Adios F/A-22?

[Lightning]

I've said it once before and i'll say it again: with all the "rules" and crap that we've been put under for 'plane building if we could have a VF-0 with just fighter and GERWALK modes even, we'd have the plane we need for the next 20 years or so. because it would compliment the A-10 with that big-*** gun it's got, and if we could do the arms part of GERWALK it'd make a hell of a gun platform against tanks. Yea it's as big as a Tomcat, but it's that big for a reason, because of the fuel requirements! it's as close to a realistic VF as we can get for the time being.

Graham- that prop plane idea sounds cool, i wonder how we could've modified the P-38 and the P-47 with those restrictions.

[legios]

I'm in the Navy and I have no vested interest in the F/A-22 at all. In fact, if it did get cancelled, it would free up money for projects that I'm working on/with. With that said, I am HEAVILY in favor of the Raptor and here's why.

China/India. Are they an immenent threat...know. Are they a possible threat...yes. They are just now becoming world players and sooner or later they are going to try and dictate policies that are in their best interest...especially in Southwest to Southeast Asia. In case you haven't noticed...we have several interests in that area. Oil, Pakistan, Afghanistan, a few former USSR republics, Taiwan, Japan, etc. One of the reasons we've had to fight so few wars is the fact that other countries have respected our huge advantage and have been tentative to get into a conflict with us. However, if they perceive that advantage to be slipping, they will push for their own national interests. We have to be able to meet that challenge by maintaing our overwhelming superiority in everything.

By the way, both India and China are buying the best equipment there is on the market...so they're planning for something.

Syria/N.Korea/Libya. Can the F-15 and other platform/weapons deal with this threat. Definitely (probably for N.Korea). Can the F-22 deal with this threat better? Definitely. The F-22's capabilties in avoiding detection and getting the first shot are heads and shoulders above everything else in the world. If your child was a pilot, would you rather he or she had a 99% chance of coming home alive or a 75% chance.

Reliability. Yes the avionics have problems. However, that is a software issue and can and will be fixed. Now let's talk about everything else. The mean time between failure for all other componens, and especially the engines, are magnitudes greater in the F-22 over all other 3rd generation aircraft. That means you need less parts support, less maintainers, and less money to support the aircraft in the long run. In addition, the smaller logistical footprint allows for more rapid and more flexible deployments. The designs for the F-15/16/18C are approaching 40 years. We have made huge leaps in materials and manufacturing since then. We also have a huge lessons learned file that we used to make the F-22. An example of one lesson learned is that all the high failure parts are easily accessible. This means that when a part does fail, it takes hours instead of days to fix and turn around the aircraft.

JSF. The JSF is years away and is in all respects a less capable platform. Smaller radar, shorter range, slower speed, smaller weapon loadout. In addition, the F-35 is to share avionics and engines with the F-22. Cancelling the F-22 will in turn make the F-35 much more expensive.

It is easy to fault the F-22 for all its problems. People did the same for the F-15/14/16/18 and they turned out to be phenomenal aircraft. Remeber, this is the 1st true 4th generation aircraft and there will be some growing pains. It does not mean we give up and start all over again.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Yeah, scrap the F/A-22 and bring back the beautific YF-23 (F/A-23) so that I can finally get a Hasegawa F-23.... or Dragonwings F/A-23 ...droooollll.....

[mighty gorgon]

...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!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

[ewilen]

Quick note, Legios, if India is a possible threat, why has the U.S. brought it in as a partner in missile defense?

Mike yes you're basically understanding me. The F-15 is good enough in the current environment, and in the time before it actually needs to be replaced, there are better things we can do with the money that the AF is proposing to spend on the F-22. Also, it won't necessarily take 20 years to develop a new fighter. First of all, it may not even be a fighter. As some of the articles people have linked note, air superiority is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to allow other tasks to be carried out without interference by enemy aerial assets. If we can deliver bombs to targets without using an air superiority fighter to escort the bomb-carrier, then air superiority isn't needed for that task. If we can intercept enemy bombers with SAMs, or prevent them from even taking off by destroying them on the ground, then air superiority isn't needed for that task. Or--more likely--if the enemy is using surface to surface missiles instead of bombers, an F-22 isn't going to stop those missiles. So a new set of technologies and systems may make "air superiority" irrelevant.

Second, just because the F-22 has taken 20 years to develop doesn't mean a new system will take that long. The articles I've read basically say the F-22 program wasn't managed well. (Look over some of the Spinney stuff to see what I'm talking about.) I will admit, though, that our ability to learn from our mistakes is a shaky proposition...nevertheless I would point to the history of MBT-70/XM-803 as an example of a failed project which led to regrouping and a very successful M-1 program.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, if they go to surface-to-surface missiles, we need something that can go very fast at very low altitude, and be agile enough to intercept them. Sounds like the F-111. (Or a Tornado). F-8 would be good too, though no chance of that nowadays. I have no clue on the F-22's low-alt speed, but I'm guessing it's not very high.

[ewilen]

I was thinking of ballistic missiles--I realize (having learned here some time ago) that the F-14 is supposed to be able to down cruise missiles, but I don't think fighter jets would be a likely component of an anti-ballistic missile system.

[David Hingtgen]

Oh, well for ballistic missiles we're much better equipped to shoot them down. ABL-1. (747-400F with a laser in the nose)

[ewilen]

Yep, maybe. Is the 747 the air superiority fighter of the future? Somebody needs to do a Big Daddy Roth version to paint on the nose...

Not sure how well it would do against shorter range ballistic missiles, though.

[Mislovrit]

Quick note, Legios, if India is a possible threat, why has the U.S. brought it in as a partner in missile defense?

India is an U.S. ally especially in regards to containing China ambitions in the region.

[Max Jenius]

Oh, well for ballistic missiles we're much better equipped to shoot them down. ABL-1. (747-400F with a laser in the nose)

LOL

I read about that! I haven't heard any more recent stuff on it though. Are they going ahead with it?

I was wondering about the possibility of laser turrets elsewhere.

And where are my damn Rail-gun tanks? I read in SoF a few years back about how badass they were makin railguns(seeing tank armor frozen in mid "splash" was pretty cool.)

Oh hehe... F22... lol leave it to a mod to go off topic.

I think that while it shouldn't be a priority, we should keep it in mind. People are usually down on any new technology(though I'd be hard pressed to come up with any "new" technology that the F22 incorporates). It takes time for it to take hold...

[mighty gorgon]

Second, just because the F-22 has taken 20 years to develop doesn't mean a new system will take that long. The articles I've read basically say the F-22 program wasn't managed well. (Look over some of the Spinney stuff to see what I'm talking about.) I will admit, though, that our ability to learn from our mistakes is a shaky proposition...nevertheless I would point to the history of MBT-70/XM-803 as an example of a failed project which led to regrouping and a very successful M-1 program.

At this time it is difficult to imagine that a new developement will take much less than that time... Long gone are the days of WW2 when the germans got the He-162 from the drawing board to the air in less than one year. Even if the Salamander had huge problems at that time it was a technological breaktrough.

These days, however, a loss rate comparable to the He-162 is TOTALLY unacceptable (and rightly so).

So... when it takes 1 year+ to go through commitees to analyze the accident of a 20 years old spaceship,... 20 years for the developement of a NEW concept seems a reasonable timeframe.

And talking about commitees... What about the Osprey?

Edited April 17, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[mighty gorgon]

Graham- that prop plane idea sounds cool, i wonder how we could've modified the P-38 and the P-47 with those restrictions.

After searching the most secure and hidden places of the DoD and DARPA webs with my superior hacker aqbilities, I've just discovered the blackest project! It is so black, that the plane is NOT black!!!!

So here you have, the Super Electra YA-99. High efficiency props (based on the An-70), it can carry up to 12 mavericks or hellfires and incorporates active (mirror-like) stealth camo. It is known as the "Flying Bull", or affectionately, "Flying bullsh*t".

Regds,

Low-Hi tech Gorgon!!!!

[Doktor Gonzo]

So here you have, the Super Electra YA-99. High efficiency props (based on the An-70), it can carry up to 12 mavericks or hellfires and incorporates active (mirror-like) stealth camo. It is known as the "Flying Bull", or affectionately, "Flying bullsh*t".

So THAT'S why we cancelled the Comanche....

[David Hingtgen]

The ABL-1 is flying. I don't know if it's flying with a WORKING laser yet, but there are most certainly USAF 747's out there with laser turrets in the nose. But they've definitely got a ways to go before an actual "shooting down a missile" test. A few years at least. Guidance/control/tracking system is everything, far more difficult than the laser itself.

The big question is if the guidance system really can track a missile going that fast, long enough to destroy it---the laser isn't a "bolt" like in Star Wars, it needs several seconds of continuous contact to destroy the missile---NOT easy to do----a missile only a few feet across, miles away, moving at Mach 20---to KEEP a laser beam tracked on to it while it's moving (and the 747's moving as well).

Heh heh--it's an iodine laser. "Kills germs, and ICBM's!"

Edited April 17, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Zentrandude]

I was never a nose laser turret beliver. sure you might shoot down a missile at some hit:miss ratio but the missing part what bothers me. end up killing dozens of satellites.

today on the news genius laser turret operator kills satellites by mistake and makes hundreads of homes use local channels to watch TV. Cable company makes millions and Dish companies go bankrupt.

[Noyhauser]

he big question is if the guidance system really can track a missile going that fast, long enough to destroy it---the laser isn't a "bolt" like in Star Wars, it needs several seconds of continuous contact to destroy the missile---NOT easy to do----a missile only a few feet across, miles away, moving at Mach 20---to KEEP a laser beam tracked on to it while it's moving (and the 747's moving as well).

Technical feasability is the biggest ABL detractor. You've pointed out tracking, which MAYBE possible to remedy with ultra powerful computers to handle the calculations. But even if this happens, the countermeasures to negate it are extremely easy to implement, the missile just needs to spin so that the laser can't burn through one point in the hull.

[Zentrandude]

or reflective to deflect it away

[Noyhauser]

remember that Ballistics Missiles are made from very high quality metals to withstand launching and atmospheric ascent, probably the worst thing you want to go up against with a laser....

Edited April 18, 2004 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but the military loves big, new, expensive, complex, technical projects that make an F-22 look cheap and low-tech in comparison.

"Why build new fighters, when we could spend 100 billion trying to make a really fancy pen-light to burn-apart orbital missiles?"

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

being born the navy son I am, i still favor the F-22. IF I were DOD this is what I would do.

exterminate the JSF and let austraila and europe develop it with our original blue prints. (still make profit yet killing program for us)

Add 100 more F-22s to the "to buy" list

Either upgrade ALL remaining tomcats to tomcat 21 status or ASF-14 OR (keep in mind id effectively halt all super hornet production)

make another demval in which a new air superiority fleet strike fighter defender is born and outdoes the F-22 in combat capability(not stelath)

since JSF would be canceld, give the marines the F/A-18F for there VFA(W) squadrons and F-18E's for normal strike fighter squadrons. import some british F-35B's for harrier replace,memts./

actually can that just upgrade the harrier to supersonic standard and 4 extra hardpoints.(increased thrust counteracts added weight of extra weaponrY)

bring the YF-23s out of mothballing and test them with NASA and black vampires VX9 to see what it can still do. Experimental stalth weapons platform.

This folks is how a PERFECT military air command would be. least in my eyes.

[David Hingtgen]

If you gave the YF-23 new intakes, it could be a nice SR-71 successor. It is VERY sleek, very stealthy, with very powerful engines. Make the weapons bay a fuel tank, add a camera, and you've got a nice spy plane. Mach 3.2 continuous? No. Mach 2.8+? Definitely.

Also, it could probably be navalised a lot easier than the F-22 ever could have been. The YF-23 already had the F-18's landing gear, and a HUGE wing for slow approaches. It was definitely big, but the tails are extremely low, no worry about hangar-deck height, versus the F-22's massive fins. Folding wings and/or nose are rarely a problem.

[Mislovrit]

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?

Despite the silliness already posted to this subject, yes prop fighters and prop bombers can be built much better than their WWII counterparts. On the other hand what they limited in the roles they can do.

[Mislovrit]

I was thinking of ballistic missiles--I realize (having learned here some time ago) that the F-14 is supposed to be able to down cruise missiles, but I don't think fighter jets would be a likely component of an anti-ballistic missile system.

F-14s are supposed to chase down cruise missiles for example like the Exocet, Silkworm, Tomahawk, NOT ballistic missiles like ICBMs.

[ewilen]

Quick note, Legios, if India is a possible threat, why has the U.S. brought it in as a partner in missile defense?

India is an U.S. ally especially in regards to containing China ambitions in the region.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. India is an ally, so pointing to them as a potential threat to justify the F-22 doesn't make sense.

[ewilen]

I was thinking of ballistic missiles--I realize (having learned here some time ago) that the F-14 is supposed to be able to down cruise missiles, but I don't think fighter jets would be a likely component of an anti-ballistic missile system.

F-14s are supposed to chase down cruise missiles for example like the Exocet, Silkworm, Tomahawk, NOT ballistic missiles like ICBMs.

Correct. That's what I meant by "I don't think fighter jets would be a component of an anti-ballistic missile system."

[mighty gorgon]

or reflective to deflect it away

Exactly! Like the "Flying Bullsh*t"!!!!!!!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

any ally can turn against us in a matter of small time. Look at wha happened with Bin Laden and Iraq and Iran. within the span of 10 years in the 80s they had become enemies of the united states. earl;y 80s ayatollah took over, saddam turned his back on us before invading kuwait or sometime before nad bin laden was wih us as mujhihaddeen but few years later turned against us.

A navalized YF-23 would seem very badass. David think it oculd happen? Id like to see it show up a super hornet just to spite it for ever repaplcing the tomcat.

[David Hingtgen]

F-16/F-17/F-18 story wouldn't be a bad parallel for the YF-22/YF-23. Though IMHO it's been too long. If the navy were to pick the YF-23, they'd have done so by now. Or maybe a certain someone tried to REALLY influence them to spend the money on Super Hornets instead.

At this point, YF-23's might have been cheaper! Generally, re-engineering something costs way more than building from scratch---it took 5x as much work to make the P-51 RR-powered, than to design the plane itself---and making a Super Hornet took far far more work than making the original Hornet) Gotta wonder about Super Hornet design costs (plus a lot of time and money to fix the problems they found, which cut into its range). I personally do NOT like modifying planes much at all. Do not mess with a design, problems very often crop up. YOu can't just add 5 or 10% here and there, angle this, round that, and expect it to still work with all the original parts. Re-engining or adding canards is about my limit for "good mods to do". Feel free to add new parts, but don't start "re-sculpting" the basic components of the plane.

[SupremeKaioshin]

The YF-23 replacing the Tomcat would have been awesome.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

On the subject of YF-23s. Anyone here watched Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2003 (or was it 2002?).

You get to see 3 nice tributes (or shameless rip-offs) of the YF-23.

[legios]

Low flying aircraft don't do well in actual conflicts. The biggest reason is that great forward looking terrain avoidance radar tends to let people know you're coming. I don't have the exact figurers, but I think that Tornadoes had the highest loss/sortie ratio in the 1st Gulf War. In addition, flying low subjects you to all sorts of ground fire.

India is a tentative ally, but they are nowhere near as chummy with us as Pakistan. We have always backed Pakistan, and now Pakistan is more important to us than ever. In case you haven't noticed Pakistan and India are mortal enemies. India is one major incident away from becoming a real adversary.

(P.S. When we were flying over Afghanistan from the North Arabian Gulf, Indian intervention was REAL worry)

The good thing about the ABL 747's is that they will be close enough to hit missiles in the boost phase. The power delivered to the missile will be great enough for a burn through since the 747's will be relatively close to the target. (They're really a theater ABM system rather than a strategic one. In other words, they're designed to shoot down short range SCUDS, not ICBM's). You want to hit the missle in the boost phase for several reasons.

1. Huge IR signature makes it easier to track

2. Boosters are thin skinned (1cm or less) and filled with explosive fuel

3. Missile is at its slowest velocity

4. The warhead tends to fall back on the shooter's territory

[Noyhauser]

Must... resist urge... to make... political.... analysis.

[Graham]

Low flying aircraft don't do well in actual conflicts.  The biggest reason is that great forward looking terrain avoidance radar tends to let people know you're coming.  I don't have the exact figurers, but I think that Tornadoes had the highest loss/sortie ratio in the 1st Gulf War.  In addition, flying low subjects you to all sorts of ground fire.

Don't know if it's true or not, but I read somewhere about British pilots referring to Tornados as 'the Flying Coffin'.

Graham

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Don't know if it's true or not, but I read somewhere about British pilots referring to Tornados as 'the Flying Coffin'.

Graham

Wasn't those the Indian Mig-21s ?