Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sea Raptor http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html Since we're discussing things that will never happen but question for the forum, why didn't the idea of a carrier variant for the F-22 ever come about? Looking at the history and seeing the programs at the time (ATF, NATF, etc..) why didn't the USN want to get a naval variant of the larger twin engine 5th gen fighter already in development, i.e the USAF has already paid for a lot of the development, rather than go with a single engine aircraft yet to be developed? The oracle of Google had no ready answer to this question, anyone know any backstory to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sea Raptor http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html Since we're discussing things that will never happen but question for the forum, why didn't the idea of a carrier variant for the F-22 ever come about? Looking at the history and seeing the programs at the time (ATF, NATF, etc..) why didn't the USN want to get a naval variant of the larger twin engine 5th gen fighter already in development, i.e the USAF has already paid for a lot of the development, rather than go with a single engine aircraft yet to be developed? The oracle of Google had no ready answer to this question, anyone know any backstory to this? Because after the A-12 disaster nobody in the Navy wanted to try and fight to get a multi billion dollar fighter program through their own brass much less congress. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sea Raptor http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html Since we're discussing things that will never happen but question for the forum, why didn't the idea of a carrier variant for the F-22 ever come about? Looking at the history and seeing the programs at the time (ATF, NATF, etc..) why didn't the USN want to get a naval variant of the larger twin engine 5th gen fighter already in development, i.e the USAF has already paid for a lot of the development, rather than go with a single engine aircraft yet to be developed? The oracle of Google had no ready answer to this question, anyone know any backstory to this? Because after the A-12 disaster nobody in the Navy wanted to try and fight to get a multi billion dollar fighter program through their own brass much less congress. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Makes sense - forgot the A-12 debacle Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sea Raptor http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html Since we're discussing things that will never happen but question for the forum, why didn't the idea of a carrier variant for the F-22 ever come about? Looking at the history and seeing the programs at the time (ATF, NATF, etc..) why didn't the USN want to get a naval variant of the larger twin engine 5th gen fighter already in development, i.e the USAF has already paid for a lot of the development, rather than go with a single engine aircraft yet to be developed? The oracle of Google had no ready answer to this question, anyone know any backstory to this? Because after the A-12 disaster nobody in the Navy wanted to try and fight to get a multi billion dollar fighter program through their own brass much less congress.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Makes sense - forgot the A-12 debacle Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk There is a lot of loose talk and theory behind the Super Hornet development as being chosen mostly because it was the lowest risk and having little to do with aircraft capes. This is especially true around the Tomcat 21 advocates who see Grummans's wet dream of a Raptor tech/engine equipped F-14 and swear the reason it didn't happen wasn't based on cost or any other factor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 9 hours ago, Lawman said: There is a lot of loose talk and theory behind the Super Hornet development as being chosen mostly because it was the lowest risk and having little to do with aircraft capes. This is especially true around the Tomcat 21 advocates who see Grummans's wet dream of a Raptor tech/engine equipped F-14 and swear the reason it didn't happen wasn't based on cost or any other factor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Good article on the Tomcat 21 concept: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142 From the article and few others on the subject, the idea of one type fleet carried the day vs. multiple airframes, can't say that doesn't have some merit to it from the big picture management perspective and limited resources. Too bad, it would have been a sexy beast... F-22 replacement, 6th gen planning is beginning... http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/kendall-unveils-sixth-gen-fighter-project-for-2016/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 If we are in s war where 169 F-22's, our B-2 fleet and F-35s along with stealth cruise missiles etc. can't do the job, it's a big damn war and we have things to worry about.As it is, I think about the worst case is needing to knock down some iads to set the stage for more of what we are doing now. It's not a way tomorrow that is the problem. It's the war 10-15 years from now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Tell me about this war 10-15 years from now? I'm not so sure it's a bad thing we can't invade any IAD protected country on earth...but I'll bet in 10-15 years we still could except for China/Russia. From what I've seen our B-2s, F-22s and 69 degraded F-35s could go about anywhere we realistically need. And those are just the jets we can talk about let alone our "other" capes. We seem to think the US needs the ability to go anywhere, anytime and nobody seems to think about our national strategy objectives and why invading China/Russia isn't needed so we plan for 2,000+ (day 1-3 relevant) strike aircraft. So we bankrupt our military while building up for WW3. I'd say there is a very good chance the F-22 and F-35 are barely if ever used for the role they were originally designed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 2 hours ago, di1630 said: Tell me about this war 10-15 years from now? I'm not so sure it's a bad thing we can't invade any IAD protected country on earth...but I'll bet in 10-15 years we still could except for China/Russia. From what I've seen our B-2s, F-22s and 69 degraded F-35s could go about anywhere we realistically need. And those are just the jets we can talk about let alone our "other" capes. We seem to think the US needs the ability to go anywhere, anytime and nobody seems to think about our national strategy objectives and why invading China/Russia isn't needed so we plan for 2,000+ (day 1-3 relevant) strike aircraft. So we bankrupt our military while building up for WW3. I'd say there is a very good chance the F-22 and F-35 are barely if ever used for the role they were originally designed. Valid point, but we have to have the capability for the high end fight, I don't think to the level we structure our forces now but keeping xxx % in high end capes unlikely to be used but necessary for deterrence and if the SHTF, to win the fight. There's no reason we should have to spend 500k+ per PGM delivered to a target in a permissive air environment, buy the right systems in numbers to make mowing the grass economical but never doubt shit does happen sometimes. Look at 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, etc... or any other smaller unconventional conflicts that could have escalated further, you get a patron backing a rouge nation, like Russia, and suddenly you find you might need capes you thought you wouldn't in certain AORs, the deployment of Russian S-400s / S-30s in Western Syria being a prime example. They probably won't target or threaten us but what if they do and tell us not to fly in x airspace or else? We have to be able to tell them to pound sand and we'll do what we want, where we want, when we want and that's that. Not advocating warmongering or being a global a-hole but be able to follow thru and let that be common knowledge around the world. Look at the Iranians and their new toys, S-300s from Mother Russia. https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/why-iranian-purchase-s-300-should-worry-gulf-states When the Falklands were invaded, PM Thatcher was meeting with her cabinet, one of them said "if we do nothing, we will wake up in another kind of country." Meaning if people know they can push you around either by you not wanting to fight or not able to fight, they will push you around. Do you think Iran would wait 6.9 seconds if they thought they could close the air / sea in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz if they knew the US could not or would not operate there if we didn't have the capes to prove them wrong? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 When Falklands were invaded, PM Thatcher was meeting with her cabinet, one of them said "if we do nothing, we will wake up in another kind of country." Meaning if people know they can push you around either by you not wanting to fight or not able to fight, they will push you around. Do you think Iran would wait 6.9 seconds if they thought they could close the air / sea in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz if they knew the US could not or would not operate there if we didn't have the capes to prove them wrong? That's the sticking point. If there's a power vacuum, other people start asserting the order they want, and it probably isn't what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 When Falklands were invaded, PM Thatcher was meeting with her cabinet, one of them said "if we do nothing, we will wake up in another kind of country." Meaning if people know they can push you around either by you not wanting to fight or not able to fight, they will push you around. Do you think Iran would wait 6.9 seconds if they thought they could close the air / sea in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz if they knew the US could not or would not operate there if we didn't have the capes to prove them wrong? That's the sticking point. If there's a power vacuum, other people start asserting the order they want, and it probably isn't what you want. That's the thing about being a Super Power... You only get to be through your own work, not because anybody else wants you to be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 20 minutes ago, SurelySerious said: That's the sticking point. If there's a power vacuum, other people start asserting the order they want, and it probably isn't what you want. Yep - there's often more than a binary choice than full on 250k boots on the ground, 3 carriers on staton and 15 wings deployed and doing nothing. I'm not 100% sure the COA we are currently executing (Precision Strike, Persistent ISR supporting limited SOF kinetic and Conventional Partner Capacity Building) is going to bring the results we want but for now it is enough. At best it will bring results we can tolerate. Total inaction is just not an option given who would take more action in our absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 That's the sticking point. If there's a power vacuum, other people start asserting the order they want, and it probably isn't what you want. Yep - there's often more than a binary choice than full on 250k boots on the ground, 3 carriers on staton and 15 wings deployed and doing nothing. I'm not 100% sure the COA we are currently executing (Precision Strike, Persistent ISR supporting limited SOF kinetic and Conventional Partner Capacity Building) is going to bring the results we want but for now it is enough. At best it will bring results we can tolerate. Total inaction is just not an option given who would take more action in our absence. I don't think anybody in a decision making position honestly believes the COA we are on right now is the right one. We are just waiting on the clock because the legacy of this administration cannot be seen as recommitting ground forces and restarting the "War in Iraq." For the thousands of US ground personnel already there though that's not exactly a strategy. I for one enjoy reminding my liberal friends that think these wars are over because Obama waved a magic wand that I'll be in Iraq this Christmas, and the rest of my Brigade will be in Afghanistan the following summer. Long after "combat operations" supposedly stopped. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Tell me about this war 10-15 years from now? I'm not so sure it's a bad thing we can't invade any IAD protected country on earth You can even forget about 10-15 yrs, right now I can think of 3 separate places where we're a sneeze away from a total shit storm and everyone not in a 5th gen aircraft starts riding the silk at Vietnam+ rates (or we avoid that by full up quitting, packing our shit up and going home as soon as it starts). Am I saying it's going to happen, not at all, but only people with their craniums in the sand think shit like that is "far away" and not something we need to worry about until 10-15 yrs from now. That is reality now, it get far worse years from now. I'm with you that in the end it probably doesn't happen, but we'd be the dumbest assholes in history if it did happen and we got caught with our pants down. If I and another guy are pointing guns at each other's faces right now, I say that's a problem to worry about now, not in a few years because I'm kind of sure maybe sort of that the other guy isn't going to pull the trigger. I'm not taking that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Lawman said: I don't think anybody in a decision making position honestly believes the COA we are on right now is the right one. We are just waiting on the clock because the legacy of this administration cannot be seen as recommitting ground forces and restarting the "War in Iraq." For the thousands of US ground personnel already there though that's not exactly a strategy. I for one enjoy reminding my liberal friends that think these wars are over because Obama waved a magic wand that I'll be in Iraq this Christmas, and the rest of my Brigade will be in Afghanistan the following summer. Long after "combat operations" supposedly stopped. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yep - I posted in another thread I think the Syria one, a picture of the evac of the American embassy as Saigon fell, that haunts America and Presidents to this day, rightly so. The conflicts we're in are as LBJ said about Vietnam - "I'm a hitchhiker in a hail storm, I can't run and I can't make it stop." Ultimately we are going to just have to call it good at some point, declare our objectives met, announce a redeployment and just leave. We did it in Somalia when we saw you can't fix somethings because what you see as broken is just the way things are there. The problem our decision makers, policy wonks and talking heads can't grasp is these are not conflicts per se, conflict is part of what we are involved in, it is actually historical movements. That is the break down of nations that never existed until external powers made / willed them against cultural / geographic factors & strife between ethnic groups that fight each other because they fight each other because they fight each other... Our military is built, as is everybody else's military is, to fight a definable enemy and his machines, not to fix dysfunctional cultures and the anti-social behaviors they cause. We can use our military to win battles and address these conflicts but ultimately it will not win them, not that it can't affect things more to our interests but we can't bomb the crazy out of them. On the subject of the F-22, saw this article: http://aviationweek.com/blog/so-what-took-f-22-target-photo Google had no open source on a targeting pod for the Raptor and assuming it still has no targeting pod it made me think that if we really want to make it "F/A" then designing a conformal multi-mission pod like the one being offered for the F-35 might give the 22 more capes: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-terma-displays-f-35-multimission-pod-374017/ Getting an integrated EOTS into a Raptor is probably a bridge too far but an LO conformal pod with a recessed EO/IR sensor and laser along with other goodies, might be worth the money. Edited January 31, 2016 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Tell me about this war 10-15 years from now? I'm not so sure it's a bad thing we can't invade any IAD protected country on earth You can even forget about 10-15 yrs, right now I can think of 3 separate places where we're a sneeze away from a total shit storm and everyone not in a 5th gen aircraft starts riding the silk at Vietnam+ rates (or we avoid that by full up quitting, packing our shit up and going home as soon as it starts). Am I saying it's going to happen, not at all, but only people with their craniums in the sand think shit like that is "far away" and not something we need to worry about until 10-15 yrs from now. That is reality now, it get far worse years from now. I'm with you that in the end it probably doesn't happen, but we'd be the dumbest assholes in history if it did happen and we got caught with our pants down. If I and another guy are pointing guns at each other's faces right now, I say that's a problem to worry about now, not in a few years because I'm kind of sure maybe sort of that the other guy isn't going to pull the trigger. I'm not taking that bet. Anybody wants to get to the dark side just get on SIPR and go talk to MSIC about the Syria vs Libya briefing. Those guys will give you a very bleak picture on how much more expensive our air campaigns get for very minor changes in what should be considered 2nd tier venues. Stuff like fights over those islands in Japan, the South China Sea/Philippines/Spratleys, or an Iran with Russian backing and double digit toys enforcing their regime and things get down right scary/ridiculous expensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 My whole point is that 2500 35's with our B-2s/22s is a setup to fight a sustained peer war. I'm confident any of the Iran/Syria or anyone who can afford double digit SAMs can be dealt with. We throw 90% of our planning into days 1-4 then ignore the follow-on 10 years. Don't believe me? Where's the coin aircraft? A-10 replacement? Doing that stuff with a 5th gen aircraft is like giving $100 bills in a stripper still onstage...Just not a wise use. And for the record, as much as I love American military supremacy, part of our strategic problem is that we CAN go anywhere and get involved in 3rd world sh-tholes so our leadership, politicians and general public have no issue sending us for any stupid reason they want. Maybe some denied access where we are forced to think about our strategy and actions and cost before we go in would be good for us as a country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 ...so our leadership, politicians and general public have no issue sending us for any stupid reason they want. With you 100% on that. But in reality, we'll never be so limited on capability that we can't keep going to 3rd world shitholes, so I'm not so sure limiting our capability against larger threats would overall have the effect you and I want. I hate to say it, but I think the only real way to stop going everywhere is to get our shit pushed in (and I mean for real). Congress/the public doesn't give a shit about what has happened the past 15 years, but they would care when a draft starts, we're losing 20 aircraft per day, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 41 minutes ago, di1630 said: My whole point is that 2500 35's with our B-2s/22s is a setup to fight a sustained peer war. I'm confident any of the Iran/Syria or anyone who can afford double digit SAMs can be dealt with. We throw 90% of our planning into days 1-4 then ignore the follow-on 10 years. Don't believe me? Where's the coin aircraft? A-10 replacement? Doing that stuff with a 5th gen aircraft is like giving $100 bills in a stripper still onstage...Just not a wise use. And for the record, as much as I love American military supremacy, part of our strategic problem is that we CAN go anywhere and get involved in 3rd world sh-tholes so our leadership, politicians and general public have no issue sending us for any stupid reason they want. Maybe some denied access where we are forced to think about our strategy and actions and cost before we go in would be good for us as a country. Valid point - as Charlie Wilson said : These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame. COIN and post-conflict stabilization is a bitch but for what we believe, we can't and should not leave chaos in our wake. Whatever the right percentage of assets for COIN / Permissive environments in long term operations, I'm for it. We've done ok with the expansion of the RPA capability (not the long-term strategy to manage the career field) but looking at the other aspects of airpower to support the Joint fight, affordably and with a smaller footprint in theater, we've need to do WAY better. I think you are right to be concerned about intervention without thought but we're already seeing that, the reluctance to intervene in Syria, with conventional boots on the ground. Given that Afghanistan / Iraq is like an albatross around our neck, no POTUS is going to get into another long term COIN / Nation Building operations if they can at all help it. On a related topic and just my idea, to afford more new toys, & spur our allies to build their own capacities: Cut our European footprint in half (or more). Except for the need for Logistical Hubs and a few MOBs so that we could surge there if needed to support NATO, or have MOBs for support to CENTCOM or AFRICOM. We cut the 30k personnel in half and the bases with them, just a WAG but you are probably talking 12+ billion dollars a year, there's the money for more high end assets or better yet build a force that can far more affordably prosecute long term operations in COIN like environments (Scorpion Jets, C-27s, etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 My whole point is that 2500 35's with our B-2s/22s is a setup to fight a sustained peer war. I'm confident any of the Iran/Syria or anyone who can afford double digit SAMs can be dealt with. We throw 90% of our planning into days 1-4 then ignore the follow-on 10 years. Don't believe me? Where's the coin aircraft? A-10 replacement? Doing that stuff with a 5th gen aircraft is like giving $100 bills in a stripper still onstage...Just not a wise use. And for the record, as much as I love American military supremacy, part of our strategic problem is that we CAN go anywhere and get involved in 3rd world sh-tholes so our leadership, politicians and general public have no issue sending us for any stupid reason they want. Maybe some denied access where we are forced to think about our strategy and actions and cost before we go in would be good for us as a country. If you want to make the argument of losing funding for the long occupation you're gonna have a bad time making the argument to funnel 5th gen fighter money into another plane. That money you want to ear mark for putting up an A-10 replacement would be far better spent on post war ops having trained/equipped ground brigades and boots on the ground combined with civil service contractors to get the schools built, and the water/power working for the locals. The locals can't tell and really don't care what is on the ATO line, but having Brigade sized footprints go to being managed by Battalions or Company+ size elements doesn't keep the markets open or prevent militants from taking over villages and asserting their will on the people. We aren't seeing a resurgence of Taliban/Haqqani/etc in Afghanistan in the Helmand, Sangin, or Arghandab because we didn't have the right plane dropping the right bombs. We are seeing it because we pulled out any respectable sized ground force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 4 hours ago, Lawman said: If you want to make the argument of losing funding for the long occupation you're gonna have a bad time making the argument to funnel 5th gen fighter money into another plane. That money you want to ear mark for putting up an A-10 replacement would be far better spent on post war ops having trained/equipped ground brigades and boots on the ground combined with civil service contractors to get the schools built, and the water/power working for the locals. The locals can't tell and really don't care what is on the ATO line, but having Brigade sized footprints go to being managed by Battalions or Company+ size elements doesn't keep the markets open or prevent militants from taking over villages and asserting their will on the people. We aren't seeing a resurgence of Taliban/Haqqani/etc in Afghanistan in the Helmand, Sangin, or Arghandab because we didn't have the right plane dropping the right bombs. We are seeing it because we pulled out any respectable sized ground force. Smart people have warned us about this before, Gen Shinseki got shit canned by those damn geniuses who told us we could do Iraq on the cheap, quick and easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 A few birds with one stone post: For reducing footprint in Europe: There's a reason the hogs are back and Eagles are doing TSP. Putin knows what we won't publicly say: NATO is a joke and the Europeans couldn't organize themselves or their jobs-program-look-good-at-air shows- ets to drive our a stray heard of goats. For funding: I'm saying USAF specific....maybe sh-tcan a sq of F-35s to buy 4 A-29 sq's. For use: the big problem is that the USAF is used like a $5 whore because we now are unwilling to put boots on the ground. We are bombing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and look at our results. Again, nobody cares other than the people wasting time doing it and their families. Just an utter lack of leadership at all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, di1630 said: A few birds with one stone post: For reducing footprint in Europe: There's a reason the hogs are back and Eagles are doing TSP. Putin knows what we won't publicly say: NATO is a joke and the Europeans couldn't organize themselves or their jobs-program-look-good-at-air shows- ets to drive our a stray heard of goats. For funding: I'm saying USAF specific....maybe sh-tcan a sq of F-35s to buy 4 A-29 sq's. For use: the big problem is that the USAF is used like a $5 whore because we now are unwilling to put boots on the ground. We are bombing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and look at our results. Again, nobody cares other than the people wasting time doing it and their families. Just an utter lack of leadership at all levels. TSP & ERI are fine and I don't think we should try to roll it all up or cut it in back in 2 years but putting their feet to the fire, especially Germany, to build larger modernized forces with an appropriate expeditionary capability is long overdue. They won't do this until they have to, WWII has been over for 70+ years and Germany is not the same country by any measure, nor Italy or any of the other less discussed Axis nations of Europe. NATO should primarily be a European affair with an insurance policy of American END, limited ballistic missile defense, and conventional support / some deterrence when necessary. Russian shenanigans being a good example of when to show the flag but overall a country with the 4th largest GDP (Germany) and spending only 1.1 % on defense by national GDP given their neighborhood, relying on a superpower 1,700 NM away to keep the neighborhood bully at bay is not a wise long term plan given our financial woes, political constipation, and stated desire to pivot to Asia and get the hell out of the ME. The Europeans have some pretty good capabilities, two nuclear armed members and others that punch above their weights but the natural leader of Europe, just an observation and my opinion, needs to step up and not be wracked by guilt but not forget its past misdeeds and provide the nucleus to build a stronger European military around. Pulling out halfway (sts) will help start this. Edited February 1, 2016 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Retired Aussie Wing Commander making a case for F-22s http://warisboring.com/articles/chris-mills-wants-america-to-export-raptors/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishBowl Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/ It's been unofficially discussed and an older RAND report was published in the 09-10 timeframe, but house announced legislation to initiate a new study. Thoughts? Talk amongst yourselves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 On 4/20/2016 at 3:37 PM, FishBowl said: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/ It's been unofficially discussed and an older RAND report was published in the 09-10 timeframe, but house announced legislation to initiate a new study. Thoughts? Talk amongst yourselves... RAND estimated it would be 17 billion for 75 more Raptors in 2010 dollars, the article said Congress was interested in studying the cost of 194 new Raptors, just doing simple math and applying inflation I come up with about 48 billion, could be less with the larger purchase driving down the per tail cost but if we were serious about this these new Raptors would / should be "Super Raptors", something to make it worth the inevitably large design-development-testing-production problems. New features, capabilities, etc.. that address issues with the F-22A. Just some suggestions from what has been released in open sources would be: Conformal fuel tanks for range and additional thermal signature suppression. Improved weapons bays for more load out and compatibility with new / more weapons (Meteor, stand off glide weapons, etc...) External station on fuselage for conformal LO mission pods (targeting, jamming, recce, etc..) LO IRST sensor In addition to this, if the AF or interested parties in Congress are really going to push for this, it needs to be pitched as part of family of systems to address specific requirements, threats, scenarios and then put forward as part of a future force. The new Raptor is for Assured Air Superiority in A2AD environments coupled with a new arsenal plane (like the B-1R concept) for mass delivery of PGMs to overwhelm the enemy IADS initially, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Do you want requirements creep? Because that's how you get requirements creep. Seriously, though, to keep costs down they probably shouldn't try adding anything. Ref F-35. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now