PDA

View Full Version : F-22 fighter program gets the axe


Fire Haley
04-06-2009, 03:15 PM
Pentagon to end F-22 production


In a blow to Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon has decided to end funding of the F-22 fighter jet.

http://www.filetransit.com/images/screen/cde096dbeec9aa34c29828f7ea68ff87_Awesome_F_22_Rapt or_Screen_Saver.gif

The Pentagon will fund four of the radar-evading stealth fighters in the upcoming 2009 emergency war-spending request, but those additional aircraft will do little to keep the production line in Marietta, Ga., open beyond 2011. Each F-22 costs about $140 million

No money will be requested in the fiscal 2010 budget, congressional and industry sources familiar with the budget briefings told The Hill. Gates has been making calls to the chairmen of the congressional defense committees.

The final F-22 of the 183 currently on order will be delivered at the end of 2011. Building another four would keep the line open for only a few months beyond that end date.

Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, including Boeing, in recent weeks have stepped up their campaign to keep the production line open. They argue that 25,000 people work directly for the 1,000 suppliers of the F-22 in 44 states, and another 70,000 indirectly owe their jobs to this program.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pentagon-to-end-f-22-production-2009-04-06.html

-------------------------
Thanks Obama
Kiss another 90,000 jobs goodbye.

tony hipchest
04-06-2009, 03:26 PM
just was out side for a cig watching one take off. awesome jet!

but now for the rest of the story-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-04-06-gates-weapons_N.htm?csp=34

If approved by the Congress, the budget Gates announced eliminates a $26 billion satellite system, the VH-71 presidential helicopter and ends procurement of the Air Force's F-22 fighter at 187 aircraft.

Originally developed in the 1980s, the F-22 costs $140 million apiece. Overall, the program has cost $65 billion, Pentagon budget figures show.


Gates said he was committed to developing more advanced aircraft and called for increasing spending on the F-35 joint strike fighter from $6.8 billion to $11.2 billion. He said he wants to build 513 F-35s over the next five years and 2,443 over the course of the program.
Programs such as the F-22 have been targeted by budget cutters in the past, and both programs have been kept going by the congressional supporters. Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, and its allies in Congress have lobbied Gates and President Obama extensively for the program's survival.

Gates said he wanted to devote more money to programs that will aid troops in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to add $2 billion to improve intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs and will "maximize production" of the Reaper and Predator drone aircraft. He wants 50 Reaper and Predator teams available for both wars.



but i guess no new jobs will be created for all the new planes. :rolleyes: f-22, f-35, all i know is i hope they have a longer shelf life than the 25 years the f-117 had.

Fire Haley
04-06-2009, 03:36 PM
The F-35 is no Raptor though.

The AF does like it's toys, but Air Superiority has always come with a price tag.

You gotta watch the video

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e_Q6Vb9xJM0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e_Q6Vb9xJM0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tony hipchest
04-06-2009, 03:48 PM
im kinda bummed. the raptor is sweet. but when you think that we only had 45 stealth fighters (and kicked alot of ass with them) we are definitely upgrading with 187 f-22's. perhaps 381 were overkill. (i believe we only lost 2 of the stealth on combat missions.)

hard to believe the raptor is already becoming outdated before it sees its 1st combat duty. lockheed martin writes more programming for it in a year than the microsoft corporation does. ive seen a stunt show. i swear the thing has capabilities to hover and fly backwards if it wants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07defense.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Mr. Gates said he was going ahead with plans to buy four more of the Air Force’s advanced F-22 fighter jets in a supplemental spending bill that will be forwarded to Congress soon. But he said he would cap the plane at 187 aircraft. He also would cancel the building of a new presidential helicopter.

The advanced fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, was designed in the cold war and has not been used in combat, and critics have viewed it as one of the most prominent symbols of the cost overruns and delays that have plagued military programs.

revefsreleets
04-06-2009, 03:50 PM
There is also always a long lag time between design and actual production. Always. The SR-71 was designed in the 50's and there STILL isn't anything (that we know of) like it.

RIP 22! Greatest fighter plane ever built.

tony hipchest
04-06-2009, 04:01 PM
thats a kick ass video. i saw the raptor do that last year and couldnt believe what i was seeing.

heres some up close pictures and my review.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=25426&highlight=F-22+raptor

as stated, what is shown in the video you posted, only scratches the surface of what this plane is capable of.

steelersfanman92
04-06-2009, 04:31 PM
Do you know how much it will cost to manufacture a F-35, I would think it would be close to that of the F-22 and from what I heard there is not really much advantage that the F-35 has over the F-22

Hammer67
04-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like air superiority isn't as big of deal these days. It isn't like Hellcats, Spitfies and Zero's are getting shot down in major dogfights these days.

I mean, what's the need for so many expensive planes, anyway?

steelreserve
04-06-2009, 04:55 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like air superiority isn't as big of deal these days. It isn't like Hellcats, Spitfies and Zero's are getting shot down in major dogfights these days.

I mean, what's the need for so many expensive planes, anyway?

Exactly. Air superiority today is more like, can you afford to have ANY modern planes or can't you? The dozen or so countries that can afford to blow $100M-plus per aircraft don't get into wars with each other, and they'll automatically win any war against the mid-major countries that use old Soviet stuff, or the Division II countries with no air force at all.

In fact, I think that's what the JSF is all about: Once you're in that elite club, there are just a handful of options for top-of-the-line fighters, and nobody's got anything that's leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.

Preacher
04-06-2009, 04:59 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like air superiority isn't as big of deal these days. It isn't like Hellcats, Spitfies and Zero's are getting shot down in major dogfights these days.

I mean, what's the need for so many expensive planes, anyway?


Three answers. . .

China, N. Korea, Russia.

steelreserve
04-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Three answers. . .

China, N. Korea, Russia.

North Korea?

I can understand the other two, but seriously, North Korea? I don't think they could even beat some of our better street gangs. They make a lot of noise, but from everything I've seen, they're completely incompetent.

Hammer67
04-06-2009, 05:16 PM
Three answers. . .

China, N. Korea, Russia.

I understand that, but seriously...technology is at a point where we can shoot planes out of the freaking sky miles away. Air power just isn't the same.

Helicopters and ground support planes, I totally understand...but fighters? I am not saying get rid of them all, but wow, are we spending a lot of money for, what amounts to, practice planes.

Hammer67
04-06-2009, 05:19 PM
Speaking of which...anyone catch the pic recently of the two fighter pilots showing terrible towels in the coocckkpit while flying a mission over Afghanistan? I know one of them, went to college with him.

(It's funny I had to intentionally mispell c**kpit!!! LOL!!!)

revefsreleets
04-06-2009, 05:25 PM
Therein lies the rub...There is such a huge disparity between the design phase and the production phase that if we "skip" a beat, a new emerging power (i.e. China) could actually leap us in Air Superiority. And the force that controls the sky, controls the war...

Galax Steeler
04-06-2009, 05:41 PM
That is a cool video. I watched them at an airshow in Pittsburgh a couple of years ago. It is simply amazing what those planes can do.

Preacher
04-06-2009, 05:47 PM
Therein lies the rub...There is such a huge disparity between the design phase and the production phase that if we "skip" a beat, a new emerging power (i.e. China) could actually leap us in Air Superiority. And the force that controls the sky, controls the war...

At least according to Mitchel's air superiority argument.

Preacher
04-06-2009, 05:54 PM
North Korea?

I can understand the other two, but seriously, North Korea? I don't think they could even beat some of our better street gangs. They make a lot of noise, but from everything I've seen, they're completely incompetent.

Don't confuse political leadership with a professional military. The only question here, is if Kim Jong Ill has seen fit to execute the military leaders with competency. As much as China is against an aggressive N. Korea, I HIGHLY suspect they are selling armament to N. Korea...

I understand that, but seriously...technology is at a point where we can shoot planes out of the freaking sky miles away. Air power just isn't the same.

Helicopters and ground support planes, I totally understand...but fighters? I am not saying get rid of them all, but wow, are we spending a lot of money for, what amounts to, practice planes.

Right, but don't forget the lessons in vietnam. Because our pilots were depending on missiles so much, we almost lost air superiority. Furthermore, we have yet to go up against a top-rate defense system. Iraq in the first war was closer, but it still wasn't top rate. Now, if we face off with china? You can bet that we will lose a LOT of planes... and pilots.

Personally, I am glad for the rumblings I have heard concerning the military revisiting their standing readiness. I have heard that there are discussions about going back to a 2 Major conflict- 1 minor conflict readiness. That is, they are large enough to fight two major wars AND a minor war at the same time. That WAS the cold war standard before all the cutbacks.

It is time we go back to that.

OneForTheToe
04-06-2009, 06:31 PM
Exactly. Air superiority today is more like, can you afford to have ANY modern planes or can't you? The dozen or so countries that can afford to blow $100M-plus per aircraft don't get into wars with each other, and they'll automatically win any war against the mid-major countries that use old Soviet stuff, or the Division II countries with no air force at all.

In fact, I think that's what the JSF is all about: Once you're in that elite club, there are just a handful of options for top-of-the-line fighters, and nobody's got anything that's leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.


As a fan of military jets, I hate to see the Raptor go. Of course, the existing one's could have decades of service yet. But, even many Republicans wanted to kill the F-22. Funny thing about big weapons programs is that they take so long from design to implementation, and they are often so expensive to kill after they are in production, that the Administration associated with the program isn't always the one that got it started, or supported it to begin with. Reagan was so vilified by his opponents for his support for the B2, but it was under Carter that the program was approved,

The F-22 is awesome, but it isn't worth the expense of further production. The USA would still have such a huge advantage over China in "command and control" in any air war that, while we would lose many planes, I have little doubt we would prevail in the air. Besides, the existing F-22 and the JSF are more than a match for any air force in the world.

For most of the conflicts the USA is likely to enter these days we should probably build more "Specter" gun ships and the A-10's (although that won't happen), as well as the previously mentioned unmanned platforms.

steelreserve
04-06-2009, 06:52 PM
Don't confuse political leadership with a professional military. The only question here, is if Kim Jong Ill has seen fit to execute the military leaders with competency. As much as China is against an aggressive N. Korea, I HIGHLY suspect they are selling armament to N. Korea...

I'm not confusing the two, so much as I think North Korea's military is probably pretty incompetent as well. All their public displays of might have gone wrong, and the country usually barely even has enough essential supplies to make it through the week, much less wage a war. They strike me as kind of like Iraq's army before the first Gulf War -- lots of soldiers, but not very effective and with probably no air power to speak of. Any modern army would probably crush them.

It would be a little worrisome if they were getting shit from China, but judging by how well their last rocket launch went, it doesn't look like it. But in either case, countries like China and Russia might sell some weapons to other countries, but notice how they never give them enough help that they can be as effective as China or Russia themselves. That's been the pattern for decades.

Fire Haley
04-06-2009, 07:08 PM
I still think we are 20 years ahead of what we think we know. Black ops are the hot and sexy right now.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/aurora_05.jpg

Dino 6 Rings
04-06-2009, 07:59 PM
We are cancelling the F22, there has to be something better already being tested in White Sands or NOT in Area 51.

Pretty sure Lockheed Martin is confident in the fact that eventually, Republican "Kill them All" Types will be back in power soon enough. What's 4 - 8 years of testing while getting ready for the Z 88 or whatever the heck they name the latest and greatest. Sure in the short tearm (4 years) a few hundred people get laid off, but the re-hire when the War Mongers are back in power will be enough to keep the company a float for sure.

Preacher
04-06-2009, 08:38 PM
I'm not confusing the two, so much as I think North Korea's military is probably pretty incompetent as well. All their public displays of might have gone wrong, and the country usually barely even has enough essential supplies to make it through the week, much less wage a war. They strike me as kind of like Iraq's army before the first Gulf War -- lots of soldiers, but not very effective and with probably no air power to speak of. Any modern army would probably crush them.

It would be a little worrisome if they were getting shit from China, but judging by how well their last rocket launch went, it doesn't look like it. But in either case, countries like China and Russia might sell some weapons to other countries, but notice how they never give them enough help that they can be as effective as China or Russia themselves. That's been the pattern for decades.

You make some good point . .

I'll tell you what really scares me about N. Korea.

At the first sign of trouble... they are going to pour everything they have into S. Korea. It will be VERY bloody.

tony hipchest
04-06-2009, 09:43 PM
We are cancelling the F22, there has to be something better already being tested in White Sands or NOT in Area 51.

Pretty sure Lockheed Martin is confident in the fact that eventually, Republican "Kill them All" Types will be back in power soon enough. What's 4 - 8 years of testing while getting ready for the Z 88 or whatever the heck they name the latest and greatest. Sure in the short tearm (4 years) a few hundred people get laid off, but the re-hire when the War Mongers are back in power will be enough to keep the company a float for sure.
lets keep it real here and not cloud the facts with semantics. the f-22 itself nor the program is being canceled. just a total order for 381 of them. i mean its one thing for a 4 star general to say we are adding that many to the arsenal, but the bottom line lies with the DoD and ultimately congress and the prez.

the next war we see, will showcase the raptors, front and center. they are replacing the retired stealth fighters (which are already sitting on a pad in the desert of nevada). hell they may already be at their final resting place in the graveyard at davis monthan afb.

by all accounts the f-117's were outdated. they were just about impossible to fly. they pretty much flew on computer controlled auto pilot because they were such a freak of physics, they never belonged in the air in the 1st place. i have pretty much had pilots tell me "you dont fly them, it flies you".

our current fleet of raptors arent going anywhere. by all accounts they cant be rendered obsolete, and no country will catch up, for the next 20 years. that buys us enough time.

by the same token, our 50 year old b-52 program is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, and still hasnt been rendered obsolete either. doesnt mean our DoD budget contains funds for 100 new ones though. at some point enough is enough, and i think that is what is being said about the 187 raptors going forward.

Preacher
04-06-2009, 09:55 PM
lets keep it real here and not cloud the facts with semantics. the f-22 itself nor the program is being canceled. just a total order for 381 of them. i mean its one thing for a 4 star general to say we are adding that many to the arsenal, but the bottom line lies with the DoD and ultimately congress and the prez.

the next war we see, will showcase the raptors, front and center. they are replacing the retired stealth fighters (which are already sitting on a pad in the desert of nevada). hell they may already be at their final resting place in the graveyard at davis monthan afb.

by all accounts the f-117's were outdated. they were just about impossible to fly. they pretty much flew on computer controlled auto pilot because they were such a freak of physics, they never belonged in the air in the 1st place. i have pretty much had pilots tell me "you dont fly them, it flies you".

our current fleet of raptors arent going anywhere. by all accounts they cant be rendered obsolete, and no country will catch up, for the next 20 years. that buys us enough time.

by the same token, our 50 year old b-52 program is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, and still hasnt been rendered obsolete either. doesnt mean our DoD budget contains funds for 100 new ones though. at some point enough is enough, and i think that is what is being said about the 187 raptors going forward.

Tony. . . if you were that rational and logic in your political posts... We'd be having GREAT discussions.

I think you are absolutely right. The only thing that worries me is the idea of replacement planes. While the B-52's are so basic that they can probably be rolled off a ford plant still, the new planes are so specialized that it becomes quite difficult to keep using and re-using them through the years.

I wouldn't mind seeing 2 or 3 being made every year or two just to maintain the fleet. Start in say, 5 years if we don't have anything new coming on line at that point.

tony hipchest
04-06-2009, 10:23 PM
nobody here has been rational and logical in their political posts. (i will give a slight edge to revs).

"when in rome...", right? :wink:

wouldn't mind seeing 2 or 3 being made every year or two just to maintain the fleet. Start in say, 5 years if we don't have anything new coming on line at that point.

case in point- the stealth f-177. it was a door wedge that shouldnt even be up in the air. now compare that with the video killer provided of the raptor.

its like the 1st plane flown at kittyhawk being compared to the sopwith camel.

the stealth didnt need 2-3 every year for replenishment. i know one was lost in the bosnia conflict, and another in iraq vol. I. plus one crashed into a trailor park here (bad shit always happens to trailor parks- Timma Slumberzzz case in point). other than that, the fleet was maintained.

current estimates say we are spending 2 billion dollars a day (?) to replenish all the shit we are using up in iraq and afghan. this goes from tanks to combat boots and kevlar.

so every month over there is literally knocking dozens of these magnificent planes (war machines) off of our budget. somethings gotta give, and unfortunately it is the raptor.

i tell you what, watching them every day definitely gives you an appreciation of them. you should hear the errie ominous *whirrrrr* when they fire up for take off. and the sonic boom heard for miles is outta this world.

i nearly shit my pants atleast 2X per week (and i dont scare easilly). then again, im not used to what sounds like bombs dropping 100 feet away.

OneForTheToe
04-07-2009, 01:27 AM
Tony. . . if you were that rational and logic in your political posts... We'd be having GREAT discussions.

I think you are absolutely right. The only thing that worries me is the idea of replacement planes. While the B-52's are so basic that they can probably be rolled off a ford plant still, the new planes are so specialized that it becomes quite difficult to keep using and re-using them through the years.

I wouldn't mind seeing 2 or 3 being made every year or two just to maintain the fleet. Start in say, 5 years if we don't have anything new coming on line at that point.

I'm no expert on military weapons programs, but I had a roommate who had worked for General Dynamics on the the A-12 Avenger program, which was cancelled. I asked him why they didn't jus make a few. He responded that there has to be a minumum number of orders to make it practical to keep the production lines open. That made a great deal os sense to me. And I think it is applicable here. You can't keep people standing around waiting to make two planes a year. The cost per plane would sky rocket. Remember there are ten's of thousands of people working on these programs.

Tony is correct. The Raptor will be is the sky for years to come.

revefsreleets
04-07-2009, 09:17 AM
Here's what worries me about China. They previously had to adopt the Russian model of "Steal secrets from the US and make cheap, simple copies that work ALMOST as well".

Well, they have a ton of money now, so they can now steal our secrets and build planes just as well. Toss in the eventual engineering edge (seen many American engineering students studying Friday night in the college library?)and ten years down the road WE could be playing catch up to them.

Don't think so? There was atime when all the Jpanese cars were about the size of a can opener, were ugly, and sold only because they wewre cheap and got good gas mileage. Last time i checked, Toyota was the Worlds biggest producer of cars now, and the quality ain't to shoddy either.

If we get lazy and complacent, we'll lose our military edge as well...

steelreserve
04-07-2009, 12:43 PM
i nearly shit my pants atleast 2X per week (and i dont scare easilly).

Are you sure it has to do with the planes? Maybe you should see a doctor.

synegymus
04-07-2009, 01:06 PM
I'm not confusing the two, so much as I think North Korea's military is probably pretty incompetent as well. All their public displays of might have gone wrong, and the country usually barely even has enough essential supplies to make it through the week, much less wage a war. They strike me as kind of like Iraq's army before the first Gulf War -- lots of soldiers, but not very effective and with probably no air power to speak of. Any modern army would probably crush them.

It would be a little worrisome if they were getting shit from China, but judging by how well their last rocket launch went, it doesn't look like it. But in either case, countries like China and Russia might sell some weapons to other countries, but notice how they never give them enough help that they can be as effective as China or Russia themselves. That's been the pattern for decades.

I know you are mainly talking about our superiority to the North Korean military, but you are missing the entire issue with North Korea. They have 1000's of short range missiles pointed at Seoul which is only 40 miles from there boarder and boast a population of 10 million.

You are right that we would probably walk all over them but not before they completely leveled Seoul the death toll would be enormous.

The comparison to Iraq is right on except lots of soldiers is an understatement DPRK army has over a million soldiers and don't forget they have at least two nukes! Although presumably no way to delivery the payload.

Preacher
04-07-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm no expert on military weapons programs, but I had a roommate who had worked for General Dynamics on the the A-12 Avenger program, which was cancelled. I asked him why they didn't jus make a few. He responded that there has to be a minumum number of orders to make it practical to keep the production lines open. That made a great deal os sense to me. And I think it is applicable here. You can't keep people standing around waiting to make two planes a year. The cost per plane would sky rocket. Remember there are ten's of thousands of people working on these programs.

Tony is correct. The Raptor will be is the sky for years to come.

That actually makes a whole lot of sense as well.

steelreserve
04-07-2009, 02:42 PM
I know you are mainly talking about our superiority to the North Korean military, but you are missing the entire issue with North Korea. They have 1000's of short range missiles pointed at Seoul which is only 40 miles from there boarder and boast a population of 10 million.

You are right that we would probably walk all over them but not before they completely leveled Seoul the death toll would be enormous.

The comparison to Iraq is right on except lots of soldiers is an understatement DPRK army has over a million soldiers and don't forget they have at least two nukes! Although presumably no way to delivery the payload.

I don't think they actually have any nukes that work. Remember when they tried to set the first one off, and it fizzled to like 5% of the size of the original Hiroshima explosion? That's what happens when you make a plutonium bomb and can't build the detonating mechanism correctly. They haven't tried again, so I'm pretty sure they're still too incompetent to get it right.

Anyway, yeah, North Korea could definitely cause a lot of destruction if it suddenly attacked South Korea unannounced. But if that happened, I don't see how F-22s or the U.S. Air Force would help. The U.S. could probably counterattack and win the war pretty quickly ... but we can't react instantly, so there would inevitably be a day or two that were pretty bloody while we tried to organize a response.

I don't really see a way around that, no matter what kind of air superiority we have. But the important part in my mind is that we're so much more powerful in general that North Korea knows a short 24-hour period of destruction is all they could accomplish -- then it'd be over for them. To keep that effect in place, it doesn't matter whether we're using ... F-18s, F-22s, F-35s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, AC-130s, A-10s or whatever. Unless something drastically changes, we'll always have a whole array of aircraft that could wipe the floor with whatever they're using. It's too bad it's the end of the line for the F-22, but I'm sure we'll be on to the next one plenty soon.

MasterOfPuppets
04-07-2009, 07:17 PM
List of active United States military aircraft


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft#Att ack

Fire Haley
04-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Exactly. Air superiority today is more like, can you afford to have ANY modern planes or can't you? The dozen or so countries that can afford to blow $100M-plus per aircraft don't get into wars with each other, and they'll automatically win any war against the mid-major countries that use old Soviet stuff, or the Division II countries with no air force at all.

In fact, I think that's what the JSF is all about: Once you're in that elite club, there are just a handful of options for top-of-the-line fighters, and nobody's got anything that's leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.

That's not entirely true. The F-22 could get through the SAM sites and missle defense of any country and knock them out for the rest of the planes. The F 35 can't do that.

The question will be is the 187 F-22's we have already, enough. That and Congress can still have their say about Gate's recommendation.


I don't know, but the word on the street is the Air Force says let them stop and it's the contractors who are crying the loudest.


In it's 10 years of development, the Air Force wants something newer and better already? They must have found something. Or that $140M price, that could buy a couple of thousand new Predators - the AF likes their toys.

---------------------------

F-22A development

By 1990 Lockheed Martin, teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics, had built and flown the demonstration prototype aircraft, designated YF-22. The first F-22 fighter aircraft was unveiled in April 1997 and was given the name Raptor.

In September 2002, the USAF decided to redesignate the aircraft F/A-22 to reflect its multi-mission capability in ground attack as well as air-to-air roles. The aircraft's designation was changed again to F-22A when it achieved initial operating capability (IOC) in December 2005.

The decision to proceed to low-rate initial production (LRIP) was authorised in August 2001 and Lockheed Martin delivered 49 aircraft under LRIP contracts. Initial operational test and evaluation began in April 2004 and was successfully completed in February 2005.

A further 60 Raptors were ordered in July 2007, bringing total ordered to 183, with production to 2011. The USAF has a total requirement of 381 aircraft but funding may not be made available for more than 183. By July 2008, 122 aircraft had been delivered.

The first operational wing of F-22A Raptors was Langley AFB in Virginia with a fleet of 40 aircraft. Elmendorff AFB, Alaska, became the second in August 2007 and Holloman AFB, New Mexico the third in June 2008. Operational Raptors will also be based at Hickam AFB Hawaii.

The F-22 achieved full operational capability in December 2007.

In February 2007, 12 F-22 aircraft began the first overseas deployment of the fighter at Kadena Air Base in Japan. The aircraft returned in May 2007.

During flight tests, the F-22A has demonstrated the ability to 'supercruise', flying at sustained speeds of over Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner.

Lockheed Martin has put forward proposals for a fighter-bomber version of the F-22, the FB-22, which will have larger delta wings, longer range and the ability to carry an external weapons payload of 4,500kg and total weapons payload of 15,000kg.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/

steelreserve
04-07-2009, 07:59 PM
Well, it certainly looks like we're relying heavily on the F-35, but if I had to guess, we'll probably still be using F-22s well into the 2020s or 2030s even when it's relegated to the status of the "lower end" plane in the arsenal. If there's still a use for them that other planes can't fill, our military isn't stupid enough to quit using them entirely. I mean, we're still flying B-52s, for crying out loud. When did they build the last one of those, the 1960s?

hindes204
04-07-2009, 08:41 PM
Wow...as a member of the Air Force, you would think i would be able to intelligently contribute to this conversation...unfortunately i have always worked on heavy aircraft and I'm not too familiar with fighters, it seems that most of you know more about this subject than i do...kinda sad actually

MasterOfPuppets
04-08-2009, 12:24 AM
That's not entirely true. The F-22 could get through the SAM sites and missle defense of any country and knock them out for the rest of the planes. The F 35 can't do that.

In it's 10 years of development, the Air Force wants something newer and better already? They must have found something. Or that $140M price, that could buy a couple of thousand new Predators - the AF likes their toys.
]

they'd need a lot of em

Cost for an early production Predator was about $3.2 million

]More than one third of all deployed Predator spy planes have crashed. 55 were lost because of "equipment failure, operator errors or weather". Four of them were shot down in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq; 11 were lost in combat situations, such as "running out of fuel while protecting troops under fire."[1]

The F-35 appears to be a smaller, slightly more conventional, one-engine sibling of the sleeker, twin-engine F-22 Raptor, and indeed drew elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, a 1972 VTOL aircraft designed for the Sea Control Ship.[15][verification needed] Lockheed teamed with the Yakovlev Design Bureau, developer of the Yakovlev Yak-141 "Freestyle", in the 1990s.[16][17] Stealth technology makes the aircraft difficult to detect as it approaches short-range tracking radar.

Some improvements over current-generation fighter aircraft are:

* Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology;
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II[/url
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5113/airf35afrontalatklg.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=airf35afrontalatklg.jpg)

F22
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5704/twof22araptorincolumnfl.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=twof22araptorincolumnfl.jpg)

OneForTheToe
04-08-2009, 01:36 AM
That's not entirely true. The F-22 could get through the SAM sites and missle defense of any country and knock them out for the rest of the planes. The F 35 can't do that.

That is a good point. However, the thing that worries me a bit about planes that rely a great deal on stealth technology is that, since radar and sam technology wouldn't seem to take as long as a high tech jets to turn over into a newer, better generation, a miitary plane's invisibility to radar could be compromised shortly after the plane roles off the assembly line. You also have to think about space detection technologies if considering the Chinese or Russian military. I think this might be the issue a bit with the F-117. I find it hard to believe that is a full scale war the the Russian Military wouldn't be able to find an neutralize the 117s. It's not like they have many other capabilities other than their radar evading one's.


Fortunately, with the Raptor, it seems that the plane has many capabilites other than it's low radar profile. Still, given the time from design to entry into service for many military planes (20 years sometimes) it is an issue.

xfl2001fan
04-08-2009, 07:22 AM
Well, it certainly looks like we're relying heavily on the F-35, but if I had to guess, we'll probably still be using F-22s well into the 2020s or 2030s even when it's relegated to the status of the "lower end" plane in the arsenal. If there's still a use for them that other planes can't fill, our military isn't stupid enough to quit using them entirely. I mean, we're still flying B-52s, for crying out loud. When did they build the last one of those, the 1960s?

Yeah, but are the politicians smart enough to listen to our military?

Fire Haley
04-08-2009, 08:28 AM
they'd need a lot of em



Predators are cool - I used to hang out with them guys in their hanger.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/usagold/Image05.jpg



...an yes the F-35 is stealthy - but it's still not in the same class as the F-22.

And with bombs hanging under the F-35's wings (the job it's designed to do) that "stealth" advantage goes away.


more tidbits

-F-22 carries twice as many air-to-air missiles as the F-35A, fights at nearly twice the altitude and at 50% greater airspeed than the F-35 , turns at twice the rate of the F-35 and only the F-22 has vectored thrust, giving it twice the maneuverability of an F-35.

We're selling to F-35's to half the world - we won't sell them something we can't beat.

anyhow - Gates' decision not to build any more than the 187 currently on order will still give the AF 8 or 9 full squadrons that will be around for quite some time to come.

revefsreleets
04-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Sounds like 200 of the F-22's might be enough, GIVEN CURRENT CONDITIONS<> for us to maintain superiority against any enemy.

But we need to stay one step ahead of those crazy effers...

Fire Haley
04-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Lots of new toys being developed for the drone wars.

Can you say "skynet"

Gorgon Stare

http://blog.wired.com/defense/images/2009/02/17/gorgon_stare.jpg

Argus

Special Forces' Gigapixel Flying Spy Sees All

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/gigapixel-flyin.html

http://blog.wired.com/defense/images/2009/02/11/argus.jpg

revefsreleets
04-08-2009, 10:34 AM
Eff those drones...I want a trans-sonic Mach 8 scramjet Aurora!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5e/Aurora_x-plane_3.jpg/300px-Aurora_x-plane_3.jpg

Fire Haley
04-08-2009, 10:42 AM
We haven't back-engineered that alien technology yet.

http://dbarkertv.com/black%20ufo%20blue%20sky2.jpg

revefsreleets
04-08-2009, 10:45 AM
Pulsed detonation wave engine technology is one step short of dilithium crystal powered warp drives...

OneForTheToe
04-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Predators are cool - I used to hang out with them guys in their hanger.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/usagold/Image05.jpg



Very cool



We're selling to F-35's to half the world - we won't sell them something we can't beat.

anyhow - Gates' decision not to build any more than the 187 currently on order will still give the AF 8 or 9 full squadrons that will be around for quite some time to come.

Am I correct that even when we sell jets to other countries we don't share all of the planes capabilities? For example, some software packages that relate to multi-targeting and radar evasion are not included or reduced. Is that correct? It would seem prudent.

OneForTheToe
04-08-2009, 03:24 PM
Here we go. We keep this all to ourselves.

http://www.freewebs.com/stargateworldsbyond/Daedalus_in_orbit.jpg

revefsreleets
04-08-2009, 03:36 PM
But does it run on Sony guts?

OneForTheToe
04-08-2009, 03:47 PM
But does it run on Sony guts?

Nope - Asgard engineuity:noidea: