User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:28:55 PM EDT
Congress is looking into restarting production of the F-22 fighter jet, according to a defense bill proposal released Tuesday. The House Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee released its portion of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision to look into restarting production of the stealthy fifth-generation fighter jet. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/276915-congress-looks-into-restarting-the-f-22-fighter-jet I'll believe it when I see it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:30:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Should have kept making it in the first place. We could use 500 more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:31:41 PM EDT
[#2]
But we can't just restart production on an airframe that actually has seen combat in uncontested skies; where's the pork in it for poor ol' Congress?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:33:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But we can't just restart production on an airframe that actually has seen combat in uncontested skies; where's the pork in it for poor ol' Congress? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:34:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Good luck getting the forgings for some of the major frames in under half a decade let alone training the new guys working the line.
I want to see more raptors, but I don't see it happening |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:34:43 PM EDT
[#5]
It's because the abortion that is the F-35 is such a huge broken moneypit that they are finally going to have to admit such and will need a viable aircraft to replace it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:35:49 PM EDT
[#6]
I rather suspect they'll stop looking into it when they get an idea of what it'd cost to restart production.
Might as well start with a clean sheet design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:49:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I rather suspect they'll stop looking into it when they get an idea of what it'd cost to restart production. Might as well start with a clean sheet design. Just read this somewhere and it's like 200m/plane to restart vs like 150m/plane had they kept the line up 
Those numbers where based on needing only 75 more Raptors |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:55:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just read this somewhere and it's like 200m/plane to restart vs like 150m/plane had they kept the line up
Those numbers where based on needing only 75 more Raptors Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I rather suspect they'll stop looking into it when they get an idea of what it'd cost to restart production. Might as well start with a clean sheet design. Just read this somewhere and it's like 200m/plane to restart vs like 150m/plane had they kept the line up
Those numbers where based on needing only 75 more Raptors If they do restart it they better be doing it for a hell of a lot more than 75 of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 10:58:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Wasn't McCain one of the people who pushed to cut the number of F22's?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:07:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:09:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:09:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Probably make more sense to just create an f-22A incorporating all of the proposed upgrades and build that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:09:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Yes, according to the same article I read on the pricing mentioned above |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:10:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:11:29 PM EDT
[#15]
One would think they could update it with lessons learned...fix the bugs from the first gen.
the B model is often much better than the A. It might make sense...and is probably still cheaper than the F-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:13:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Since our defense contractors seem to be as effective as keeping secrets as high school boys that screw their teacher, I bet we can probably ask the Chinese how to go about restarting the F22 manufacturing process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:18:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they do restart it they better be doing it for a hell of a lot more than 75 of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I rather suspect they'll stop looking into it when they get an idea of what it'd cost to restart production. Might as well start with a clean sheet design. Just read this somewhere and it's like 200m/plane to restart vs like 150m/plane had they kept the line up
Those numbers where based on needing only 75 more Raptors If they do restart it they better be doing it for a hell of a lot more than 75 of them. If that's the case it likely wont make much sense with less than 250+ orders. I'm sure Lockheed bean counters will make it work for such an order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:23:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Reponse will be "we spent a lot of money following your request to look into this. The answer we came up with fits what we already did. You're welcome."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2016 11:44:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Something tells me Grumman or Boeing would love to build some fighter jets.
All lockheed is good at is burning money. Surely someone still has shit saved on a floppy disk. But who the fuck knows. Wet can't seem to build Jack shit anymore. Spend billions on r&d just to cancel, fuck I'm losing count on how many programs. Plus, we get rides from the russians now to space with the biggest deficit ever. It's almost like opposite world. At what point do we say " hey, gov, your obviously an asshat and don't know what the fuck your you're doing. " Maybe the whole global security for free thing is a shitty idea. Keyboard noises... "dear world, we're tired of you guys being cheap broke dick fucks. We need money for ebt, cell phones, and rent to own shit for the 50-60% or so, ish, in the fsa. Please go fuck yourselves and pay for your own security, planes, and shit. We're broke as fuck. Besides, the planes that we're building can't actually do anything yet. We're still working on that software and shit. We hope you understand. Signed, uncle Sam. Why bother with stealth fighters in all seriousness. Anyone with a real kick ass defense has nukes, so that's out. Until the day icbms are rendered obsolete, it seems like going down town anywhere is a shitty idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 12:26:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Sierra Army Depot http://www.sierra.army.mil/public/news/12/The_Challenge-06-2012.pdf The last event to close in February was a 3-P type event for a new project to container- ize and store F-22 tooling equipment for the Air Force. This was a challenging event due to the customer requirements to utilize a database called “ETIMS” which is used by the Air Force, but not commonly used on Army Installations. The team worked diligently to come up with a flexible lay- out to process this material and store it efficiently, which could lead to additional similar workload from the customer if executed satisfactorily. A job well-done by the F-22 3-P team! ARfcom search, it's a motherfucker.
F-22 Production Tooling Goes Into Storage http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=147&t=1264554 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 12:55:43 AM EDT
[#21]
While I like the idea in principal, the F-22 is too small a plane for the Pacific facing future we are facing. Not enough internal fuel, not a deep enough magazine.
We need a fly-off with a firm fixed price award at the end of it with legally binding production numbers, I'd like to see if we can fight fleet contraction and procure 1.2 NGADs or whatever for each F-15 currently in inventory. With legally binding production numbers and firm fixed price contracting I believe its doable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 12:57:39 AM EDT
[#22]
The irony of this would be giving Lockheed yet another chance to fuck up a fighter jet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 1:08:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Yes. At least they didn't destroy it. Someone thought about future possibilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 1:22:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Yes. Why, to ensure the F-35 wouldn't get reduced? Doubt it will ever happen, but I suppose we can sell some to Japan and repeal that law that prohibits export. They're already getting some F-35s so I don't think there is much technology they won't already get. And they're really the only country who expressed interest in them while being able to afford them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 1:27:26 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I like the idea in principal, the F-22 is too small a plane for the Pacific facing future we are facing. Not enough internal fuel, not a deep enough magazine. We need a fly-off with a firm fixed price award at the end of it with legally binding production numbers, I'd like to see if we can fight fleet contraction and procure 1.2 NGADs or whatever for each F-15 currently in inventory. With legally binding production numbers and firm fixed price contracting I believe its doable. Maybe its time for a Super-Raptor? Ala the Super-Hornet? Probably be a whole new plane at that point anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 1:31:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I like the idea in principal, the F-22 is too small a plane for the Pacific facing future we are facing. Not enough internal fuel, not a deep enough magazine. We need a fly-off with a firm fixed price award at the end of it with legally binding production numbers, I'd like to see if we can fight fleet contraction and procure 1.2 NGADs or whatever for each F-15 currently in inventory. With legally binding production numbers and firm fixed price contracting I believe its doable. I thought we're supposed to do all that for the F 35 and they still ran away with costs and the damn thing still doesn't work. You can't trust Congress or weapons manufacturers to ever get even within 10% of their budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 2:02:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would think they could update it with lessons learned...fix the bugs from the first gen. the B model is often much better than the A. It might make sense...and is probably still cheaper than the F-35. Hope they include the pilot hypoxia fix in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 2:05:29 AM EDT
[#28]
So who is up for re-election in the state/district where this is built?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 2:07:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Their was always the proposed FB-22 variant! I thought that was a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:20:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:25:53 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have kept making it in the first place. We could use 500 more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:31:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:33:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. IIRC, it was skewed more toward being a multirole fighter than a hard core air superiority fighter. With the AF being run by fighter pilots, the F-22 won out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:36:23 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, it was skewed more toward being a multirole fighter than a hard core air superiority fighter. With the AF being run by fighter pilots, the F-22 won out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. IIRC, it was skewed more toward being a multirole fighter than a hard core air superiority fighter. With the AF being run by fighter pilots, the F-22 won out. I think the 23 had longer legs though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 10:42:38 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck getting the forgings for some of the major frames in under half a decade let alone training the new guys working the line. I want to see more raptors, but I don't see it happening This ^, let alone some of the chips needed for the radar (micro chips that haven't been produced for a decade or more). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:22:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I like the idea in principal, the F-22 is too small a plane for the Pacific facing future we are facing. Not enough internal fuel, not a deep enough magazine. We need a fly-off with a firm fixed price award at the end of it with legally binding production numbers, I'd like to see if we can fight fleet contraction and procure 1.2 NGADs or whatever for each F-15 currently in inventory. With legally binding production numbers and firm fixed price contracting I believe its doable. They have conformal fuel tanks for the F-16 that impose little drag while greatly extending the amount of fuel carried (and therefore range). While we're not using them ( ) other countries are. They have also developed CFT's for the Hornet and this is something the Navy is supposedly looking in to. The E model F-15's use them also.I wonder if there is a possibility of a stealth compatible CFT that could be developed for the F-22 (or F-35 for that matter). -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:24:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. This extended supercruise would be very useful over the large areas we would be dealing with against China. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:25:46 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. -K I thought that they choose the F-22 because the YF 23 wasn't a complete working prototype, and they were worried if they could get the plane working as promised. Which, oddly, sounds exactly like the F 35 project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:27:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would think they could update it with lessons learned...fix the bugs from the first gen. the B model is often much better than the A. It might make sense...and is probably still cheaper than the F-35. It won't be less expensive than the F-35, not even close. Rand has a paper out there estimating re-start costs, and they put the figure at something like 50% above mid/late-production flyaway costs. And that Rand paper is optimistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:28:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sierra Army Depot http://www.sierra.army.mil/public/news/12/The_Challenge-06-2012.pdf The last event to close in February was a 3-P type event for a new project to container- ize and store F-22 tooling equipment for the Air Force. This was a challenging event due to the customer requirements to utilize a database called “ETIMS” which is used by the Air Force, but not commonly used on Army Installations. The team worked diligently to come up with a flexible lay- out to process this material and store it efficiently, which could lead to additional similar workload from the customer if executed satisfactorily. A job well-done by the F-22 3-P team! ARfcom search, it's a motherfucker.
F-22 Production Tooling Goes Into Storage http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=147&t=1264554 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn't the Air Force mothball all the tooling, dies, and videos showing assembly, just in case this happened? Sierra Army Depot http://www.sierra.army.mil/public/news/12/The_Challenge-06-2012.pdf The last event to close in February was a 3-P type event for a new project to container- ize and store F-22 tooling equipment for the Air Force. This was a challenging event due to the customer requirements to utilize a database called “ETIMS” which is used by the Air Force, but not commonly used on Army Installations. The team worked diligently to come up with a flexible lay- out to process this material and store it efficiently, which could lead to additional similar workload from the customer if executed satisfactorily. A job well-done by the F-22 3-P team! ARfcom search, it's a motherfucker.
F-22 Production Tooling Goes Into Storage http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=147&t=1264554 And none of that addresses the majority of the true hurdles in restarting the program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:31:54 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought that they choose the F-22 because the YF 23 wasn't a complete working prototype, and they were worried if they could get the plane working as promised. Which, oddly, sounds exactly like the F 35 project. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. -K I thought that they choose the F-22 because the YF 23 wasn't a complete working prototype, and they were worried if they could get the plane working as promised. Which, oddly, sounds exactly like the F 35 project. I recall something similar, but it was more them not really having as much faith in the BVR capability of air-to-air missiles and so they gave extra weight to the F-22's ability to fight within visual range. I don't have the knowledge to really criticize the decision makers who were working with 1990's information, but things have come a long way since then in both missiles and air to ground munitions. Maybe their concern was warranted and maybe not. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:33:36 AM EDT
[#42]
I read the 2010 RAND Corp paper on the shutdown and restart issues and costs last fall. I could not remember all of the details, esp the cost, but I found it. Highly suggest you read it. They estimate cost of restart to be $330M, details start on page 25 of the doc. Go here and download PDF.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:33:59 AM EDT
[#43]
Indisputable: 23 > 22
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:35:05 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It won't be less expensive than the F-35, not even close. Rand has a paper out there estimating re-start costs, and they put the figure at something like 50% above mid/late-production flyaway costs. And that Rand paper is optimistic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One would think they could update it with lessons learned...fix the bugs from the first gen. the B model is often much better than the A. It might make sense...and is probably still cheaper than the F-35. It won't be less expensive than the F-35, not even close. Rand has a paper out there estimating re-start costs, and they put the figure at something like 50% above mid/late-production flyaway costs. And that Rand paper is optimistic. But as the increased costs would be a more or less one time investment to re-start the line, actual fly-away costs would then come down with additional numbers, would they not? Add in foreign purchases (Canada, Australia, and Japan might all be interested as well as others) and we could see a lot more aircraft produced. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:36:15 AM EDT
[#45]
More details: here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:37:22 AM EDT
[#46]
F35 = jack of all trades master of none = gets our pilots killed. Cancel it. Moar F22s = good move.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:39:45 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should have kept making it in the first place. We could use 500 more. FPNI. It should have never stopped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:46:35 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. This extended supercruise would be very useful over the large areas we would be dealing with against China. -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bring back the YF-23! I've always preferred the looks of the YF-23 over the F-22. No idea how the two aircraft compared performance-wise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg IIRC, the F-23 was faster, stealthier, and flew higher, while the F-22 was more maneuverable and offered better close in performance. I also recall reading that the F-23 could supercruise for more or less the entire mission profile while the F-22 is more limited in how long it can maintain a supercruise due to fuel and thermal management issues. This extended supercruise would be very useful over the large areas we would be dealing with against China. -K I fixed it. It's not a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:46:54 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indisputable: 23 > 22 Disputable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2016 11:57:11 AM EDT
[#50]
And another interesting article on Vice regarding the stupid decision to cancel production early and restart challenges .here
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
