More proof the air force would like us to believe the F-22 has replaced the F-117.  I have a lot of trouble believing that after the incredible string of successes the air force has had with secret aircraft (U-2, SR-71, F-117) they have suddenly stoped making secret aircraft.  Security at Area-51 (oh right that doesn't exist either, they've just fenced off a huge region for no particular reason) is tighter than ever.  So what exactly are they working on there?  Alien spacecraft?  Funny how none of our former secret aircraft need replacements with other secret aircraft isn't it?  I believe the SR-71 was replaced with satelights that weren't working at the time it was retired.   

Who knows what secrets are held at Area 51.  I would love a peek!

Makes sense imo to dedicate at least 1 Raptor squadron to Strike mission, given that 50 deactivated F-117s have left a huge gap in USAF capability.

 

Would make more sense to add another 100 (give or take) Raptors too, supplementing the initial 100 'affected' units procured.  Thus allowing for another 1 or 2 strike squadrons perhaps and multiplying USAF deterrence effect.

 

 

This is an important role for the Raptor to fill until the F-35  totally ramps up. Area Denial and Anti Access are big issues and the only stealthy planes in the US inventory right now are the Raptor and the B-2. With new SAMs being sold world wide especially to places like Iran, it puts quite a crimp in US air dominance.

 

Flyingarty

I talked with a guy from Skunk Works (dear NSA, nothing classified was discussed) and he said that the F22 needed a role in order to sell since as a fighter it would not be challenged and thus not have many missions. I believe he said while the F22 was not meant to be a bomber it was sold as one. A big part of that pitch besides stealth was super cruise. I thought he implied that the F22 wasn't really as good a bomber as the F117 or maybe something else that we had. He never really explained why though; maybe that was classified.

I talked with a guy from Skunk Works (dear NSA, nothing classified was discussed) and he said that the F22 needed a role in order to sell since as a fighter it would not be challenged and thus not have many missions. I believe he said while the F22 was not meant to be a bomber it was sold as one. A big part of that pitch besides stealth was super cruise. I thought he implied that the F22 wasn't really as good a bomber as the F117 or maybe something else that we had. He never really explained why though; maybe that was classified.

1) Internally carries 2x 2000lb bombs (versus 2x 1000lb bombs or 8x 250lb bombs)

2) Has a FLIR system (versus synthetic aperture radar imagery)

3) Has a laser designator (versus only GPS PGMs)

All of these Raptor deficiencies are supported capabilities of the F-35.

(Although the STOVL F-35B only supports carriage of bombs of up to 1000lb. There were some attempts to bring this up to the 2000lb, but weight concerns caused the program to fall back to the basic requirement).

There is some discussion of integrating the F-35's IR system (DAS/EOTS) into later blocks of F-22, but I don't believe these plans are solidified. Several other F-35 technologies are already planned to be transferred into the Raptor, including the more sophisticated, lower cost AESA radar modules and the advanced helmet mounted display.

Both the F-35 and F-22 are capable of carrying larger weapons on external hardpoints (up to 3500lb), although this has signature impacts.

-- Shaken - out --

Ooops, of course I should have said 51 F-117s, since the others are lost.

Shaken; do you think that by 2016-17, the Raptor may have some form of upgraded passive sensor such as an improved EOTS?  Maybe such an improved sensor could be 'transferred' into follow-on F-35s too (as would be expected with any fighter's upgrade program).

displacedjim; I concur with most of your views here, although I'm curious if you truly still anticipate the 2,400 US-component number, as I believe still is the official total unit procurement goal?  For the record, I've been skeptical and even critical of the F-35 program, from its inception, but I have seriously doubted the 2,400 number and still do.

 

I'm just skeptical that 140 F-35s can be built annually for US alone and think it's a number that soon needs to be pressed by Congress for better transparency.

 

I'm in a camp that would estimate about 40 per yr max F-35A (for USAF portion) and total procurement be scaled back to some degree.

My friend, how can I put this kindly?

You don't know what you are talking about, period..

Herald 

LOL, don't even try to be kind, it's hopeless for you guy.   And may I request, while you're stalking me here again I see, that you try to elaborate on which part of my comment you are having a hemorrhoid over?

 

Is it contemplating some kind of passive sensor or HMD upgrade development for the Raptor by 2016-17?

 

Or was it in reference to debating the still noted 2,400 size US fleet??

 

If you can't contribute to either of those points of discussion and can only trash talk, then I highly suggest you find better use for your intellect.   Please sir, enough is enough.

Not to mention would probably reduce its LO a bit (it's already getting kind of lumpy, I think).

 

Nyet, I'm pretty sure the F-35 already has a first-rate EO, IR, and laser targeting system, so I'm not sure what there is to upgrade about it.  The F-22 doesn't need it, just like it doesn't need a helmet-mounted sight or the AIM-9X, either.  I suppose it would be nice to have, and I would guess they will eventually backfit it (the helmet and the AIM-9X, at least), but there's no rush.  After they fit them to all our other jets (which can benefit from them to a much greater degree), then I hope the F-22 gets them, too.

 

Yes, we are going to buy 2400 F-35.  Our F-15E, F-16, A-10, AV-8B need to be replaced, and F-18 need help, by 2030.  If they aren't replaced by F-35, then by what?  There is no other program around to fill the requirement.  The only way we don't buy that many F-35 is if we decide we don't need that many aircraft of any type and we just buy fewer F-35 and do not make up the difference by also acquiring anything else.

 

Ummm..  Panties in a knot again?  Sheeesh.  I did not say it was 'IMPOSSIBLE' for a 120+ /yr US F-35 production capability.  I commented about being in the camp of thought that simply estimated lower 'policy-driven' annual (and total) run-rates.  If you are going to come out and make absolutist lambastings about this topic, please at least try and read more carefully before making your point so you can stay on topic.

 

displacedjim, while I agree that 'right now' the F-22 can slide without HMD and -9x, I was just considering that by 2016 or so, it would be plausible and probable.  Same goes for some form of sensor upgrade (if not in 8 yrs as suggested then perhaps soon thereafter).  In order to maintain edge in all aspects of air dominance, etc..  This would be only normal for such an invested air superiority fighter program?  Maybe I'm wrong, but was just my estimation.

 

And I guess we'll disagree for now at least re: eventual, total US F-35 unit procurement.  I just am calculating that policy makers will make some decision in the mid or long term to decrease the annual run-rate and in accordance, the total run.  One such reason could simply be predicted as cost and justification for so much fixed investment, relying on one model over such a sustained period of years 'beyond the horizon'.  One could estimate a total defense budget decrease over the next decade forinstance?  Whether a supplemented mix of UCAS and Hunter Killer drones would offset such a decreased F-35 fleet, is only speculative at this time.   Whether something entirely different in the mix would be pursued, by say the early-mid 2020's, etc, is something we just can't assume right now in 2008 imo.  So yes, I'm in the skeptical camp although this assessment is totally independent of my personal opposition against the full-blown JSF/F-35 program, held for a number of years.