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

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote:


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

And start a whole new logistics tail? Not bloody likely.

An RPL model based COTS logistics trail used in the F/A-18E is not optional.
It is the future and the major reason to believe the F-35 will have a better
chance of success than the obsolete logistics system the F-22 sufferers
from. It could be very educational for USAF to see how USN has applied
AFRL's changes.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:12:16 +0300, "Yama"
I'm not sure you can just insert F119 to F-15. Very costly anyway.
However
if F-22 is canned, some sort of Eagle upgrade is obvious.

That's not what I said. Gut the F-22 of electronics and use Strike
Eagle avionics in an F-22 engine/airframe. Think an F-22 that is a
Strike Eagle under the skin.

My bad, I misread. Anyway, my uninformed opinion is it wouldn't much good
either.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

If we were to be gutting electronics, a transfer from the F/A-18E into some
Super Eagle would be a low risk option. The electrics in the F/A-18A were
basicly F-15 developed, including the FBW system. Such a change would also
introduce USAF procurement to the present, as defined by AFRL's changes.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
IF F-35 ever gets ready...and it can't really replace F-22 in any case.
Unless given more money...

There's several tens of billion dollars if the F-22 is cancelled,
the JSF price just took another hike, I'm on the record as saying
something's got to give as the numbers don't stack up,

Oh, they will, when you increase the budget a bit...

5. Buy foreign?

Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.

It would never happen in a million years. No, make that a billion. However
should the decision come to that I don't see why they would choose anything
else than Typhoon; French have too many systems totally unique to them, to
say nothing about Russian planes. Whether Typhoon is the best available
plane, is totally another can of worms...

I'm on record saying in 1997 or so that cancelling F-22 would be
gigantically stupid because the program is too far advanced. Cancelling
it
now would be...well, something.

Its only development money:-) , hopefully the JSF will be better
managed, canceling the F-22 only means a red face for the US, but its
the lengths they will go to avoid canceling it, that's the real
question, if the reports of the F-22 being a bit of a lemon are true
how far will they go to defend it.

At some point, programs will proceed to point where you just have to soak it
up even if things are not progressing 100%, because cancelling it will be
even more expensive (in the long term). In case of F-22, that point IMHO has
been reached years ago.

Of course it doesn't mean that it CANNOT be cancelled...

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:40:52 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

Not a hope, but out of interest - if forced to which would the US
prefer Typhoon, Rafale, or a Russian jobbie.

Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.

Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
observables involved.

Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.

Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.

Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.

Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
observables involved.


That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
Hornet to hide the compressor faces.




Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.

Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.

How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
perspective.





Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.

The Typhoon would be the most palatable from a political standpoint
but I'd think any foreign solution would be political suicide for
anybody involved in the decision. I'm wondering if maybe the US has
lost the expertise and vision needed to see a program through to
completion. B-2, Commanche, F-22 has been stretched out for nearly a
decade (it was originally intended to be in service in 1995) and the
problems with the F-35 are just starting to be shown. I don't think
it's a question of technology but more of a lack of talent in
management, planning, and dumbf--k politicians. But hey that's just
my opinion.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Out of those options IMO since none of them are stealth aircraft the
best way to go would be to start with a gutted Su-37 and stuff it with
American engines, avionics and weapons but chances are even if the US
could make itself do that, by the time they were happy with the
aircraft it would be damn near as expensive as the F-22.

Err, you've lost me here. Not only would the US be more liekly to buy
even a French aircraft than a Russian one, the Su-37 is not in any way
a stealth aircraft - from the front you can see both compressor faces.
Both the Typhoon and Rafale were designed with some reduced
observables involved.


That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
Hornet to hide the compressor faces.

I don't think it would necessarily be that easy, nor are the turbines the
only source for a return. The Su-37 is anything but a stealthy platform (all
sorts of sharp angles, canards, big whomping flat surfaces, etc., not to
mention no ability to carry internal stores, which is about the only way you
are going to achieve true stealthiness).



Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.

Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.

How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
perspective.

Where have you seen *any* kind of requirement for the F/A-22 to carry 5000
pound munitions? GBU-37 is apparently the biggest "regular" bomb we now have
in the inventory (at about 4000 pounds), and it remains the property of the
big boys (specifically the B-2). In fact, the reasoning is going in the
opposite direction--they have already done some shape-mating work with the
SDB on the F/A-22--nobody has even mentioned making the GBU-37 a fit for the
F/A-22.



Given the options of Typhoon, Rafale, and SU-whatever, I just don't
see an option other than Typhoon. Be nice to get more funding for
things like tranche 3 and the radar upgrades.

The Typhoon would be the most palatable from a political standpoint
but I'd think any foreign solution would be political suicide for
anybody involved in the decision. I'm wondering if maybe the US has
lost the expertise and vision needed to see a program through to
completion. B-2, Commanche, F-22 has been stretched out for nearly a
decade (it was originally intended to be in service in 1995) and the
problems with the F-35 are just starting to be shown. I don't think
it's a question of technology but more of a lack of talent in
management, planning, and dumbf--k politicians. But hey that's just
my opinion.

And B-2 has done fairly well so far, albeit in a niche role for which it was
not originally really intended. Your statement in regards to a lack of
expertise or vision is a bit disconcerting--I imagine had you been around
back in the days when the F-16 went from being a true lightweight to a
multi-role platform before it even entered into service (with attendant
design changes), or when the F-15 went through its original rather abysmal
operational readiness rate due to a radar that was down more than it was up,
or when the F-14 was experiencing some rather nasty teething troubles, you'd
have claimed the same thing? You are amazed that the F-35 is experiencing
some development problems? Gee whiz, who would have thunk it--they should be
able to just slap one together, kick the tires, and zoom off into the wild
blue, keeping the myriad different customers both here and abroad smiling
the whole time, right? Fact is that aircraft these days are *much* more
complex than they were forty or fifty years ago, and development timelines
are extended across the board (note the length of the Typhoon and Rafale
development?); add to that the fact that many of these programs were
originally conceived under a drastically different threat scenario and you
can begin to see *why* there have been significant changes in the
fundamental basis underlying such systems. Yeah, there are SNAFU's; and
sometimes even programs that *deserve* to be cut (witness both Commanche and
Crusader); but methinks you are being a bit too quick with your knife in
regards to "expertise" and "vision".

Brooks

6.Call Northrop,and have 'em make some F-23's? Awww never mind :-)

That's one of the things they'd likely fix if they went with the
Flanker. They could put in the radar blockers like in the Super
Hornet to hide the compressor faces.

I don't think it would necessarily be that easy, nor are the turbines the
only source for a return. The Su-37 is anything but a stealthy platform (all
sorts of sharp angles, canards, big whomping flat surfaces, etc., not to
mention no ability to carry internal stores, which is about the only way you
are going to achieve true stealthiness).


Whoa. I NEVER claimed the Flanker was stealthy :-) I said IF the US
were going to purchase it they'd want to tweak it to reduce the RCS.
I mentioned those blockers (I don't recall the "official" name for
them) as an example of what they could do.






Typhoons and Rafales seem like nonstarters for the simple reason that
whatever aircraft is chosen would also do air to ground. Let's see
you hang a 5000lb PGM or two on either of those aircraft. Sure you
can go on about small bombs etc. but it's tough to duplicate the
flexibility of being able to carry a heavy load.

Again, you've lost me - we're talking about an F-22 replacement - I've
not seen any proposals to hang TWO 5000lb weapons on them.

How 'bout two 7500lb weapons? One of the things being looked at is
carrying a Lockheed Minion UCAV under each wing. Also on the F-22
each of the four pylons is stressed for 5000lb so if they wanted to
carry multiple 5000lb weapons they could. The Flanker can carry a
Sunburn so 5000lb weapons wouldn't present a problem from a load
perspective.

Where have you seen *any* kind of requirement for the F/A-22 to carry 5000
pound munitions?

The four underwing hardpoints are rated at 5000 pounds. Roughly the
weight of a 600 gallon tank with 2 AIM-120s on siderails. Lockheed
themselves mentioned the Minion UCAV (search r.a.m. for "Minion" on
dejanews) and it would weigh 7500 pounds. So though the *requirement*
to carry one may not be there, if they decide to do more than SDBs on
it it would be able to handle it.


GBU-37 is apparently the biggest "regular" bomb we now have
in the inventory (at about 4000 pounds), and it remains the property of the
big boys (specifically the B-2).


The GBU-28 is used on the F-15 and it is roughly 4700lbs. The GBU-28
is a laser guided bomb. The GBU-37 replaces the laser guidance with
GPS so the B-2 can carry it. There really is no reason why they
*couldn't* drop the GBU-37 from the F-22 other than software changes
and flight testing that would have to be done. The point is it COULD
do it and the F-15 CAN do it. To cancel the F-22 and replace it with
the Typhoon would eliminate that capability. In theory even the F-35
would be able to handle it. It's pylons are supposedly 5000 for the
inners and 2500 for the outers.



In fact, the reasoning is going in the
opposite direction--they have already done some shape-mating work with the
SDB on the F/A-22--nobody has even mentioned making the GBU-37 a fit for the
F/A-22.

I don't think that's what I said. I was saying they COULD if they
needed to since the airframe is already stressed for it. I don't know
that you could say the same for the Typhoon or Rafale. The centerline
on the Flanker is pretty beefy though to carry that Sunburn.




And B-2 has done fairly well so far, albeit in a niche role for which it was
not originally really intended. Your statement in regards to a lack of
expertise or vision is a bit disconcerting--I imagine had you been around
back in the days when the F-16 went from being a true lightweight to a
multi-role platform before it even entered into service (with attendant
design changes), or when the F-15 went through its original rather abysmal
operational readiness rate due to a radar that was down more than it was up,
or when the F-14 was experiencing some rather nasty teething troubles, you'd
have claimed the same thing?

No. (Acutally my dad took me to Hill AFB when they had the open house
to show off their brand new F-16s so I was around. . .sorta :-) ).
The F-14, 15, and 16s eventually got to where they were cranking them
out regularly and the price was under control. The times from
prototype 1st flight to inservice were approximately:

F-14 First flight 12/21/70 In service: Two squadrons deployed
9/74

So from first flight to well into service: 3yrs 9 mo


F-15: First flight 7/27/72 In service: First deliveries to Langley
1/76

So roughly: 3 yrs. 6mo.

F-16: YF-16A first flight 1/21/74 In service: Hill AFB got their
first on January 6 1979 and had 102 by the end of 1980

So roughly: 5 yrs.


F-117: Have Blue 1st Flight 12/1/77 F-117 in service: 10/83

So roughly: 6 yrs. (To be fair the F-117s 1st flight was in '81 which
would make it 2-3 yrs)




F-22: YF-22A first flight 9/29/90 In service: 2005 estimated

So roughly: FIFTEEN YEARS.

Commanche: First flight 1/4/96 Cancelled 1/23/04

Eight years and hadn't gone into service yet when it was cancelled.


F-35: X-35 1st flgiht 10/24/00 In service: 2008 supposedly.





You are amazed that the F-35 is experiencing
some development problems? Gee whiz, who would have thunk it--they should be
able to just slap one together, kick the tires, and zoom off into the wild
blue, keeping the myriad different customers both here and abroad smiling
the whole time, right?


Chill :-) No I don't think that. But the magnitude of the weight
problem is. . .well, I'd think "alarming" would be accurate.



Fact is that aircraft these days are *much* more
complex than they were forty or fifty years ago, and development timelines
are extended across the board (note the length of the Typhoon and Rafale
development?); add to that the fact that many of these programs were
originally conceived under a drastically different threat scenario and you
can begin to see *why* there have been significant changes in the
fundamental basis underlying such systems. Yeah, there are SNAFU's; and
sometimes even programs that *deserve* to be cut (witness both Commanche and
Crusader); but methinks you are being a bit too quick with your knife in
regards to "expertise" and "vision".

Brooks



Perhaps (God I hope so). But there are too many days when you hear
about so-and-so whining because a program is somehow much more
expensive then they thought so they want to stretch it out or a
program has a MINOR problem so up go the red flags everwhere and out
come the politicians, hearings, and so on and so forth with everybody
looking more to cover their own asses than trying to solve or even
understand the problem. Anymore the big ticket items tend to sound
like one cluster f--- after another. And then there's the other end
of the spectrum when you keep personel to a minimum, nobody who
doesn't need to has even *heard* of the program, and they achieve
seeming miracles. I realize Rutan's rocket isn't an F-22 but look
what Scaled Composites has achieved on their relatively miniscule
budget. Anyway enough of this rant. And it's not just with military
equipment anyway; just look at the mess of a space program we have.
Okay I'm stoping. (Time for my meds LOL)