Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:52 pm
And thus, we have a $14 million helicopter.
Page 9 of 10
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm
Here's an idea. Give the A-10s to the USMC. They're best at CAS because that's their primary job. The plane that does nothing but CAS and the air service that is the primary CAS branch.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:46 am
Probably too late. But a couple comments.
First while the F-22 upkeep isn't great at ~$50,000 per hour in the air, given the cost of the things that's like paying $5 per hour to drive a $13,750 car. Which isn't so bad really.
@Teaos A significant part of the cost of developing high tech military systems is the R&D. I believe ~2/3rds of the current cost of the F-22 program is from that. So paying for all the reasarch and then not getting anything doens't seem like good sense to me.
Also you never really have something up to military quality until you really get it out in the field and test them in numbers over time. That isn't just true of high tech stuff. The American M16, The UK's SA80, and the Candadian Ross rifle were all notoriously bad in use and making them work out or replacing them takes time. I'd bet that's true of most military kit. Better to do it during peacetime or a small conflict.
@Rochey I don't know who owns Irelands debt. Just that Ireland made the news for racking up a lot of it faster than EU regulations would allow and getting their S&P credit rating lowered for it. However it's quite possible the way it works is that the US buys some Irish bonds. The Irish use that money to buy US bonds, and so on and so forth until the deficits are covered. It's sort of how nations print money without printing money these days.
As for other jets they're effectively meant for different rolls. The A-10 is great at what it does. But up against a foe with decent self propelled anti aircraft systems it's in a lot of trouble. And it's essentially a sitting duck if enemy air superiority fighters engage it.
As for the older planes like the F-15/16/18 etc they are good against inferior foes and over our airspace. However various wargames (like the ones with India some time back), demonstrate that when over enemy airspace, where the foe has the advantage of air and ground based radar systems, they don't compete well against other nations.
The stealth of the F-22 would allow it to dominate even in lopsided situations by tilting the radar advantage back towards itself even over enemy airspace. Even where low frequency radar could "see" it, getting a missile to lock on and actually connecting should be a pain. And it's got all it's other toys and air superiority optimized performance.
I think the current hope is that the multipurpose F-35, while not as good at the F-22 in air superiority, will be "good enough". That should, I hope, be true so long as we're up against foes with outdated Russian gear. However both Russia and China keep pushing their designs further. Even if the F-35 is better overall, if they feel they can beat it over their airspace things could become unfortunate for Tainwan, Mongolia, the Ukraine, Georgia and due to the interconnectedness of things the rest of us as well, especially if they start selling their good stuff to countries like Iran.
But hopefully those sorts of problems won't come to pass.
First while the F-22 upkeep isn't great at ~$50,000 per hour in the air, given the cost of the things that's like paying $5 per hour to drive a $13,750 car. Which isn't so bad really.
@Teaos A significant part of the cost of developing high tech military systems is the R&D. I believe ~2/3rds of the current cost of the F-22 program is from that. So paying for all the reasarch and then not getting anything doens't seem like good sense to me.
Also you never really have something up to military quality until you really get it out in the field and test them in numbers over time. That isn't just true of high tech stuff. The American M16, The UK's SA80, and the Candadian Ross rifle were all notoriously bad in use and making them work out or replacing them takes time. I'd bet that's true of most military kit. Better to do it during peacetime or a small conflict.
@Rochey I don't know who owns Irelands debt. Just that Ireland made the news for racking up a lot of it faster than EU regulations would allow and getting their S&P credit rating lowered for it. However it's quite possible the way it works is that the US buys some Irish bonds. The Irish use that money to buy US bonds, and so on and so forth until the deficits are covered. It's sort of how nations print money without printing money these days.
As for other jets they're effectively meant for different rolls. The A-10 is great at what it does. But up against a foe with decent self propelled anti aircraft systems it's in a lot of trouble. And it's essentially a sitting duck if enemy air superiority fighters engage it.
As for the older planes like the F-15/16/18 etc they are good against inferior foes and over our airspace. However various wargames (like the ones with India some time back), demonstrate that when over enemy airspace, where the foe has the advantage of air and ground based radar systems, they don't compete well against other nations.
The stealth of the F-22 would allow it to dominate even in lopsided situations by tilting the radar advantage back towards itself even over enemy airspace. Even where low frequency radar could "see" it, getting a missile to lock on and actually connecting should be a pain. And it's got all it's other toys and air superiority optimized performance.
I think the current hope is that the multipurpose F-35, while not as good at the F-22 in air superiority, will be "good enough". That should, I hope, be true so long as we're up against foes with outdated Russian gear. However both Russia and China keep pushing their designs further. Even if the F-35 is better overall, if they feel they can beat it over their airspace things could become unfortunate for Tainwan, Mongolia, the Ukraine, Georgia and due to the interconnectedness of things the rest of us as well, especially if they start selling their good stuff to countries like Iran.
But hopefully those sorts of problems won't come to pass.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:15 am
Yay. We get to hope for the best. That always works out well. 
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:09 pm
It makes since a lot more than building it for the sake of building it.sunnyside wrote: @Teaos A significant part of the cost of developing high tech military systems is the R&D. I believe ~2/3rds of the current cost of the F-22 program is from that. So paying for all the reasarch and then not getting anything doens't seem like good sense to me.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:59 pm
Which is precisely why its meant to operate as part of a combined effort with SEAD aircraft and air superiority fighters.sunnyside wrote:As for other jets they're effectively meant for different rolls. The A-10 is great at what it does. But up against a foe with decent self propelled anti aircraft systems it's in a lot of trouble. And it's essentially a sitting duck if enemy air superiority fighters engage it.
And no one was. The US needs a solid 5th Gen replacement for our F-15's which are starting to literally fall apart, some in midair.Teaos wrote:It makes since a lot more than building it for the sake of building it.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:35 pm
Why not just build new F-15s? Is it really so imperative to have the most advanced military tech around?
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:37 pm
Of course not. Everyone loves the US...Rochey wrote:...Is it really so imperative to have the most advanced military tech around?
Oh, right.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:38 pm
But the people who want to hurt you have on average the technological level of a Bambo canon.
By all means reserch the tech, but there is no need to impliment it when you old fighters are still more than good enough to be kept in production.
By all means reserch the tech, but there is no need to impliment it when you old fighters are still more than good enough to be kept in production.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:45 pm
The people who currently want to hurt us openly have the technical capability of 1980's guerrilla fighters, yes. I don't think planning ahead is a bad idea.Teaos wrote:But the people who want to hurt you have on average the technological level of a Bambo canon.
Implement the weapon after it's needed? That doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.Teaos wrote:By all means reserch the tech, but there is no need to impliment it when you old fighters are still more than good enough to be kept in production.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:49 pm
How many nations on Earth can come even close to matching the F-22? The EU combined could maybe pull something like that off in the next few years, Russia can't do it anytime soon. And China can't build anything with out lead paint in it.
The fact is you are so far ahead in the non existant arms race that your most advanced fighters are just unpractically powerful. You'll know before hand if anyone is going to pull of a practical counterpart to the F-22, then you start building it, and what ever new designs they probably have hidden away.
The fact is you are so far ahead in the non existant arms race that your most advanced fighters are just unpractically powerful. You'll know before hand if anyone is going to pull of a practical counterpart to the F-22, then you start building it, and what ever new designs they probably have hidden away.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:57 pm
1) Because once a production line shuts down restarting it can be a Herculean affair.Rochey wrote:Why not just build new F-15s? Is it really so imperative to have the most advanced military tech around?
2) As awesome as the F-15 is its still a 1960's design.
3) Because there are people who don't like us, and two of them are trying to build fifth gen fighters.
4) Because we have a duty to our military men and women to equip them as best we can.
The ones who actively scream death to America might, but Russia has proven recently its willing to flex its muscle and doesn't care what the international community thinks. What if next time its not Georgia but some place we care more about. (Not that we don't care about Georgia just... well... no one was apparently ready to step up to the plate for them.) Just because someone's stated goal isn't our destruction doesn't mean we won't come into conflict with them. Russia and China both have expressed an interest in 5th gen fighters.Teaos wrote:But the people who want to hurt you have on average the technological level of a Bambo canon.
And which aircraft would that be? F-15 production is over and done with.By all means reserch the tech, but there is no need to impliment it when you old fighters are still more than good enough to be kept in production.
The F-16 is still in production but it's an early 1970's aircraft as well. It's been updated and improved but its still pushing 40 years old and there's only so much you can do with it.
The F-18 is in production but again, 1970's aircraft. The new version is impressive but its at best on par with what the rest of the world has.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:02 pm
Actually the F-15 is still in production for US allies, in fact the company even has a proposed stealthy Eagle. "Silent Eagle" IIRC.
See also the Ares Blog posts: here and hereAvLeak wrote:Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-15
Mar 17, 2009
Amy Butler/St. Louis, Mo. abutler@aviationweek.com
Boeing unveiled the prototype of a new variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle aimed at the Asian and Middle East markets that will incorporate stealthy coatings and structure here on Mar. 17.
Company officials hope the new aircraft will garner up to 190 orders, extending the F-15 line beyond the current backlog of 38 aircraft for South Korea and Singapore. Since the company lost the Joint Strike Fighter contest to Lockheed Martin, the future of its St. Louis manufacturing facility has been uncertain. Continued F-15 sales, as well as additional orders for F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs, are the only work in the foreseeable future for the plant.
Major design changes in the new "Silent Eagle" version include internal bays within the existing conformal fuel tanks that can carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. Each tank will be configured to hold two air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9 and AIM-120 or a combination of the two.For the air-to-ground mission, 1,000- and 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions can be carried or four 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs per tank. Weapons loadout can also be split between the AIM-120 and JDAM for a multirole mission.The Silent Eagle configuration includes 15-degree outward-canted V-tails - a shift away from the characteristic vertical fins of the F-15 that reduces the radar cross-section.
The Mach 2.5 speed of the Strike Eagle is maintained, but the cost is about 180-200 nautical miles of range capability because of the reduce fuel in the conformal tanks, says Brad Jones, program manger for F-15 future programs.
The new design includes a digital electronic warfare system (DEWS), made by BAE Systems, that can operate simultaneously with the aircraft's Raytheon active electronically scanned array radar.
Stealth coatings, though not yet applied to Boeing's prototype, could be added at a later time. Boeing says the coatings could contibute to an equivalent amount of front-aspect stealth as that offered by Lockheed's F-35. This includes reducing radar returns from sharp edges on the aircraft, including antennae.
Stealthiness for the F-15 was explored about a decade ago for the U.S. Air Force as an alternative to the Lockheed-led F-22, but was never pursued. "The internal carriage is what is new. The stealth is not," Jones says, adding "We are not really after the F-22 market or the F-35 market" with this new design.
The level of stealthiness exportable on the F-15 is up to the U.S. government to decide, Jones says. Though USAF officials have been given courtesy briefings on the Silent Eagle, talks on stealth exportability have not yet occurred.
A radar blocker for engine inlets, already fitted in F/A-18E/Fs, could be added depending on how much radar cross-section reduction is required by the customer and allowed by the government.
Jones estimates the cost of a Silent Eagle will be about $100 million per aircraft, including spares, if built new. A retrofit kit including the conformal fuel tanks, DEWS and coatings could be added to existing Strike Eagles, he says.
The target market includes South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Israel and Saudi Arabia, Jones says. The first likely customer is South Korea, which is looking for two new fighters, including its F-X Phase III program, which calls for 60 aircraft in the F-15 class.
South Korea's Agency for Defense Development is also pushing for a KFX program, which calls for about 120 domestically developed stealth fighters. Jones says coproduction of stealth materials would be subject to U.S. government review and a tough case to sell.
Japan and Saudi Arabia are also looking for new F-15-class fighters. And if the Silent Eagle were sold to the Saudis, Israel likely would want a chance to buy the aircraft too to maintain balance of power in the Middle East.
Boeing's willingness to integrate indigenous systems, such as electronic warfare suites, onto the Silent Eagle is an option that could be of interest to these customers - especially Israel. Israeli industry was recently rebuffed by U.S. officials unwilling to add foreign EW systems under the F-35 development program.
The weapons-carrying fuel tanks, which are affixed to the aircraft with two bolts, and can be removed within about 2.5 hours. Reinstalling the original fuel tanks restores the F-15 to its nonstealthy configuration, which is capable of hauling more and larger weapons, including anti-ship missiles.
The Silent Eagle prototype is based on F-15E1, the program's flight test aircraft. To date, it has been outfitted with the conformal tanks and the canted tails, which are for demonstration only and not structurally integrated. The actual canted tails would be added later if a customer requested them. Stealth coatings and engine intake blockers have not been added.
Jones says Boeing hopes to begin flight testing the weapons-carrying conformal tanks on the aircraft in the first quarter of next year. Design work on the Silent Eagle concept began in September last year in response to feedback from F--15 customers, he says.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:05 pm
Well... shit. Thought I'd confirmed the SE's line was down as well.
Re: Bad News For The F-22?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:49 pm
I think the point from before that needs a bit more bringing home is that good as existing planes are they LOSE (When over enemy held airspace) against planes held by Russians at least, probably Chinese, export models from western nations should a country with them get upitty, and against existing export models of Russian craft if the enemy has good pilots and maintenence. And not just planes are the issues here. Surface to Air missiles are cheaper, effective, and can make it a lot more exciting when you have to try and dogfight where you have to worry about dodging those as well if you get too far from the enemy plane.
Granted, if fighting such planes over our airspace they're in trouble.
But given that America wants to retain the ability to deliver the smackdown where and when we want to without the aerospace equivalent of charging machinegun nests on foot we require stealthy craft of significantly superior capability to what the opponent has in terms of both aircraft and SAMs.
Existing fighters won't provide that against many foes, the F-35, hopefully, will give us that capability against a wider range of opponents, but if we want the ability to go after the big boys only something like the F-22 will make it happen.
Again we aren't currently fighting such a foe. But I have to wonder how much of that is because they know we have the capability to take it to them. As the current fleet ages if no more advanced air superiority fighter replaces them I worry Tainwan or the Ukraine will find out.
Granted, if fighting such planes over our airspace they're in trouble.
But given that America wants to retain the ability to deliver the smackdown where and when we want to without the aerospace equivalent of charging machinegun nests on foot we require stealthy craft of significantly superior capability to what the opponent has in terms of both aircraft and SAMs.
Existing fighters won't provide that against many foes, the F-35, hopefully, will give us that capability against a wider range of opponents, but if we want the ability to go after the big boys only something like the F-22 will make it happen.
Again we aren't currently fighting such a foe. But I have to wonder how much of that is because they know we have the capability to take it to them. As the current fleet ages if no more advanced air superiority fighter replaces them I worry Tainwan or the Ukraine will find out.