an ignoramus: "Low altitude qualified to 100 feet", does that mean he can fly as low as 100 feet, or that he can't fly higher than 100 feet?  ;D

May not be stupid question as it seems, BTW, because around here (I live in the farmland between St-Hubert airport and garrison Farnham) there are many Griffons that fly a lot lower than 100 feet.

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, not a stupid question, but 480-540 kts at 100' would be pretty spicy for the non-woppity-woppity types.  Then again, some seized-rotor guys are certifiable.  With "mixed traffic", helos below 100', jets above 200' was a common 'rule'...one day doing 75', I had a Luftwaffe F-4G pass BELOW me with "a few knots on the clock!"  After my rotors refilled the air from the vacuum left behind the Rhino's slip-stream, the ride smoothed out again.  When I got back to the base, I thought I saw the German ground crew picking pine cones out of the leading edge notches of an F-4's wings...