The Fighter Mafia may win again

a reply to: C0bzz


Why would countries want to buy the F-22? Beats me!

Ask Japan, Australia, Israel....Likely much more suited to Canada than a single engine platform.

I'm neither a fan of, nor anti-F-35. But if one looks at the performance levels of the two platforms and the fact that their costs are in the same 'area code', The F-22 flat out blows the F-35 away. It's not even close.

Now add in the technological advances that the F-35 enjoys into a new F-22 variant-plus advent engines, etc. and nothing would touch it for decades! (The bugs that the original F-22 suffered through would be largely avoided in a new variant, as well....)

There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't, especially an upgraded version.

Besides, one doesn't NEED a huge number of these two platforms when combined into a package. The kill ratio would be unmatched by any nation well into the future.


Hey! I'm just a fan, no expert by any means. Being a fan allows thinking outside the box at times. There may be many reasons why my 'thought' wouldn't work, especially political ones.

It is an interesting thought.....

a reply to: nwtrucker


I think the market for the f-22 would be huge. I'd feel comfortable sharing the technology with maybe only 3-4 allies though. I don't know if I trust Israel with even the F-35 at this point. They popped us hard with the Lavi. Could you imagine if we gave the psychopath monarchies and despots we get in bed with in the middle east the F-22 like we forked over our best 4th gen platforms? That's where the line has to be drawn. So where does that leave the acceptable export list? Japan, UK, Australia, and Canada? Who wants but would never get: Israel, Italy, South Korea, Saudi Arabia(throw up in mouth), and wouldn't CNN and FOX be fun to watch if Taiwan were to get some. I don't think anyone on the second list would be on the list for the party.


If the Government were a business: export the "block I" aircraft only; by law, then we could charge what ever the hell we want for them and I bet they would all gladly pay. They'd be priceless really.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

For what it's going to cost, even with us buying almost 200, very few nations are going to be able to buy more than a handful. At the current $100M price tag for an F-35 nations with orders for fewer than 50 aircraft are looking at possibly having to cut some. At what they're going to be looking at for the Raptor, it would be a huge chunk of a FY budget, even for more fiscally secure nations.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In the end though do you take a rerun raptor you can have in 10 years or a clean sheet design ready in 20? With the way things have gone with projects the last couple decades would the price per unit not be similar all in, or would the production run for a raptor 2.0 just be too small to be economical?

Just thought I'd put that out there.

a reply to: Bfirez

That's the other reason the generational system has to go. You can make a super maneuverable stealthy fighter using largely existing technology, if you ignore the entire 5th or 6th generation label.

a reply to: Zaphod58


How long until they offer the F-15SE as a cheaper new build air superiority fighter than the F-22? Actually makes more sense than the F-22. Keeps the plants in MO open, keeps the supply lines flowing, keeps Boeing in business fighter wise, uprated engines, stealth, win-win? It isn't as stealthy as the F-35 or F-22 but an F-15SE might be good enough until the 6th generation arrives.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

They already have with the usual, it's not stealthy enough. It's also based off the E model, which is an awful dogfighter.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Presumably wouldn't the C be an awful dogfighter loaded down with so much extra fuel? Just an idea but I'm sure with a little bit of adaptation the SE could be a great dogfighter. It doesn't have to be weighed down like the Es were. Honestly wish they'd let the hornet evolve 1 more time. The super hornet is awfully underrated because of all the sentimental feelings left behind by the F-14. It's reliable, does everything well, and has shown it can fit the "every role" role.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

I'd have to go with no, since the C is 104-0 in air to air combat. It's more than just extra fuel. The frame is heavier because the engines are more powerful, and other changes.

If they're going to make the SE a dogfighter they're going to have to convert a C model, which means basically starting over.

a reply to: Zaphod58


I just think it's unfair to say that the C/D is so much better than the E when; from what I can see, it has never been flown without the extra fuel tanks or the bomb racks. I can't find anything with any evidence of the USAF flying the E without the bomb racks or CFTs which are removable. The F-15k and sg are also based off of the E model and both are excellent multi-role fighters and more than matches for su-27/30/35, especially BVR. A quick check showed that the F-15E is only a few hundred more pounds completely empty than the F-15C.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

There's a lot of structural beefing in the E. And while it's only a few hundred pounds heavier sitting ion its wheels, at 9Gs in a dogfight that's significant weight to have to throw around.

The K and the SG are also more advanced than the E.

When they closed the F-22 lines early, did they do anything different from a usual end of life shutdown? Being as though the manufacturer would probably be aware that it will be a massively capable platform past F-35 and well into 6th Gen it would make good sense (in hindsight) to capture all lessons learned from every station in case they ever restarted?

Might be an investment pay off now?

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: Zaphod58

d both are excellent multi-role fighters and more than matches for su-27/30/35, especially BVR.

How do you know that - gen question, how long do you get at BVR - 2 Missiles?

Because I think this would eat anything other than the Raptor WVR:

From the OP article.

Senior USAF officers have recently told CA that re-starting F-22 production would be prohibitively expensive, and some even ruled it out completely.

It's probably pretty unlikely they'll start building more F-22s. And despite the hangar queen reputation it is probably the best fighter ever made so far. Advances in IRST and weapons are starting to eat into it's advantages and the future will be UCAVs IMO. The F-35 really has to be a success and take on the future requirements...

a reply to: Forensick

All the tooling is still around in storage in S. Cali. The real issue though will be to set up another production facility, and get the man power re-trained on how to build them. That will take some time.
If this actually goes ahead, I'll bet all those people that used to work on the F-22 lines will be getting phone calls from Lockheed.

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: JimTSpock

Which is funny, because according to quotes by HASC members, one reason why they ordered the study is because of interest expressed by high ranking AF personnel. So someone is saying one thing and doing another.

The SE also uses conformal bays to house the missiles so you lose the conformal tanks but have all the added structure.

That said, the E is the only aircraft to shoot down another with a LGB.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Why would countries want to buy the F-22? Beats me!

Ask Japan, Australia, Israel....Likely much more suited to Canada than a single engine platform.

Ok.

Defence analysis shows that the F-22 is not the right aircraft for Australia's air combat needs. The F-22 is without doubt a highly capable fighter aircraft, but we need a truly multi-role aircraft able to conduct the full range of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air combat missions.

Defence never has made a formal request to acquire the F-22. Nor have we ever asked US officials to start a process to lift the Congressional ban on selling the F-22. It is hardly unusual that the US should decide that some of its military technology is not for export, and hence the F-22 remains prohibited from export by US Congressional legislation.

www.defence.gov.au...

I am Australian. Australian DOD has already stated several times that the F-22 is not suitable.

I'm neither a fan of, nor anti-F-35. But if one looks at the performance levels of the two platforms and the fact that their costs are in the same 'area code', The F-22 flat out blows the F-35 away. It's not even close.

F-35 is projected to be ~85 million dollars in 2018 dollars when FRP production begins.
F-22 was ~150 million dollars in 2009 dollars, applying inflation this is closer to 170 million dollars.

170/85 = 2.

The existing F-22 doesn't meet the needs of Australia, so used Raptors are not suitable. A super-Raptor would be too expensive.

Now add in the technological advances that the F-35 enjoys into a new F-22 variant-plus advent engines, etc. and nothing would touch it for decades! (The bugs that the original F-22 suffered through would be largely avoided in a new variant, as well....)

There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't, especially an upgraded version.

F-22 still lacks fuel capacity, the upgrades would push the cost even higher, push the weight even higher, would require a large and expensive development program. Also your original proposal was to export the original 186, not new build super-Raptors. Also the weapons bays are significantly smaller in the F-22, the F-22 cannot carry many munitions that the F-35 can.

I don't know about Japan and Israel.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JimTSpock

Which is funny, because according to quotes by HASC members, one reason why they ordered the study is because of interest expressed by high ranking AF personnel. So someone is saying one thing and doing another.

And it wouldn't possibly have to do with any possible lockmart plants in anybody's district, now would it?

or the future retired Brig Gen Shirley U. R. Jo-King, VP of government development at lockmart