A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

In the event the F-22 is cancelled which would be the best way to go? (Talk about opening a can of worms :-) )



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old April 6th 04, 08:50 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default In the event the F-22 is cancelled which would be the best way to go? (Talk about opening a can of worms :-) )



As much as I think it would be a bad idea to cancel the F-22 I have to
admit that the perception is that it's iffy as far as hitting it's
deadlines. But also from what I've read it seems that most of the
problems are with software and avionics and that the airframe/engine
combination is relatively sound and hasn't had anything more extreme
than any other new aircraft as far as surprises go. So the question is
if the software and avionics ultimately drag it down what would be the
best alternative?

1. Would it be possible to completely ****-can the avionics and
software and use the same as is going to be used in the F-35? I mean
IDENTICAL other than the differences to deal with the different flight
characteristics of the F-22?

2. Stuff the latest generation Strike Eagle avionics into an
F-22/F-119 combo as a stopgap until you could do #1? It would
essentially BE a faster, stealthy F-15.

3. Can the F-22 entirely which would mean you flushed billions away
and got nothing for it and then buy F-15Ks with AESA APG-63s as a
stopgap until the F-35 is ready?

4. *shudder* buy "Super"Hornets for the Air Force?

5. Buy foreign?


5 seems like a nonstarter

I would HOPE 4 would be a nonstarter.

IMO 3 would be most likely but then in the end you end up with an
underpowered aircraft that wasn't designed for air-to-air as it's
primary role.

2. Seems like it would cost as much or more than just working out the
current problems.

1 Would not only likely be MORE expensive since you's REALLY be
stretching out the purchase of F-22 airframes but you'd have gone
something like 20 years between prototype flight and inservice.



Anyway ALL opinions welcome but let's all try to keep the
flamethrowers at home.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arlington NASCAR track dead? Rich S. Home Built 51 December 8th 04 03:34 AM
SWRFI update... Moving again (argghh!!)... Dave S Home Built 14 October 15th 04 03:34 AM
Comanche cancelled? Jim Caldwell Military Aviation 1 March 7th 04 01:17 PM
The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience John Carrier Military Aviation 54 October 12th 03 04:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.