F-22 and US-101 Cancelled

[An-225 0]

Production of the F-22 Raptor will cease, leaving the USAF with about 187 airframes. The production of the US-101, or VH-71 Kestrel, (replacement of VH-1 and VH-60) will also be halted, with each VH-71 costing $400 Billion US, more than the cost of Air Force One.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7986627.stm

Well then, onto the underpowered plane that is the F-35 Lightning II.

Edited April 11, 2009 by CH-46

[MehMan 0]

Oh noes, the terrorist will sure feel the difference now! We all know the huge impact the F-22 has had on NOTHING lately. It's a very good airplane, but useless for current types of wars. Considering that current OPFORs are more likely to be hiding in a cave than in a plane in the sky, it does make the F-22 a bit redundant.

The F-35 underpowered?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Cancelling the F-22 has not exactly been unexpected has it. Its always been a white elephant in today's era of counter insurgency warfare.

The F-35 underpowered?

Yup, the current config for the A and C has a lower (max loaded) combat radius than the F-16 and the F-35B while faster then a GR9 Harrier is also less capable, carries less ordinance and has less range. There is a debate going on in the UK about cancelling it. Or maybe even swapping to the C version which has slightly better range and payload capability similar to current GR9 Harrier.

[An-225 0]

Yup, the current config for the A and C has a lower (max loaded) combat radius than the F-16 and the F-35B while faster then a GR9 Harrier is also less capable, carries less ordinance and has less range.

Hit the nail on the head. The F-35 is, to my knowledge, not GBU capable, nor the F-22. Instead, both rely on JDAM support, and they are not as flexible as the F-16.

Not to mention, the Harrier GR9 can carry weapons from Hydra Pods to CBUs.

I guess after seeing the F-16s capability as a fighter (and taking its age into consideration), it is a bit of a shock to purchase a fighter jet whose loadout consists of: AIM-9X, AIM-120. Well, in the case of the UK, I guess that wouldn't be F-16, that would be Tornado.

The F-35 and the F-22 are both fighter jets - the F-22 excelling in being a fighter, the F-35 being an underpowered airplane that can be out-turned by MiGs and Sukhois. Whereas the F-35B uses four engines to power its VTOL capability - the AV-8 only uses one, and it is not bogged down by weight.

Edited April 11, 2009 by CH-46

[Max255 59]

Whereas the F-35B uses four engines to power its VTOL capability - the AV-8 only uses one, and it is not bogged down by weight.

Four? F-35B has only one... Same as AV-8...

[An-225 0]

;1268687']Four? F-35B has only one... Same as AV-8...

Ah, but the F-35B has three lift fans. Unnecessary weight. I wouldn't like to have the job of fighting in such a heavy and underpowered airplane (I'd even prefer flying an IL-76 with Aphids and Alamos to the F-35).

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Hit the nail on the head. The F-35 is, to my knowledge, not GBU capable, nor the F-22. Instead, both rely on JDAM support, and they are not as flexible as the F-16.

The F-35 series can carry GBUs and conventional bombs. Its just that its preferred US loadout is JDAM. There is a big policy push from the US to use solely precision munitions. But the UK spec does call for more conventional weapons.

Not to mention, the Harrier GR9 can carry weapons from Hydra Pods to CBUs.

The UK spec'd F-35B can also carry CRV7 rockets on the external pylons (which will most probably be used all the time) But its limited to 1000lb class weapons internally (the F-35B internal bays are shorter than the A and C version) and 2000lb class weapons on the inboard external pylons.

I guess after seeing the F-16s capability as a fighter (and taking its age into consideration), it is a bit of a shock to purchase a fighter jet whose loadout consists of: AIM-9X, AIM-120. Well, in the case of the UK, I guess that wouldn't be F-16, that would be Tornado.

The UK equivalent of the F-35 is really only the Harrier GR9. I can see the advantages of the F-35. The modern avionics, the lifecycle costs, the much vaunted (yet totally unproven) flexibility. I just don't think its the right platform for the UK but right now its the only aircraft that comes close to the spec given by the RAF/RN/UK MoD. My own belief is that its procurement is mostly about politics and not about what we really need.

Actually the F-35 is meant to be a swing role weapons system. Its about providing an affordable (anyone seen the unit cost? you can buy 1.5 Eurofighters for one F-35B right now) flexible platform that will see the US and UK into the later half of this century. Its been billed as "possibly the Last Manned Fighter". Which is probably true. UCAV's are looking far cheaper to design, build and maintain in the long term.

The F-35 and the F-22 are both fighter jets - the F-22 excelling in being a fighter, the F-35 being an underpowered airplane that can be out-turned by MiGs and Sukhois. Whereas the F-35B uses four engines to power its VTOL capability - the AV-8 only uses one, and it is not bogged down by weight.

Where do you get four engines from? It uses one engine linked to a forward lift fan, with 2 wing vents. The AV-8 has always had serious weight problems. The UK's Harrier fleet (GR7 onwards) has had a significant advantage over the USMC fleet because of its higher rated and more powerful engine. Giving it much better performance in every part of the envelope.

The F-35's problem is less related to its engine and more to its airframe. It just keeps getting heavier. The USAF and USN keep adding to the A and C spec and the commonality requirments of the original order mean that the design changes to one airframe impact on all the others. so a change to the A will also happen to the B and C unless in the case of the B it requires a huge design change. The original scope and spec were very forward thinking and probably quite valid for the times. as with pretty much all long term defence contracts the Bureaucrats stepped in and fucked it up.

Edited April 11, 2009 by RKSL-Rock

[An-225 0]

Ack, thats me confusing it with the Yak-38s system which uses multiple engines.

The only A2G armament I've ever seen listed for the F-35...would entail SDBs, Mk.8#s and JDAMS.

I've never seen an ordnance chart listing Paveways and the like (although I don't follow the production of the British F-35, so I wouldn't know about it carrying British equivalents to the LAU ;)).

As to the Harrier's weight problems:

The Harrier's glide ratio: what glide ratio?

That said, the Harrier was never meant to turn and burn with fighters (although with the F-35s stealth, it may not need to turn and burn).

The 1000lb limitation to internal weapons is a HUGE one. Having GBUs hanging off the wings will compromise the stealth of the plane - and then what?

The F-35 just doesn't have the internal capacity to carry the same amount of GBUs an F-15E would carry. And if it is underpowered, then it is screwed without its stealth.

[PhilippRauch 0]

Its the same like always... most weapon systems get cancelled sooner or earlier but never before there where the millions or billions of tax dollars invested... just check out the designation sites with dozends of cancelled projects after they where just approved, why should this plane have a different fate?

I have never really seen those decisions based on whats REALLY needed for the warfighters or the taxpayers (which are basically the same).

Edited April 11, 2009 by PhilippRauch

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I've never seen an ordnance chart listing Paveways and the like (although I don't follow the production of the British F-35, so I wouldn't know about it carrying British equivalents to the LAU ;)).

CTOL (F-35A) and CV (F-35C) Loadouts

STOVL (F-35B)Loadouts (Pre UK Ammendments)

[echo1 0]

Mhmm, I thought that they had decided to settle on 187 Raptors anyway? At either rate, seems like a rational decision considering the recession and the fact that they have a large number of F15s and F16s which are better than anything the US is likely to fight against.

[An-225 0]

I think they have decided to spend the rest of the money on F-35s...you could probably get more of an airplane buying less F-22s than buying more F-35s.

The F-15SE has been announced as a stop-gap airplane, I guess.

The SE will entail: RAM coating, outward canted vertical stabilizers and a slightly modified design to accommodate its new task.

What does SE stand for? Silent Eagle of course...

[echo1 0]

Just reading about it there, sounds like a pretty interesting mix of features between the old F15 and the newer planes like the F22 and F35... Whether the US adopts it remains to be seen. Although, with the USAF intending on keeping the F-15E for another twenty years or so, it would seem like a good idea.

[Dwarden 1125]

take in mind that armed UAVs are also undercutting lot of uses from traditional airplanes and they way cheaper ...

[Buzz 0]

Maybe they've just cancelled the orders because of the economic situation(s), not only in America but right around the world. Why spend billions of dollars on new aircraft when

nobody has a job/house etc... Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the pros or cons of the situation, I'm just stating the facts, government's $787 billion stimulus package. In the same week, the number of people claiming unemployment insurance benefits surged to a new record, for the 10th consecutive week, at 5.840 million. That marked an increase of 95,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 5.745 million, according to the data tracked since 1967. According to the latest official numbers, the US unemployment rate rose to 8.5 percent in March, the highest pace since November 1983, from 8.1 percent in February.http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gb74RR3gOV7s7zq5ORdYN1tcj37w:butbut:

Yes, I do believe that defence money right now could be put to better use for all.

[JdB 151]

The F-22 wasn't cancelled, it's just a matter of Congress not wanting to spend more on an outrageously expensive (140 million $) aircraft in this time of crisis, and the requirement being less (the original requirement was 3-4000 during the Cold War, when there was actually someone that posed a threat). Right now we're bombing terrorists in caves and mud brick houses. Until the Taliban acquires brand new SU-35s with the latest avionics and armament, there is no need for an aircraft designed specifically for air-to-air engagements.

No other country in the world has an aircraft as advanced as this yet, and until the Chinese or Russians start posing a major threat, there is no need for the F-22 to be produced in huge numbers. If there is a need for more F-22s in the future, a new order can be placed.

Also US fighters of post-1960s were never designed to out-perform capably piloted MIGs in a dogfight, but rather to shoot them down at stand-off distances due to their more capable armament. The MIG-29s were more maneuverable during Allied Force over the FYR, but the advanced long range weapons made short work of them.

[An-225 0]

The Doppler radar in the F-15 is unlike any other I have seen - it truly excels at BVR engagements, and is generally able to provide superior information (when compared to N001). I would certainly think that the AIM-120 is a more reliable missile than the R-27.

But the F-15 could also hold its own in a dogfight, an ability which the F-22 also possesses.

It is certainly astonishing just how high the price is on the Kestrel. $400 million US, making it worth more than AF1.

[ozanzac 0]

I find it mildly disturbing, that the $65 billion dollars of funding pumped into the F-22 program nets just 187 aircraft, or just under 350 million per aircraft, without thought of an export program to offset those costs. I'd be downright furious if Congress allowed or ordered for the destruction of the F-22 tooling.

The arguement that the 'F-22 isn't needed because we're fighting cave dwellers' is rubbish. The same arguement could be used to ask why the need for the F-35 when stealth is a non-issue fighting Terry Taliban, when existing frontline aircraft are already doing the job, with far greater payloads, similar loiter times, and still in complete inpunity.

The F-22 is the spiritual successor to the F-15, likewise the F-35A a true successor to the F-16. The C variant is the pick of the F-35 bunch, but not so much of a successor to the F/A-18 due to the lessened survivability of a single engine in Naval Ops, but has a superior wing, payload and range than the A model, which puts into question why the need for two conventional designs, when just the C would suffice.

The F-35 B, on the other hand, should never have been in the equation. All it does is introduce compromises into the design. A new generation V/TOL aircraft should have been designed from the ground up, not bastardised out of the design process for a predominantly CTOL airframe.

The expectation this design will do fine in the CAS role is a farce. The pedigree of good CAS aircraft, the A-1's, A-10's, and F-4's, is that they carried huge amounts of ordnance into the battlefield and could rain hell repeatedly if required, take fire, and still carry the pilot home to live and fight another day. I don't expect the F-35 to tick any of those boxes, when an aircraft of equal if not greater performance than the A-10, is the aircraft most needed on the modern battlefield.

[echo1 0]

I think they're upgrading the A-10 to a new "C" standard with a new wing and some more sophisticated avionics.

[Spetz 0]

F-16 Block 70 is good enough for multi-role use, it has the technology from the F-35 on a F-16 airframe.

I would put it as a 4.5/5 generation aircraft, it the best value for the money,

If there is a future war with China/Russia, the F-16 can beat anything in their current and future inventories,

Actually even the old F-16s can beat most of their current inventory

[An-225 0]

Its a little odd, that there is even the thought of the F-35 replacing the A-10. Surely, the F-35 is not as survivable or capable as the Warthog.

Bit of a shame we Australians drew the s*** end of the stick and bought the F-35. It looks like a Sukhoi would be more capable, and easier to transition to from the Hornet or Aardvark.

SU-30 to replace the Aardvark, and the SU-35 to replace some of our Hornets (although the SU-35 is not in full production yet).

But no, that might piss off Lockheed Martin.

[Saint Warrior 10]

I wish Pentagon would revise it's decision. They should understand that F-15 fleet wil soon be unable to complete the air dominance tasks, taking into account that russians are doing the same upgrades on Su-35 and Mig-35 fighters, installing AESA radars, implementing antiradar paint etc. :(

F-22 gave USAF an ability to dominate the skies of any possible conflict for decades to come, this fighter reached a technology edge in nearly all aspects:

- lowest RCS of any fighter aircraft. You can do upgrades like F-15SE Silent Eagle, keeping on dancing with 4th generation, but it is still like trying to do an extensive modern tuning for an oudated car, it still remains an old aircraft.

- excellent power to weight ratio

- AESA radar capable of tracking 100 targets simultaneously and engaging dozens of them at the same time, electronic attack capable

- Super-maneurability giving a more stable aircraft control on critical AOA's than in rivalling russian jets

[echo1 0]

I think you are forgetting the fact that the US is highly unlikely to enter into combat with an enemy who is equipped with a large enough number of modern Russian planes to outgun 180 Raptors. And I doubt the Russians can even afford to do enough upgrades for their own airforce either. So I think the US is safe for now.

[Baff1 0]

I wish Pentagon would revise it's decision. They should understand that F-15 fleet wil soon be unable to complete the air dominance tasks, taking into account that russians are doing the same upgrades on Su-35 and Mig-35 fighters, installing AESA radars, implementing antiradar paint etc. :(

F-22 gave USAF an ability to dominate the skies of any possible conflict for decades to come, this fighter reached a technology edge in nearly all aspects:

- lowest RCS of any fighter aircraft. You can do upgrades like F-15SE Silent Eagle, keeping on dancing with 4th generation, but it is still like trying to do an extensive modern tuning for an oudated car, it still remains an old aircraft.

- excellent power to weight ratio

- AESA radar capable of tracking 100 targets simultaneously and engaging dozens of them at the same time, electronic attack capable

- Super-maneurability giving a more stable aircraft control on critical AOA's than in rivalling russian jets

I think the 187 F22's is more than enough to cover any air dominance.

That is a lot of dedicated fighter aircraft.

[Saint Warrior 10]

I think the 187 F22's is more than enough to cover any air dominance.

That depends on what enemy you are facing and who is supporting that enemy.

Remember the events in Bekaa valley in 1982. IAF F-15's were the key element of that tremendous victory in air-air combat. They were all the way higher than their Syrian counterparts - latest Mig-23 versions as well as Mig-25's. And there were a significant number of them.

Nowadays, only F-22 has absolutely highest capabilities, while all other fighters are more or less similar to each other.

A proverb "You cannot be too rich or too armed" fits the situation with F-22 program financing better than anything else. Nobody shoud spare on defence expenses.