Adios F/A-22?

[mighty gorgon]

... these same people thought that the B-1 and B-2 were unneeded, too.

Ummm... because they are?

The B-1 and the B-2 are based on an out-dated operational concept. The B-2 is one of the most wasteful programs ever and the B-1's only claim to fame is a cameo as the testbed for Crossbow-1 in the 80's classic Real Genius.

I'm all for a strong military arm, don't get me wrong. But I think the benefits simply do not justify the insane costs of this pogram.

...and the B-52 are still flying...

"General "Buck" Turgidson: If the pilot's good, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that thing in so low, oh it's a sight to see. You wouldn't expect it with a big ol' plane like a '52, but varrrooom! The jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard! ..." (Dr. Strangelove)

[Memphis Egyptologist]

One thing to keep in mind is cost overruns. Will the F-22 sink the country further into debt, but be worth the price? The Navy A-12 Avenger II bomber program is a good example of such overruns. The program went over budget and behind schedule until then Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney cancelled it in 1991.

[Phyrox]

"General "Buck" Turgidson: If the pilot's good, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that thing in so low, oh it's a sight to see. You wouldn't expect it with a big ol' plane like a '52, but varrrooom! The jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard! ..." (Dr. Strangelove)

ah, one of my favorite movie moments of all time.

I can see the reasoning for continued F/A-22 development, I just don't think it is more powerful than the counterarguments.

I think a more pressing need is a replacement or upgrade for the A-10s...an effective, survivable all-weather/night CAS aircraft.

[David Hingtgen]

A330-200? Interesting.

PS--while the 767 tankers will/could be converted to tankers at Wichita, they will certainly be built at Everett. AFAIK, some will be new-builds, others will be conversions from pax ones. (AA and UA are dumping their 767-200's, could be a quick interim fix until purpose-built 767 tankers come about)

F-22 not in service until 2006-2009? Doubt it. 27FS gets them in 2005, ready or not. Then the 71 and 94 squadrons. Heck, the F-15E wasn't really "fully operational" during Desert Storm! There's a big difference between being delivered, intial operating capability, and FULLY developed. There will be F-22's at Langley next year, and if something happens, they will fly, regardless of if they're only 80-90% functional, systems-wise. (Because 80% of an F-22's avionics is still a heck of a lot more than a perfect F-15C MSIP) Unless there's a problem to the point of "it can't fly nor shoot", F-22's will go to Langley soon. Just because it can't do the fancy wireless-AMRAAM-interlink-data with other F-22's is no reason to hold up the service entry. (just an example, it's the only nifty feature that could cause problems I can think of off the top of my head) Heck, the F-16C still doesn't have its major design feature functional yet (vs the F-16A), and it's been nearly 20 years! (Yup, the extended fin base is hollow, just waiting for a system that'll neve come).

A-12: the one program Cheney cancelled that eveyone agrees was a good decision. (It should have been canceled at the first design sketch though, that's not a plane for carriers, and it's barely a plane at all)

::edit:: Anyone have current stats for actual in-service USAF F-15C numbers? Production numbers are worthless. A lot of out F-15A's are either with a few ANG squads, in the desert, or given to Israel. As well as a significant number of F-15C's. How many F-15C's do we actually have right now, in USAF front-line squadrons? I'm wondering if 339 (or now 276) might actually be able to do a fairly decent job at replacing them, assuming we are talking about using 100% of the F-22's to replace F-15C's and nothing else. (If for some reason we desperately needed more air-to-air planes quickly, late-model F-15E's with the CFT's removed would be equal if not superior to the F-15C for air-to-air)

Edited April 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Noyhauser]

It looks like the 767 will be brand new models.... from what I have read. Its to continue the production lines, not a rebuild.

-22 not in service until 2006-2009? Doubt it. 27FS gets them in 2005, ready or not.

If it doesn't get in production, it means it won't get in service because a physical plane won't exist. It needs to pass its final test and eval stage or its not going to be produced at all.

Unless there's a problem to the point of "it can't fly nor shoot"

And thats the problem. I know it won't be held up if it has little niggling problems, but Its got a few big ones. Read the GVO report, Its avionics shut down on average once every 25 hours, and those are just the major ones. Also the first production batch will be limited to 155 Fighters (if it does even get into production) because Intel doesn't produce the Chips anymore.

[Uxi]

Heh bureaucratic inertia is the name of the game. The AF's own budgets are as much to blame as any of the Congress maneuverings. That said, I defintely hope Sen. McCain loses on this. I hope somewhere along the line we can get more F-22's than this order is for... It'd be nice if they could get to the numbers of the original order but I'm not holding my breath.

As far as Iraq. I was THERE from Jan to June of last year. 90% of those people were not just happy but jubilant at our presence. We always knew the honeymoon was gonna end, though. We expected it much sooner. Help them set up a government and the ability to defend themeselves and we'll be gone. I think it's not that bad to draw Al-Qaeda-types into a fight either, but that's neither here nor there.

[Noyhauser]

::edit::  Anyone have current stats for actual in-service USAF F-15C numbers?  Production numbers are worthless.  A lot of out F-15A's are either with a few ANG squads, in the desert, or given to Israel.  As well as a significant number of F-15C's.  How many F-15C's do we actually have right now, in USAF front-line squadrons?  I'm wondering if 339 (or now 276) might actually be able to do a fairly decent job at replacing them, assuming we are talking about using 100% of the F-22's to replace F-15C's and nothing else.  (If for some reason we desperately needed more air-to-air planes quickly, late-model F-15E's with the CFT's removed would be equal if not superior to the F-15C for air-to-air)

Okay this is what I can get for you.

there are 736 F-15 Total (of all types)

520 F-15 A/B/C/D, (110 in the ANG, 11 Test, 18 in store.)

216 F-15 E (4 test)

Active squardons

11 F-15 Squadron, 6 F-15E

3 reserve F-15 squadrons(a/b only)

Edited April 15, 2004 by Noyhauser

[Mislovrit]

Noyhauser, where can I find the best info on how well Dassault did in the Korean F-X competition? In my brief tour of the web earlier, I did see a mention that they did something like "1.3% better", but elsewhere it was said that no inside information was available (and presumably Dassault was voicing sour grapes).

Links to information on the Korean F-X competition.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/fx-rok.htm

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publica...020415/aw48.htm

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/skorea_f15k.htm

[legios]

Where to start. How about we start with nullifying the rumor that the B-1 and B-2 were worthless.

The B-1 made the USSR completely redesign their integrated air defense (IAD) network to deal with a low flying/high speed threat. The B-1 could effectively penetrate the defenses that Soviets had been fielding and combined with ALCM's, the B-1's could potentially hit several targets before being intercepted. This made the Soviets spend BILLIONS and helped lead to their eventual collapse.

The B-2 proves it's worth over and over by not needing the huge amounts of support aircraft that normal strike aircraft need. When I've helped plan strikes, we've needed to use dozens of aircraft just to get a couple of actual bomb droppers to the target. However, when I've flown with B-2's, all we do is stay out of their way. They come in, strike their targets, and leave without talking to anyone or asking for any help.

The A-12 was costly, overweight, and behind schedule. Of course it was a completely new design that incorporated a lot of new, untested technology. It really wasn't a surprise to anyone that it had growing pains. However, when it was cancelled, it was probably only a few years from flying. Instead, it was cancelled outright and all that money was wasted. In addition, since the A-6 was already being retired, the Navy had to start a whole new program. That program (the superhornet) is just now getting to the fleet. The end result is that the Navy spent billions more and got a much inferior aircraft than it would have had it just stuck with the A-12.

The F/A-22 is desperately needed. There are scenarios now that the Navy considers unwin-able or marginally win-able in the air-to-air arena. The AF has better aircraft/systems than we do, but I bet they are facing the same problems. Everyone that is bashing the F-22 is basing their opinions on 3 wars...The 2 Gulf wars and the Balkans. However Iraq had an inept, poorly motivated airforce and the Serbs had few aircraft at all. I can guarentee that countries such as Syria, N.Korea, and especially China would contest the US for air superiority. Let's not plan on fighting the last war...let's plan for the next one.

[Phyrox]

The F/A-22 is desperately needed. There are scenarios now that the Navy considers unwin-able or marginally win-able in the air-to-air arena. The AF has better aircraft/systems than we do, but I bet they are facing the same problems. Everyone that is bashing the F-22 is basing their opinions on 3 wars...The 2 Gulf wars and the Balkans. However Iraq had an inept, poorly motivated airforce and the Serbs had few aircraft at all. I can guarentee that countries such as Syria, N.Korea, and especially China would contest the US for air superiority. Let's not plan on fighting the last war...let's plan for the next one.

I think calling it desperately needed is a bit of an overstatement.

And I think the reason some people here don't seem to think losing the F-22 program would be that bad is that they are planning on fighting the next war, which they thing will not be against Syria, N.Korea or China. This "war of terror" thing seems far from over to me (or anyone in the Pentagon), and funds should go to making the waging of THAT war easier for our troops. The F-22 probably isn't the best use of funds in that case. With unlimited money, and an army with plenty of force reserves we things might be different. As it is, I (and several others here) think that the best plan for fighting the next war just doesn't need an F-22.

The U.S. military could use those funds more effectively elsewere.

[Druna Skass]

PPS---know why nobody buys Russian planes? Customer service/support is zilch. Need a new engine? Wait 6 years.

Sh!t you wait longer than that with mircosoft's customer support.

China should be reason enough not to axe the 22. They're playing a big game of catch-up and it looks like all the U.S. is doing is sitting on it's laurels. Iraq and all those low level air-forces aren't the ones to use as exapmles. If anything compare the USAF to one that could actualy put up a fight.

[SupremeKaioshin]

One thing to keep in mind is cost overruns. Will the F-22 sink the country further into debt, but be worth the price? The Navy A-12 Avenger II bomber program is a good example of such overruns. The program went over budget and behind schedule until then Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney cancelled it in 1991.

*sniff* *cry*

What a beautiful aircraft wasted

I can just picture those with the JSF launching off the USS Reagan and USS Bush CVN'S.

[the white drew carey]

Legios- Sorry, you see it one way, I see it another. You have not nullified any rumor nor swayed opinion.

[Anubis]

I don't know, I think the B-1's and B-2's have proved their usefulness many times, and we will keep using them effectively.

Especially the B-2. Damn thing is so quiet and hard to see, it's great. I was out on the flightline at Nellis once, and two of them stopped by for whatever reason, right overhead low, came in and landed. Made as much noise as my Sentra as they flew overhead. Amazing for a plane that big.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Anubis

[Memphis Egyptologist]

*sniff* *cry*

What a beautiful aircraft wasted 

I can just picture those with the JSF launching off the USS Reagan and USS Bush CVN'S.

The Full size mockup of the A-12 Avenger 2 is being preserved for future display in a Texas Museum:

A-12 Mockup

Edited April 15, 2004 by Memphis Egyptologist

[legios]

White Drew Carey:

I actually work with the stuff everyday and my current job deals with future advances and future threats. I do not need to sway you since I KNOW what's going on. Most of you guys are just guessing.

Phyrox:

The war on terror is not the next war. The war on terror will go on for years and years and it is doubtful that it will ever be won conclusively. The "next" war is the next war we will be fighting against a state government, and it is inevitable. We need to gear up to fight this threat. Noone will be able to match us globaly for a long time...but there are several states that will be able to match us locally. China and India will be able to dictate policy in East Asia if we do not continue to meet their challenges. Use spec-ops and intelligence to deal with terrorists.

You do not want to build for the lowest threat...you want to prepare for the greatest threat.

Also remember that in order to defeat terrorists, we may have to fight a conventional war. Afghanistan began as a conventional war. Conflicts in Syria and Libya would also be conventional wars.

[Anubis]

White Drew Carey:

I actually work with the stuff everyday and my current job deals with future advances and future threats. I do not need to sway you since I KNOW what's going on. Most of you guys are just guessing.

Phyrox:

The war on terror is not the next war. The war on terror will go on for years and years and it is doubtful that it will ever be won conclusively. The "next" war is the next war we will be fighting against a state government, and it is inevitable. We need to gear up to fight this threat. Noone will be able to match us globaly for a long time...but there are several states that will be able to match us locally. China and India will be able to dictate policy in East Asia if we do not continue to meet their challenges. Use spec-ops and intelligence to deal with terrorists.

You do not want to build for the lowest threat...you want to prepare for the greatest threat.

Also remember that in order to defeat terrorists, we may have to fight a conventional war. Afghanistan began as a conventional war. Conflicts in Syria and Libya would also be conventional wars.

Well said.

[Phyrox]

eh, I'm not convinced...your job aside.

I never shouted for an end to the F-22, but now that someone has proposed it...I won't shed any tears if it goes away.

It still seems like an ineffective use of valuable (and quite limited) financial resourses. Is it a good idea? Sure. Is it the best use of those resources? I think not.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Phyrox

[mighty gorgon]

White Drew Carey:

I actually work with the stuff everyday and my current job deals with future advances and future threats. I do not need to sway you since I KNOW what's going on. Most of you guys are just guessing.

Even if I partially agree with your argument (F22 not needed for current "wars", but needed for new "possible wars"), please smooth a little your rethoric: I am 100% shure that the captain of the TITANIC thought he *KNEW BETTER* than everybody else in the ship on what to do... and we all know the results (besides, it is extremely easy to demonstrate that NOBODY REALLY KNOW "WHAT'S GOING ON").

So here are my 22c (F22 cents):

The F22 should stay... It is too expensive and probably overrrated for current conflicts, BUT the US must keep some kind of leading edge on high profile manned fighters. Most probably the US should keep it as an interim fighter until the new threat is better identified and a new (VF???? ) unit is being developed. In addition, the best "launch pad" to develop a better fighter is your current one... even if it has lots of drawbacks.

Regds,

Gorgon (who nows what's going on... errr.... kind of...)

[renegadeleader1]

I've always thought it would be cool if all the world's militaries could agree on arms limitations for military aircraft. Basically, planes could only be armed with machineguns, cannons or unguided rockets and bombs (no guided missiles allowed) and no jet engines either, propeller driven only. It would be interesting to see with today's technology how good a prop-driven fighter plane/ground attack plane/bomber we could make compared with WWII planes.

first of all the arms limitations idea reminds me of the washington treaty after WWI. That went out the window when most of the countries figured WWII was imminent.

second of all there are limitations to prop planes.

broad wings are used to provide lift for the air the prop sends back. The wings limit speed where as a swept wing or delta can acheive better speeds.

there is only so much horse power you can get from a radial or turbo prop. its preformance is way below that of modern jet engines. Reliability is a problem too.

If you want an idea of the best a prop plane can be take a look at the A-1 skyraider. Its noted as a single engined low level attacker that could carry the same weight as a B-17's bomb load under its wings.

[Noyhauser]

first of all the arms limitations idea reminds me of the washington treaty after WWI. That went out the window when most of the countries figured WWII was imminent.

HAve you ever heard of the Conventional Forces Europe Agreement? Likely one of the most effective arms control treaties ever created and nobody ever talks about it.

Edit: moreover the Washington treaty Had major effects on Naval power. It effectively ended the reign of the Battlships as world powers sought to get around its restrictive texts, which pushed the development of the Carrier as its alternative. It set off a heavy cruiser arms race, which the Japanese led. The only gross abrogation was the Japanese and the Yamatos starting in 1936, but for the most part every nation followed its quotas and size restriction. Really it was the Japanese and to a lesser extent, the Germans that tested the treaty, however its affects were widespread and it was an effective treaty in its aims.

second of all there are limitations to prop planes.

broad wings are used to provide lift for the air the prop sends back. The wings limit speed where as a swept wing or delta can acheive better speeds.

there is only so much horse power you can get from a radial or turbo prop. its preformance is way below that of modern jet engines. Reliability is a problem too.

Uhh I think that was tounge and cheek we all know that... we've talked to the ends of the earth about aerodynamics.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Noyhauser

[KingNor]

Most of you guys are just guessing.

yep, i know i am.

i like to think i'm "EDUCATED GUESSING" though.

[SupremeKaioshin]

The 22 won't be cancelled.

We already have one in Virginia operational along with F-15's.

They might cut the purchase from whatever to whatever, but the Raptor will be around waiting to be mass produced. I bet we field atleast 50.

It was delivered last month...don't you guys read Airpower and keep up with Aviation news?

Edited April 15, 2004 by SupremeKaioshin

[Noyhauser]

It was delivered last month...don't you guys read Airpower and keep up with Aviation news?

Maybe you should read the news. As Ewilian posted this shows exactly why the program might not get deployed.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

The GAO knows far more about these issues than airpower ever will. Note that this rreport was written last month.

Moreover, even if a initial rate production is carried out, only 150 can be built maximum because they don't have anymore chips, to build the avionics suites. So we won't see the next batch until 2010 at the earliest, if at all.

[David Hingtgen]

Let's see.

1. Legios already brought up my main next point--"the war on terror" is not the only war that will happen in the F-22's lifetime. F-15's going to be 30 soon. You can darn well bet within 30 years from now, there will be some air-to-air battles going on, and the F-15 won't cut it. Not against the Su-49MKI_asd2-LL SuperDuper Flanker III.

2. And regardless of how many are built, we will have at least one or two squadrons of F-22's. Hopefully a lot more. But production F-22's are being built and delivered right now. Very slowly, but they are. Unless they REALLY want to chop the budget by cancelling mx/support, they won't scrap what's already built.

3. Yup, Washington treaty greatly affected warship construction and world politics for years. Battleships were the 1920's equivalent of carrier battle groups, in terms of politcal power.

[ewilen]

Lot here to comment on, I'll probably miss a couple things since I have a meeting in a few minutes. (Edit: back from the meeting, hope I'm not rehashing points that have been made in the interim.)

• If you have to bring up Syria, Libya, and N. Korea as places where the F/A-22 will be needed, I think you've already lost the argument. Especially if you're talking air-to-air. The F/A-22 might help in its new, undeveloped, untested Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses role, though. However, I am having trouble understanding why that task can't be handled by B-2/JDAM, F-117, and cruise missiles in the near term, with F-35 and eventually UCAV's in the mid-long term. I do realize that the F-35 doesn't have the legs of the F/A-22 but surely the other tools can handle the 1st day (night) deep penetration mission to take apart the enemy's air defense system.

• China is a slightly different argument but China also isn't an imminent threat. I think a lot of people are forgetting (or weren't around) that during the Cold War we really thought a major war with the USSR could happen with relatively little strategic warning. We weren't building stuff to face vague contingencies.

• India is an even more remote possibility. In fact, India is moving closer to the US diplomatically, albeit like the rest of the world they have been somewhat alienated and alarmed by the Iraq War.

• Addition to Noyhauser's comments: page 9 of the GAO report indicates that the AF bought enough processors to support production of 155 aircraft. The number of processors bought was greater than the number of aircraft--I think 2 are needed per aircraft and presumably the extra are for maintenance/repairs. Not only is 155 less than the planned build, but the processors in question aren't sufficient to handle the final planned capabilities--meaning new processors will be needed not only for the extra planes (if any) but also to upgrade the initial build--at substantial cost--assuming that funds can be found and the upgrade can be justified.

• Reliability of avionics: the mean time between failures (Mean Time Between Instability Events) reached 13.4 hours (goal was 20 hours) before the metric was changed in 9/2003. That meant at the time that the plane on avg. would go 13.4 hours before experiencing the equivalent of either a "blue screen of death" (needing total reboot) or "GPF" (failure of a subsystem, possibly one that is mission-critical). A new metric was then instituted, called Mean Time Between Avionics Anomoly, which broadened the number of systems whose reliability is measured but also changed the required failure rate to an average of 1 per 5 hours. From July, 2003, to the end of January, 2004, this metric had improved unsteadily from 2 hours to 2.7 hours.

• I think the B-2 for all its cost at least functions as advertised and manages to be useful in the current context. The B-1, OTOH, has a terrible safety and readiness record, missed Gulf War I, and probably wasn't really needed in Afghanistan and GW II, even theough it served alongside the reliable B-52 and the B-2. In support of my point, I offer the following article from a source which is hardly unfriendly to the military: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/125835.shtml

Edited April 15, 2004 by ewilen

[J A Dare]

The war on terror is not the next war.  The war on terror will go on for years and years and it is doubtful that it will ever be won conclusively.  The "next" war is the next war we will be fighting against a state government, and it is inevitable.  We need to gear up to fight this threat.

"Needless to say, we regret having to extend those individuals," he told reporters. "But the country is at war. And we need to do what is necessary to succeed."

source: Death Toll Mounts

ummm...wouldn't it be wise to do all we can to finish the current "war"? Takes alot of money to maintain a major occupying force halfway around the world. But I do agree with many of you, we should not completely axe the F/A-22, because eventually we will need it. (I think we are all in agreement with the latter?) I think what we are disagreeing on is what priority does the F/A-22 have compared to other military (thus $$$) needs in the current and foreseeable global state.

Edited April 16, 2004 by J A Dare

[mikeszekely]

• China is a slightly different argument but China also isn't an imminent threat. I think a lot of people are forgetting (or weren't around) that during the Cold War we really thought a major war with the USSR could happen with relatively little strategic warning. We weren't building stuff to face vague contingencies.

You like to argue against China as being a reason for the US needing the F/A-22, because you don't see them as "immenent" enough, yet you're arguing we dump the program in favor of upgrading a fighter pushing 30 years. If the F/A-22 lasts as long as the F-15, I think it's extremely short-sighted to assume the only enemies the US will face during the Raptor's life will be Arab air forces comprised of planes even older than the Eagle.

Eliminating the Raptor program will not recoup the development costs sunk into the fighter. And as David and others have pointed out, upgrading our F-15s doesn't cost much less and doesn't give us anything close to the F/A-22's performance.

I really don't get why people pick on the F/A-22 so much in the first place. Unlike the F-35, the F/A-22 really does appear to be the most capable fighter on the block, and the government wastes a lot more money than what's been spent or will be spent on the Raptor. I mean, cut your local senator's salary in half, and chances are he's still making more than you. Instead of cutting the Raptor, how about not voting themselves another pay raise?

[ewilen]

But I do agree with many of you, we should not completely axe the F/A-22, because eventually we will need it.  (I think we are all in agreement with the latter?)

No, I really don't agree. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that I haven't seen let alone digested all the facts. On the other hand, I really don't think the case has been made that we need the F/A-22 now, or that if we build it, it will actually be useful "eventually". Much of the professional pro-F-22 argument comes from vested interests like Lockheed or people in the Air Force whose careers are tied to the program, so it is worthwhile, in my opinion, to regard their claims of emerging vulnerabilities with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I think Bush was on the right track during the Presidential campaign when he called for the US military to "skip a generation" of weapons systems that weren't currently needed so we could better focus on stuff that would help us in 10-20 years. The F-22 was clearly one of the targets of that bremark. It's also well-known that Andrew Marshall, whom Rumsfeld entrusted with an overview of the military in 2001, was quite skeptical about the F-22, as is Pentagon insider Chuck Spinney. (For a collection of various articles at his web site, look here.) Now, I realize that is dangerious to engage in argumentum ab auctoritate, but if you are making an executive decision, it strikes one as interesting where the arguments for and against the F-22 are coming from. (Many of the critics are concerned not only about a vague issue of "is the F-22 worth it" but also whether the costs of the F-22 are going to have a severe negative effect on readiness in other areas of the military.)

Gotta run. This has been interesting.

[one_klump]

A bit OT, but I've always thought it would be cool if all the world's militaries could agree on arms limitations for military aircraft. Basically, planes could only be armed with machineguns, cannons or unguided rockets and bombs (no guided missiles allowed) and no jet engines either, propeller driven only. It would be interesting to see with today's technology how good a prop-driven fighter plane/ground attack plane/bomber we could make compared with WWII planes.

Going back to the days of big dog fights and fleets of bombers would be fun.

Graham

Heh, I can picture a modern day Crimson Skies

[Graham]

I've always been curious about whether with todays high-tech materials and design and manufacturing techniques, could we actually build better prop fighters and prop bombers than in the past, or were WWII designs the pinnacle of prop plane design?

I just think that if we were limited to props and guns only (no jets or missiles), it would be very interesting to see how good a prop fighter we could build these days.

Graham

[mikeszekely]

I've always been curious about whether with todays high-tech materials and design and manufacturing techniques, could we actually build better prop fighters and prop bombers or were WWII designs the pinacle of prop plane design?

Graham

That's an interesting question. My first reaction was, "That's like asking, with modern technology, could we build another one of those giant room-filling mainframe computers from the 70's!"

But then I got to thinking about the Crays and whatnot... and I think that there are room-filling modern super-computers...

So now, I'm willing to bet that we could in fact build a much better prop plane that what they used during WWII...

[mikeszekely]

But I do agree with many of you, we should not completely axe the F/A-22, because eventually we will need it.  (I think we are all in agreement with the latter?)

No, I really don't agree. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that I haven't seen let alone digested all the facts. On the other hand, I really don't think the case has been made that we need the F/A-22 now, or that if we build it, it will actually be useful "eventually". Much of the professional pro-F-22 argument comes from vested interests like Lockheed or people in the Air Force whose careers are tied to the program, so it is worthwhile, in my opinion, to regard their claims of emerging vulnerabilities with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I think Bush was on the right track during the Presidential campaign when he called for the US military to "skip a generation" of weapons systems that weren't currently needed so we could better focus on stuff that would help us in 10-20 years. The F-22 was clearly one of the targets of that bremark. It's also well-known that Andrew Marshall, whom Rumsfeld entrusted with an overview of the military in 2001, was quite skeptical about the F-22, as is Pentagon insider Chuck Spinney. (For a collection of various articles at his web site, look here.) Now, I realize that is dangerious to engage in argumentum ab auctoritate, but if you are making an executive decision, it strikes one as interesting where the arguments for and against the F-22 are coming from. (Many of the critics are concerned not only about a vague issue of "is the F-22 worth it" but also whether the costs of the F-22 are going to have a severe negative effect on readiness in other areas of the military.)

Gotta run. This has been interesting.

So, you're not actually arguing that the F-15 is good enough, you're actually arguing that the F/A-22 isn't good enough either, and that we should eliminate the Raptor program and begin development of a new, even more advanced fighter?

I think that'd be fine, except that the F/A-22 is already almost 20 years in the works. If we drop the F/A-22 and spend another 20 years developing something else, are you expecting upgraded F-15s to last that long? That'd be 50 years for the Eagle... that'd almost be like if we were still flying upgraded P-51s now.

[mikeszekely]

...proposals for using a souped up F-15 with some RCS improvements...

Okay, new engines, thrust vectoring, new avionics... then to improve RCS, change the intakes, replace the wings with clipped deltas, change the shape of the tail, cant the tail, and carry the weapons internally...

...what d'ya know? It's the F/A-22!

[David Hingtgen]

My quick, simplisitic "5-year-old's view" of it:

It's our front-line fighter. Not some obscure, small component of the military, for some little role. It is the FRONTLINE MAIN AIR_TO_AIR FIGHTER of the entire Air Force. That is not something you skimp on, or "skip". It's the Air Force's equivalent of the Navy's destroyers. You need a lot of them, and good ones, because it's the backbone of the force. Yes, it costs a lot--and it darn well should, because it's the main thing you're going to be using to project power for the next few decades. I mean, it'd be like skimping on the infantry's guns, or the Navy's propellers. An extremely important component of the overall plan. As for F-35's--the F-22's a lot bigger, in the future it will hold a LOT more stuff. Yes, right now the bay's like 2 inches too small for most JDAM's. That's because JDAM's are Vietnam-era bombs with a GPS glued on. Surely in a few years (or 30, when F-22's will still be around) we'll have new, smaller bombs designed for internal carriage. And then F-22's will be able to be stuffed full of them, and carry a lot more "boom-power" than the F-35, or any other smaller, lesser plane. (I am a big fan of big planes--they can simply do more. Radar, engines, avionics, etc, can only be made so small--a plane 25% bigger has room for like 50% more systems and maybe 75% more fuel--plus the inherently larger payload)

As for props again---props can't go supersonic(generally). The short explanation is that you'll need to have the RPM's so high you'll have supersonic blades long before you have a supersonic plane, and that's BAD. Same reason helicopters don't go all that fast. Somewhat vaguely related to why jet engines need the air slowed down to subsonic speeds in the intake, at supersonic flight speeds. Rotating blades don't like supersonic air, period.

Wing sweep isn't really that much of a factor--it wasn't done simply because we didn't understand it well. A P-51 with swept wings could go (drag-wise) a LOT faster, but the prop is the limiting factor at that point. And of course, you can always just go to a straight-wing with a supersonic foil, if you want to go fast. (Look at the F-104 and X-15---fast planes with straight wings--the other way to go fast)

::edit:: This has got to be the fastest-moving plane thread ever. Mike replied while I was typing. Anyways, I bring up his point a lot--an F-22 is basically a modified F-15. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's overall shape and proportions are close to an F-15, and it looks *damn* close to the final 2 or 3 rejected F-15 designs. It is simply an "angled to be stealthy" F-15. And as I said earlier, the F-15 is about the most unstealthy plane we've got. Even with all the RAM you could slap on it, it'd still probably still have a bigger RCS than an F-16A or F-18C. (Which are similar--and the slightly stealthier F-16C and F-18E's are also equal to each other)

::edit 2:: Sorry, I don't really have a POINT to the above paragraph, I just like to mention it.

Edited April 16, 2004 by David Hingtgen