Aerospace Blog

I am involved with components for a vast array of systems for the F-22.

I hope that this recommendation does not go forward, as it would mean ramping-down a huge Supply Chain involved, just from where I sit.

Not to mention an estimated 90K jobs may be impacted with all the major Contractors.

I was lucky enough to get a close-up of this fighter during development stages - awesome weapons machine

How really does the F22 sit in between the F15, and the F35?

I agree the way they name these planes is a mystery to me too

I think that those who make the joint strike fighter applaud this move more chance for them to sell their plane

The method used to choose designations is explained in this link:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system

Operationally, the F-22 is considered as the replacement for the aging F-15.

There are 3 variants of the F-35. Primarily it is the replacement for the F-16, which is also getting pretty old. One of the F-35 variants will have V/STOL capabilities and is intended to replace the V/STOL AV-8B Harrier used by the Marines. The 3rd variant will be an F-18 replacement.

There should always be conflict between defense contractors, politicians, and the budget conscious "bean counters." Few people accurately predict the requirements for victory in the next war before an outbreak. Personally, I think that the fleet of 135 F-22s, and aging F-15s and F-16s will easily maintain air superiority against any adversary for a long time. (For now I'll leave the Navy out of this, no offense.) But as several of the recent conflicts we've been entangled with show, obtaining air superiority does not mean winning anything but air.

Redfred, in wargames about two years ago with India, India 'destroyed' all US F-16s easily, losing only one or two planes flying Russian and French aircraft. The US air force went away refaced and with its tail between its legs. The F-22 more than turns the tables, capable of taking almost all comers before it is even seen or detected. The other thing is that the F-22 is the only aircraft (F-35 included) capable of defeating/evading the new Russian SAMs that they are selling all around the world, especially to Iran and North Korea. Canceling the F-22 is a bad move. Why do you think the US will not allow these to be sold to any other country (they sell F-16s to practically everyone) and why do you think Japan wants them so badly?

Excuse me but I agreed with the idea of capping the production of F-22 to the present 135 pieces not scrapping the program. Yes, the Indian military did get quite an ego boost besting our secondary aircraft (wrong term but you hopefully will get my meaning) the F-16 with their air superiority aircraft. They did not go against our aging air superiority plane the F-15s. (If my memory serves me right, we didn't even use AWACS to support the F-16s. Hardly a realistic scenario.) The F-22 is a superb bird and quite needed to replace the venerable F-15. I don't see a problem in considering the next variant, the F-22B(?) when real improvements become capable. I just see no urgency to acquire more than the 135 F-22 planes we have ordered now.

In this time of fiscal collapse, no cow should be considered sacred.

Let's not forget, India will not be attacking us. My point is that conventional war of military versus military will not be our problem for the future or even the near future. Unconventional warfare of pirates, hijackers, and terrorists will be the risk we will be facing. Having air superiority alone, has little impact on these threats.

My final point is that improving our substantial air superiority margin while other aspects of security remain vulnerable does not seem prudent.

Redfred -- Although I was much influenced by having read a well written Atlantic Monthly article supporting the expansion of the F22 inventory I'm coming around to your position on this matter.

Still the manufacturing engineer in me wonders about the cost of reestablishing production capability for future F22 production should the need to expand our fleet of air superiority aircraft and an F22 design be the logical choice. (This was mentioned but not elaborated on by the writer of the above mentioned Atlantic article.)

Do you have any thoughts on the cost and lead time needed to accomplish such a project? Not being experienced in any way with weapons system manufacture I wonder to what extent the DOD procurement policies require the preservation of manufacturing process technology and specialized process facilities, equipment, tools and fixtures. My experience with commercial capital equipment manufacture is that once production and spare parts requirements stop all that gets preserved is documents formally released into a document control system. Especially the secondary manufacturing process information and tooling at outside suppliers is of no interest unless it is capital equipment owned by the customer, a situation common in only a few industries such as casting and plastic molding for manufacture to "near net shape".

Ed Weldon

Ed,

You do bring up a strong subtle point. Maintaining production capabilities of hardware, software and what I call flesh-ware (knowledgeable people, both hands and minds) can be very expensive. I have no idea what this might cost, or even if this is worth attempting. I anticipate some of this can be maintained by the Air Force directly, for they must be equipped to maintain these birds.

And explains why the RAAF want neither the F35 nor the "F18 Super Hornet" being foisted upon them. The F111s have been strangled by the previous Australian Govt (no doubt hoping for early delivery of F35s) and then they bought some new F18s to fill the needless gap. The RAAF are not impressed. The new Govt revisited the deal but the penalties for dumping the F18 let alone the F35 were prohibitive. The original FA18s have not gone the distance.

The various alliances are all that will sell the F35, as it is already stated that the F35 can't cut it against the machinery available to Indonesia and Malaysia from suppliers in China, Russia and France. Australia has bought from France before (the flying brick named "Mirage") and may be forced to do so again.

As someone who provides for my family with income from military programs but also as has served with a battle force command staff I can tell you we need to do what is right. Gates said it best "You have to fight the war your in". I just hope that the money saved from military programs wont be wasted on other crap. I'm by no means in the loop but it doesn't appear that need that many F-22's, a couple hundred should do it. At one time the Air force planned for 750!

The current plan is to double the F-35 program, boost the special operational forces by 2800 and to add about more 50 drones to address the current and foreseeable bad guys.......Our biggest obstacle is growing the stones to use these weapons. I seems like the politicians are afraid someones going to get hurt.

From what I've read there is a growing emphasis on spending on cheap unmanned aircraft.