What to do if the F22 is cancelled?

[tankerwanabe]

If the F22 is cancelled, is it possible /probable to fit it's GE engines and radar into the F15s without major modifications?

 

BTW, I can't remember if the F22 stuck with the P&W or whether they moved on to the GE engines.

[bigfngun]

If the F22 is cancelled, is it possible /probable to fit it's GE engines and radar into the F15s without major modifications?

 

BTW, I can't remember if the F22 stuck with the P&W or whether they moved on to the GE engines.

230953[/snapback]

 

The F-22 uses the P&W f119 engines. I think the proposed F-15XX(IIRC) of the early 90s was offered as an alternative to the F-22 with upgraded engines. But from what I know of the 2 planes is the upgraded F-15 won't be stealthy and its aerodynamics still won't be as good as the F-22's.

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_23.html

In September of 1985, the USAF issued a request for proposals (RFP) for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) that would be capable of supersonic cruise and maneuver and with a range greater than that of the F-15. It was to take maximum advantage of stealth technology consistent with its primary performance goals. McDonnell Douglas teamed with Northrop in the building of two prototypes under the designation YF-23. On April 23, 1991, the Secretary of the Air Force announced that the competing Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics YF-22 had been selected as the winner. Current plans are for the F-15 to be gradually replaced in service by the F-22A, but this is not likely to happen for many years, especially in the current budgetary environment.

 

The Air Force Systems Command has been considering a proposal for a stripped, "no-frills" Eagle, sometimes known as F-15XX. It was initially considered as a possible low-cost alternative to the ATF. However, if the F-22 program stumbles or runs into budgetary problems, the F-15XX may become more attractive.

 

 

Sources:

 

 

Air International, Airscene

 

 

F-15 Eagle, Robert F. Dorr, World Airpower Journal, Volume 9, Summer 1992.

 

Don't know what it would cost.

[Guest pfcem]

Pray that they realize the mistake & reinstate the F-22 program.

 

Otherwise upgrade the F-15 engines & radar.

 

If the F-119 would not fit, the F110-GE-132 for the F-16 Block 60 is rated at 32,000 lbs & GE believes the F110 thrust could be increased further to as much as 36,000 lbs (no reason to believe that P&W could not do the same with the F100).

[Ken Estes]

Pray that they realize the mistake & reinstate the F-22 program.

 

Otherwise upgrade the F-15 engines & radar.

 

If the F-119 would not fit, the F110-GE-132 for the F-16 Block 60 is rated at 32,000 lbs & GE believes the F110 thrust could be increased further to as much as 36,000 lbs (no reason to believe that P&W could not do the same with the F100).

231036[/snapback]

I don't know which mistake you are talking about. The country is broke, the rampup in defense spending required to procure the programmed acquisitions of 2000-2015 has been squandered by Rummy & Co on Star Wars II and invasions. The possible canx of F-22 will be only the beginning of a target-rich harvest.

[LeoTanker]

Pray that they realize the mistake & reinstate the F-22 program.

 

231036[/snapback]

 

 

This is all new to me. Is the F-22 program in danger in anny way?? I thought the USAF allready had placed the first order?

 

An uppgraded F-15 with avionics from the F-22 would be a hot bird indeed, but still, its an old design and offer few andvantages to Su-30/35...

[Hellfish6]

The USAF has 50 F-22s delivered already, and I think at least one squadron is fully operational now.

 

I'm curious to know what makes the F-22 so much better than the JSF. Without knowing too much about the details, I'd almost encourage dumping the entire F-22 program and going full-out with the JSF, which seems to be a more useful, cheaper, multipurpose platform than the F-22.

 

Just because they renamed the F-22 to an F/A-22 doesn't make it a good attack platform. It's still an air superiority fighter, not a true multirole like the JSF, right?

Edited October 5, 2005 by Hellfish6

[Ol Paint]

If the F22 is cancelled, is it possible /probable to fit it's GE engines and radar into the F15s without major modifications?

 

BTW, I can't remember if the F22 stuck with the P&W or whether they moved on to the GE engines.

230953[/snapback]

As I recall (since my references are still in boxes), the F119 has a larger diameter than the F100--by 6 inches, or so, making this retrofit problematic, at best (see UK F-4 w/ Spey). I believe the F-15Cs were designed to allow installation of either F100 or F110. I think F110s have been installed in F-15E variants (export). Of course, it would also be possible to install the -229 version of the F100, which has higher thrust ratings. GE's offering for the ATF program was the F120, which lost out to the F119 although it reportedly offered more power (it was a variable-cycle engine that was considered riskier).

 

Douglas

 

[Edited for clarity and to elaborate on the diameter issue.]

Edited October 5, 2005 by Ol Paint

[Red Ant]

IMO dumping the F-22 program now that it's about to bear fruits and after pouring billions of dollars and decades of hard work into it is about the most retarded thing anyone could come up with.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Red Ant

[pluto77189]

The USAF has 50 F-22s delivered already, and I think at least one squadron is fully operational now.

 

I'm curious to know what makes the F-22 so much better than the JSF. Without knowing too much about the details, I'd almost encourage dumping the entire F-22 program and going full-out with the JSF, which seems to be a more useful, cheaper, multipurpose platform than the F-22.

 

Just because they renamed the F-22 to an F/A-22 doesn't make it a good attack platform. It's still an air superiority fighter, not a true multirole like the JSF, right?

231291[/snapback]

The F-22 is much more capable than the JSF. It's like comparing

the F-15 to the F-16.

 

It's bigger, able to carry more weapons, and able to supercruise

fully loaded. It's much harder to detect, and is aided by thrust

vectoring. The larger size enables a more powerful radar and

electronics suite.

 

The F-22 can carry 8 missles, or 2 missles and 8 SDB's, or 2

1,000pound jdams and 2 missles. The JSF can do at best 2

missles and two jdams (though the A&C models can carry 2,000

pound Jdams).

 

The JSF is not able to supercruise for as long as the F22. It is far

more vulnerable to detection by the enemy (not as stealthy), and is

less able to detect the enemy (more advanced radar is less

capable than the F-22's because of airframe size limitations).

 

The F-22 is a much better first strike aircraft than the F-35. It's

able to get in quicker, stay undetected longer, deliver more

weapons on target from farther away, get out faster, and defend

itself better than the JSf.

 

It' s more expensive, but now the flyaway costs are down to

around $100 million, and would continue to fall as production

increased, should congress allows the AF to buy as many as they

want and/or sell them to the Australians.

 

Besides, we NEED an F-15C replacement soon. We would be

in a bad situation if we had to go to war against a large force of

newer Su-27s and migs, and had nothing but rebuilt F-15's and

maybe JSF's. They just don't carry the weapons to be a

significant air superiority fighter.

 

Without a big "F", we're endangering our "A"'s, "B"s, "C"'s, "E"'s,

"F/A's", our "K"'s and most important, our "GI"'s.

[Guest pfcem]

I don't know which mistake you are talking about. The country is broke, the rampup in defense spending required to procure the programmed acquisitions of 2000-2015 has been squandered by Rummy & Co on Star Wars II and invasions. The possible canx of F-22 will be only the beginning of a target-rich harvest.

231046[/snapback]

 

The country is far from broke.

 

I have not scene any details for the last fiscal buget or any for what the 2006 buget may contain but I am unaware of any significant "rampup" in defence spending. If there were, the Democrats would be SCREAMING about it.

[Guest pfcem]

This is all new to me. Is the F-22 program in danger in anny way?? I thought the USAF allready had placed the first order?

 

An uppgraded F-15 with avionics from the F-22 would be a hot bird indeed, but still, its an old design and offer few andvantages to Su-30/35...

231282[/snapback]

 

 

Read the initial post again.

 

It asks "If the F22 is cancelled".

 

I agree that upgrading F-15s is a poor substitue for the F-22.

[Hellfish6]

The F-22 is much more capable than the JSF.  It's like comparing

the F-15 to the F-16. 

 

 

Without a big "F", we're endangering our "A"'s, "B"s, "C"'s, "E"'s,

"F/A's", our "K"'s and most important, our "GI"'s.

231312[/snapback]

 

Ahh.... thanks for the info! I didn't know a lot of that about the F-22, not did I know that the F-35 carries so little. Is that only internal cargo for the F-35? IIRC it can have wing hardpoints as well. Can the F-22?

[Red Ant]

Yes, it can. But of course this ruins stealthiness.

[Hellfish6]

Of course. I just didn't know if the capability is there or not. For example, it would be much more useful to have the hardpoints installed in Iraq right now than it would be to retain stealth characteristics.

[DavT]

The country is far from broke.

 

I have not scene any details for the last fiscal buget or any for what the 2006 buget may contain but I am unaware of any significant "rampup" in defence spending.

231317[/snapback]

 

I have recently for class, and I believe you're right. Operating and personnel is pretty scary right now, but occupations ain't ever cheap. Procurement in comparison have gone up about the same % wise, but in terms of dollars, far far less. White House's 2006 fiscal estimate (actual budget wasn't up ATT) says a drop in defence spending, though I don't know what that's based on. You folks aren't gonna have a balanced budget in the near future, but I don't think you're spending yourselves to bankruptcy, at least not through procurement.

[Rubberanvil]

I agree that upgrading F-15s is a poor substitue for the F-22.

231318[/snapback]

Unless Congress orders an additional couple hundred F-22s in the immediate future, the F-15s will have to soldier on until they're no longer flyable.

[Scott Cunningham]

This is just a rehash of the 1979 discussions of "The F-15 is so damn expensive, why don't we just upgrade the F-4??"

[tankerwanabe]

Ok guys, focus.

 

The F22 is not cancelled. But there are various reports it is topping up at $150 -250 million per unit.

 

F35 is being quoted with a $50 million price tag.

 

I'm not sure how much the cost is to upgrade an F15, or even possible.

 

With the cost of the war going the way it is, it's possible that the F22 may go the way of the B2.

 

Hate to see the technology wasted.

 

Just a transfer of the radar system from the F22 to the F15 will make it better than anything out there in the BVR arena.

 

Thrust vectoring on the F15 was abandonned due to the increase in weight. So throw some new engines into the eagle and glue on thurst-vectoring and we get at least a better improvement than the legacy hornet to the super hornet.

[Guest pfcem]

Ok guys, focus.

 

The F22 is not cancelled. But there are various reports it is topping up at $150 -250 million per unit.

 

F35 is being quoted with a $50 million price tag.

 

I'm not sure how much the cost is to upgrade an F15, or even possible.

 

With the cost of the war going the way it is, it's possible that the F22 may go the way of the B2.

 

Hate to see the technology wasted.

 

Just a transfer of the radar system from the F22 to the F15 will make it better than anything out there in the BVR arena.

 

Thrust vectoring on the F15 was abandonned due to the increase in weight.  So throw some new engines into the eagle and glue on thurst-vectoring and we get at least a better improvement than the legacy hornet to the super hornet.

231428[/snapback]

 

 

Nobody said the F-22 was cancelled.

 

This is a "what if" discussion.

 

Damn bean counters. We ended up spending almost as much on the 21 B-2s we ended up with as it was projected to cost for the original 132 requirement. Yes costs inevitably went up but every time they delayed procurement & reduced the number of aircraft, the per unit cost went up but the total program cost went down comparatively little.

 

Now it appears as though the same thing may be happening with the F-22.

 

The biggest problem with upgrading F-15s is the age of the airframes. If they are not replaced with F-22s in the near future, then they will inevitable more ergently have to be replaced by something even more expensive later.

[Rubberanvil]

Could buy more F-15s but the chances of that happening is almost nil.

[tankerwanabe]

Nobody said the F-22 was cancelled.

 

This is a "what if" discussion.

 

Damn bean counters.  We ended up spending almost as much on the 21 B-2s we ended up with as it was projected to cost for the original 132 requirement. Yes costs inevitably went up but every time they delayed procurement & reduced the number of aircraft, the per unit cost went up but the total program cost went down comparatively little.

 

Now it appears as though the same thing may be happening with the F-22.

 

The biggest problem with upgrading F-15s is the age of the airframes.  If they are not replaced with F-22s in the near future, then they will inevitable more ergently have to be replaced by something even more expensive later.

231448[/snapback]

 

They're talking about making the F22 into a true attack platform (not just in acronym). Price is going to skyrocket with that plan with more delays and changes in design. Sometimes it's just better to make the damn thing and perfect it later with add-ons.

 

I think the F15 airframes are good until 2015. But the Aussies are using some sort of cool storage / refurbishment program to extend their F111s another 10-15 years. We could resort to that system.

 

And unlike the F16 airframes, the F15 airframes are pretty big. We could stick some more equipment in there.

 

With the demise of the Soviets, there's no real push in better aircrafts. The Eurofighter, Raphael and Flankers are likely to be the last aircraft programs for a long time.

Edited October 6, 2005 by tankerwanabe

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The USAF and ANG is considering upgrading part of the F-15C fleet with the AN/APG-63(V)3 radar. That doesn't make it an F/A-22A but combined with other upgrades (helmet-mounted sight and display, AIM-9X, latest versions of the AIM-120) it is still a very capable aircraft. Given its airframe, it will never have the supercruise and low observables of an F/A-22.

 

Whether we ought to procure the F/A-22 is another issue. Given that the RDT&E is already paid for, in my opinion it makes more sense to complete the acquisition of a few wings and cancel the F-35, which still has the major portion of RDT&E left to fund. For the next decade or two, the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8 and A-10 will be adequate given the likely threats, after that we're looking at UCAVs.

[Guest pfcem]

They're talking about making the F22 into a true attack platform (not just in acronym). Price is going to skyrocket with that plan with more delays and changes in design. Sometimes it's just better to make the damn thing and perfect it later with add-ons.

231478[/snapback]

AFAIK the strike capability of the F/A-22 is going to be limited to internal carriege of 250 lbs SDB or 1000 lbs JDAM & a variety of existing externally mounted weapons. That costs next to nothing in terms of the procurement cost of the F/A-22 itself. The designation change to F/A-22 is more to try & convince congress to keep funding the program that any significant chnges to the aircraft itself.

 

The US is currently studying an number of options for a new medium bomber/long-range strike aircraft & one of the proposals being looked at is a FB-22. Which is a new aircraft based on the F/A-22 but with a longer fuselage & delta wing.

 

 

 

I think the F15 airframes are good until 2015.  But the Aussies are using some sort of cool storage / refurbishment program to extend their F111s another 10-15 years. We could resort to that system.

231478[/snapback]

It is not so much the age of the airframe that matters as the number of flight hours on them. There are probably F-15s flying today with more flight hours on them than the Australian F-111s & American F-15s will continue to log significantly more flight hours every year than any of Australia's F-111s.

 

 

 

And unlike the F16 airframes, the F15 airframes are pretty big. We could stick some more equipment in there. 

231478[/snapback]

Not really.

 

Dispite its size the F-15 airframe is prettty packed with equipment already.

 

 

 

With the demise of the Soviets, there's no real push in better aircrafts. The Eurofighter, Raphael and Flankers are likely to be the last aircraft programs for a long time.

231478[/snapback]

True but we have no control over who is going to be getting Eurofighters, Rafaels or advanced Flanker versions & may find ourselves having to fight an enemy that possesses these aircraft. There is plenty of evidence that these aircraft are capable oponents to the F-15. The US does not like to fight battles on even terms, especially when we are capable of fielding weapons systems that give us an advantage we desire.

Edited October 6, 2005 by pfcem

[Smitty]

They're talking about making the F22 into a true attack platform (not just in acronym). Price is going to skyrocket with that plan with more delays and changes in design. Sometimes it's just better to make the damn thing and perfect it later with add-ons.

 

Really? I was under the impression that the upgrades through Block 40 were already in the budget, pre-Rumsfeld hack-n-slash.

 

Here's a link to a Bill Sweetman F/A-22 article in IDR that was posted on another board. It sums up the state of the program fairly well, IMHO.

 

http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/512-13917.asp

Edited October 6, 2005 by Smitty

[Rod]

Most of the R&D spent on the F-22 (ok, F/A-22) is already spent. Gone. Cancelling the program will not get you the cash spent for about 2 decades back. Sure, you have more know-how but if you are not going to deploy it, its value is almost zilch. The going rate for the F/A-22 also reflects those sunk costs. The more you build, the more you spread the costs. But if you don't build any you will also not be able to amortize it at all. The best solution is the one that they did with the C-17; In eexchange for a big contract lasting a long time, you get immediate price reductions from the manufacturer. Thee best solution IMHO is to get Japan to buy some 50-75 F/A-22s for the JASDF. With Koizumi in power with a recent strong mandate he has enough political pull. Also, Japan is scared of China's rising power in Asia and their assertiveness in disputed gas/oil fields with Japan. North Korea is also another picke for Japan who are not very happy when the DPRK test launched some missiles over Japan. Plus the purchase of the F/A-22 could help reduce the trade deficit with Japan. Even if the U.S. would need to allow some assembly by Mitsubishi or Fuji Heavy in order to get the contract, the increase in orders would lower overall fly-away costs for both the U.S. and Japan, and both nations need this aircraft badly to replace their earlier version F-15s and to stay ahead of the Su-30 and their more modern versions. It is a win-win situation for both and Japan can afford it.