4 ms·

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may hav

by ivl 10y ago

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.

vonmoltke 10y ago
The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse had production expanded or continued. The F-35A was (supposedly) designed to better handle those issues.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later. The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc... http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Yes, my naive reaction to reading about these planes and the maintenance requirements is that they are pushing for capabilities that are unreasonable given the available technology.
  - neurotech1 10y ago
    There is 3 different models of super Hornets. 1) F/A-18E Strike Fighter 2) F/A-18F FAC(A) CAS/Strike Fighter 3) EA-18G Growler Commonality is ~80% between all 3 aircraft. They could probably make a F/A-XX based on F/A-18E/F with similar avionics, and engines based on the F135 in a larger airframe, but they could make it happen relatively economically if that was the priority.
    - Gravityloss 10y ago
      It's not a good design in the stealth and supercruise departments. Back in the sixties and seventies when the Hornet was designed, modern stealth shaping was not really known. Modern airframes could be a lot more capable.
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  > The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. Allow me to point out the very practical reality that the figure you're quoting was the cost to build an F-22. We haven't built one since the last F-22 rolled out of Marietta in 2012, and all the tooling has been put away (and some of it has been lost). It would certainly be possible to resume F-22 production, but the cost of the first few new aircraft would be even higher than what you're quoting because we would have to teach ourselves how to build it again, and set up all the equipment and logistics necessary to do it. That won't come cheaply.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    Quite right. The comment I was replying to seemed to be saying it was a mistake to cut F-22A production way back when in favor of the F-35, and I was answering in that context. Restarting it now would require hundreds of millions in tooling costs just to get the lines going again.
- mrpippy 10y ago
  If parts were going obsolete while it was still being produced, how is maintenance going to work for the next half century? I assume these were electronics?
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    Well, that was part of my job. In the defense industry, it is referred to as "diminishing materials suppliers" (DMS). When a supplier decided to stop producing a part, I had to identify an alternative. Sometimes it was a drop-in replacement and this was just a matter of ordering samples and testing them on our boards. Sometimes we had to qualify new suppliers to build our custom parts. Sometimes I actually had to modify the circuits to fit a new part. Generally, near the end of production the program makes a final buy of parts to warehouse for "spares and repairs". The typical threshold is twenty years of support. If the spares run out during the support lifetime, it is up to the customer how to handle it. Sometimes we can cannibalize other aircraft, sometimes we repeat the DMS process for the parts we ran out of, sometimes (if the customer wants to keep the aircraft flying for a while longer) we do a tech refresh and design new replacement modules with current components.
ansible 10y ago
Eh, the F-22 is for land-based air superiority, and not much else. I don't think it is really want we want to use for CAS and other missions, nevermind doing things like land on a carrier. I think we should have cancelled both the F-22 and F-35 programs, demand that the Air Force just fly F/A-18F Super Hornets (they would totally hate this), and put all that money into UCAVs instead. Edit: grammar.
- PantaloonFlames 10y ago
  Yep, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are the planes we need, it turns out. Unwinding the F-35, with all the international commitments and arms deals, is gonna be very messy. Yet necessary.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    On the subject of messy international things - the UK is building large carriers without CATOBAR specifically for the F-35B! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft...
adventured 10y ago
The money is on them re-starting F-22 production. "The bill would also require a study of the budgetary implications of restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet line." http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-passes-major-dod-policy-bill-2017/83637566/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-pa... http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air-Force-Could-Bring-Back-Raptor http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air...
- sickbeard 10y ago
  funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more? http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thrust-vectoring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru... 5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that <gasp> we should build more?
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Huh? That article is about how thrust vectoring, a really complex and expensive piece of hardware on the F22, is unnecessary to it's main mission, which is air superiority. If the F22 doesn't need one of its most marketed features to dominate the skies, that's a good thing. The F22 is expensive but so good at its job that no other country had tried to counter it with its own design, and one of its primary problems is the health effects of extreme g forces on its pilots. The software is now modified to limit it's maneuverability just so that its pilots can remain concious.
  - adventured 10y ago
    That article you linked to says absolutely nothing about the F22 not winning in a dogfight. The F22 is still vastly superior to its competition.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- 10y ago
Pxtl 10y ago
I remember when they were killing the F-22 project that basically the argument was that the F-35 would be taking over the lion's share of the work and the F-35 wouldn't have the same issues as the F-22. Oops.

by ivl 10y ago

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.

vonmoltke 10y ago

The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse had production expanded or continued. The F-35A was (supposedly) designed to better handle those issues.

Gravityloss 10y ago
The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later. The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc... http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Yes, my naive reaction to reading about these planes and the maintenance requirements is that they are pushing for capabilities that are unreasonable given the available technology.
- neurotech1 10y ago
  There is 3 different models of super Hornets. 1) F/A-18E Strike Fighter 2) F/A-18F FAC(A) CAS/Strike Fighter 3) EA-18G Growler Commonality is ~80% between all 3 aircraft. They could probably make a F/A-XX based on F/A-18E/F with similar avionics, and engines based on the F135 in a larger airframe, but they could make it happen relatively economically if that was the priority.
  - Gravityloss 10y ago
    It's not a good design in the stealth and supercruise departments. Back in the sixties and seventies when the Hornet was designed, modern stealth shaping was not really known. Modern airframes could be a lot more capable.
engi_nerd 10y ago
> The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. Allow me to point out the very practical reality that the figure you're quoting was the cost to build an F-22. We haven't built one since the last F-22 rolled out of Marietta in 2012, and all the tooling has been put away (and some of it has been lost). It would certainly be possible to resume F-22 production, but the cost of the first few new aircraft would be even higher than what you're quoting because we would have to teach ourselves how to build it again, and set up all the equipment and logistics necessary to do it. That won't come cheaply.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  Quite right. The comment I was replying to seemed to be saying it was a mistake to cut F-22A production way back when in favor of the F-35, and I was answering in that context. Restarting it now would require hundreds of millions in tooling costs just to get the lines going again.
mrpippy 10y ago
If parts were going obsolete while it was still being produced, how is maintenance going to work for the next half century? I assume these were electronics?
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  Well, that was part of my job. In the defense industry, it is referred to as "diminishing materials suppliers" (DMS). When a supplier decided to stop producing a part, I had to identify an alternative. Sometimes it was a drop-in replacement and this was just a matter of ordering samples and testing them on our boards. Sometimes we had to qualify new suppliers to build our custom parts. Sometimes I actually had to modify the circuits to fit a new part. Generally, near the end of production the program makes a final buy of parts to warehouse for "spares and repairs". The typical threshold is twenty years of support. If the spares run out during the support lifetime, it is up to the customer how to handle it. Sometimes we can cannibalize other aircraft, sometimes we repeat the DMS process for the parts we ran out of, sometimes (if the customer wants to keep the aircraft flying for a while longer) we do a tech refresh and design new replacement modules with current components.

ansible 10y ago

Eh, the F-22 is for land-based air superiority, and not much else. I don't think it is really want we want to use for CAS and other missions, nevermind doing things like land on a carrier. I think we should have cancelled both the F-22 and F-35 programs, demand that the Air Force just fly F/A-18F Super Hornets (they would totally hate this), and put all that money into UCAVs instead. Edit: grammar.

PantaloonFlames 10y ago
Yep, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are the planes we need, it turns out. Unwinding the F-35, with all the international commitments and arms deals, is gonna be very messy. Yet necessary.
- arethuza 10y ago
  On the subject of messy international things - the UK is building large carriers without CATOBAR specifically for the F-35B! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft...

adventured 10y ago

The money is on them re-starting F-22 production. "The bill would also require a study of the budgetary implications of restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet line." http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-passes-major-dod-policy-bill-2017/83637566/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-pa... http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air-Force-Could-Bring-Back-Raptor http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air...

sickbeard 10y ago
funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more? http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thrust-vectoring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru... 5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that <gasp> we should build more?
- akiselev 10y ago
  Huh? That article is about how thrust vectoring, a really complex and expensive piece of hardware on the F22, is unnecessary to it's main mission, which is air superiority. If the F22 doesn't need one of its most marketed features to dominate the skies, that's a good thing. The F22 is expensive but so good at its job that no other country had tried to counter it with its own design, and one of its primary problems is the health effects of extreme g forces on its pilots. The software is now modified to limit it's maneuverability just so that its pilots can remain concious.
- adventured 10y ago
  That article you linked to says absolutely nothing about the F22 not winning in a dogfight. The F22 is still vastly superior to its competition.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
10y ago

Pxtl 10y ago

I remember when they were killing the F-22 project that basically the argument was that the F-35 would be taking over the lion's share of the work and the F-35 wouldn't have the same issues as the F-22. Oops.