|
|
Post by phelan on May 26, 2016 23:31:55 GMT
In good news for the fan boys and bad news for just about everything else, restarting F-22 production has gone from "not gonna happen" to "it's not a wild idea" and is heading towards happening. Mark Welsh, the outgoing CSAF, said at an Air Force Association event that it's really not a bad idea to build more of them. His comments included remarks about how it's performing much better than expected and in roles they didn't see when it entered service. www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/26/f-22-restart-not-wild-idea-says-welsh/84971806/ |
|
|
|
Post by lizardo on May 27, 2016 1:33:32 GMT
Might the USAF budget see increases to allow F-22 production to resume alongside all of the other stuff that they also need?
By all accounts, it looks as if whoever wins in November, we'll be seeing a much more hawkish white house than we've had in years.
Under those circumstances, I could see the same thing happening to the Zumwalt or the Virginia + Payload Module, both of which could be considered to be the "F-22 of the seas".
|
|
|
|
Post by v1boomuhoh on May 27, 2016 4:38:18 GMT
I saw a proposal somewhere (FighterSweep?) that seemed at least kinda halfway sensible for doing this. It basically involved heavily relying on the Guard/Reserves, retiring the Eagles, and opening up the Raptor for export to select countries like Australia. I don't recall any numbers being shown, but it sounds like something resembling a workable plan. It was pointed out how the cost would be outrageously expensive, and doing those 3 things would help defray that cost at least somewhat. Plus, if you transition every Eagle Guard/Reserve unit to Raptors, you have a very nice carrot on a stick for the politicians in charge of those states- they would probably be willing to fight for more AF budget money if it means their state's unit gets the latest and greatest jets.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 27, 2016 7:35:04 GMT
That would actually make sense, which is why I have almost no faith in them doing anything of the sort. I haven't seen Washington do anything that makes sense in I don't know how long.
|
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 27, 2016 7:36:39 GMT
Might the USAF budget see increases to allow F-22 production to resume alongside all of the other stuff that they also need? By all accounts, it looks as if whoever wins in November, we'll be seeing a much more hawkish white house than we've had in years. Under those circumstances, I could see the same thing happening to the Zumwalt or the Virginia + Payload Module, both of which could be considered to be the "F-22 of the seas". That I can see happening. I almost hope that they do increase the budget, considering the idiots in charge don't have an idea in hell how to balance a budget, or the way to shrink the force and make it more capable. |
|
|
|
Post by lizardo on May 27, 2016 15:37:59 GMT
That would actually make sense, which is why I have almost no faith in them doing anything of the sort. I haven't seen Washington do anything that makes sense in I don't know how long. Well, to give the USAF credit... (*shudders*), They're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with the F-22 re-start business. They need the fighters, and soon, since it's highly doubtful that the F-15s will be anywhere near dependable even a decade out. By all accounts, 2030 is an extremely, EXTREMELY optimistic date for a 6th gen IOC, and they really need new air superiority fighters a whole lot sooner than that. Now here's the issue: An F-22 re-start, or better yet, an improved "F-22E Super Raptor" with F135s, and F-35 RAM/AESA/avionics upgrades, is a magic bullet that could get planes on aprons in 5-10 years max. but it'll be hugely expensive, and exports are all but necessary to make the economics work out in the USAF's favor. But at the same time, none of the parties who we might want to sell to (the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany) have anywhere near enough money or political will to be interested in a squadron of $150+ million air dominance fighters that still look like something out of science fiction at 25 years old. And all of the parties who might actually be interested (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia) are all utter non-starter due either to the immediate escalation of tensions with China that would ensue were F-22's to start flying with South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan, and the DoD can't risk the F-22's secrets being sold off to China or Russia, which would be all but inevitable were we to sell to Israel or the Gulf States. So yeah, they're really in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of pickle with this one. Here's to hoping that the incoming administration recognizes this and pushes for funding for the fleet upgrades that are desperately needed by both the USAF and the USN. |
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 28, 2016 0:52:05 GMT
A big thing that everyone is overlooking in restarting the F-22 program is Lockheed. If they start building F-22s again, they're going to have to back away from the F-35 at least somewhat. They also are going to have to buy new facilities to build them in. The current aircraft were built in Marietta, but those facilities are now tied up with C-5, P-3, and C-130 work that's going on. So they're going to have to either expand Fort Worth, cut way down on the F-16 line to make room, or buy a whole new area to build them in.
Meanwhile, Boeing is really pushing the 2040C Eagle program. They would continue with adding EPAWSS, Talon Hate, APG-63(v)3 AESA, IRST, conformal fuel tanks, and most interestingly quad pack weapons, that would double the number of missiles carried. The upgrades would come under the next SLEP program that is going to have to take place soon. They say that some aircraft have 20,000 hours left on the airframe, but many would require new wings and vertical fins. I suspect they're going to have to replace a bunch of longerons as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by v1boomuhoh on May 28, 2016 3:39:41 GMT
They say that some aircraft have 20,000 hours left on the airframe, but many would require new wings and vertical fins. I suspect they're going to have to replace a bunch of longerons as well. "Yes, you can use the existing 40 year old airplanes and won't have to buy new ones. We are just going to make all new parts for practically everything that's important on the airframe and then assemble them together. And we'll also be able to get another 20,000 hours out of them! We built the KC-135, so we know projected lifespan doesn't really matter!" The poor Eagle is getting pimped out more than that Tomcat 21 thing Grumman tried to push. |
|
|
|
Post by phelan on May 28, 2016 3:46:12 GMT
Yeah, no kidding. I'm sorry, but it's vastly different running B-52s and KC-135s 50 years and expecting more out of them, than it is to do that with a fighter.
|
|
