USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020
Phaid 2/15/2010 4:53:17 PM

The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February. The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request. Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100215_1_n.shtml

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Hamilcar 2/19/2010 12:04:44 AM

This is nuts. Our civilization has advanced based on knowledge that has been passed down through the ages. Isn't this the point of having libraries and educational institutions? You would think we would squirrel away our intellectual capital in some sort of national archive.

Engineering is an ART based on experience, as much a science.

Which solution do you use for electronic warfare in the air or for naval air warfare?

There is experience, and there is theory. If you keep your experience, then you use solutions that look remarkably evolutionary, even obsolete, based on your experience.

The USN is a very good example of both examples. That navy held on to SARH/PESA SAM architecture defiantly in the face of the Europeans who went to more "advanced" AESA or semi-AESA/ATG SAM architecture. Why?

Combat experience.

AEGIS (SARH) works at sea. The other stuff? The integration failed. Yes, I'm talking about ASTER and the various radars and telemetry systems that try to guide it into a drop-basket.

The missiles that go with the AEGIS are somewhat legendary for the way they well match the system.

Quote Reply

sinoflex 2/19/2010 12:48:58 AM

I agree that engineering is an art. I started off my career as a software engineer myself and have spent much time scratching my head trying to figure out out people's code where there is often a scarcity of comments in source code. I remember lamenting the loss of intellectual capital and experience when huge swaths of IT middle management and senior personnel were downsized in the 90s and seeing our mistakes being repeated by a whole new generation of whiz kids who thought they were the second coming.

I was thinking more along the lines of things such as blueprints and formulations for important alloys or compounds that have been lost or destroyed. They should be archived. Ideally, there should also be a compensation mechanism put in place for people to publish so that concepts or experience is recorded and archived. Oh well, utopia...

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 2/19/2010 1:31:32 AM

Its too specialized a plane to retain the engineer cadre as a group once it finishes.

we've already witnessed that problem with nuke subs for the brits... and to some extent, Seawolf

Quote Reply

Rufus 2/19/2010 2:17:01 AM

From the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act:

Sec. 133. Preservation and storage of unique tooling for F-22 fighter aircraft.

(a) Plan.—

The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan for the preservation and storage of unique tooling related to the production of hardware and end items for F-22 fighter aircraft. The plan shall—

(1) ensure that the Secretary preserves and stores required tooling in a manner that—

(A) allows the production of such hardware and end items to be restarted after a period of idleness; and

(B) provides for the long-term sustainment and repair of such hardware and end items;

(2) with respect to the supplier base of such hardware and end items, identify the costs of restarting production; and

(3) identify any contract modifications, additional facilities, or funding that the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the plan.

(b) Restriction on the Use of Funds.—

None of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2010 for aircraft procurement, Air Force, for F-22 fighter aircraft may be obligated or expended for activities related to disposing of F-22 production tooling until a period of 45 days has elapsed after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a report describing the plan required by subsection (a).

Happy? Can we stop acting like the Air Force is going to chunk the F-22 tooling into an ocean trench?

Rand also did a study that concluded restarting production of the F-22 would cost less than a billion dollars.

"Closing Lockheed Martin's [LMT] F-22 Raptor production line outright and then reactivating the dormant line at a later time would cost the Air Force between $225 million and $720 million, with the most likely figure close to $450 million, RAND estimates in new study conducted on behalf of the service.

The cost estimates of this shutdown-restart scenario vary due to factors such as how much funding would actually be required to preserve tooling, retain the workforce, and requalify parts suppliers, RAND concludes."

h*tp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_8_239/ai_n29454276/

If necessary, it should be possible to restart production of the F-22, assuming the proper steps are taken. (which are already in progress) It wouldn't be painless, but it could be done.

Quote Reply

Rufus 2/19/2010 2:30:31 AM

"Yeah, who cares if Hitler is arming up.

Who cares if Tojo is arming up.

...

Nothing to see here, move along."

This is just ridiculous.

China is arming up, and the US should keep an eye on them... but they are not the catch-all justification for any and every weapon system somebody can dream up. At some point enough is enough. You people keep trying to dream up a threat to justify the F-22. If in fact China becomes a greater threat than it is today, then the US will take the necessary measures.

"Nope. We haven't lost a thousand men in a single engagement or a single day since, what, Ardennes? Korea? Try and avoid hyperbole. We're losing a couple of men a day on average. I trust I don't have to make clear how awful that is, but it could be worse - just imagine the Soviets or the current Russian armed forces doing AF and Iraq.

Our troops are dying in dribs and drabs. If this was unbearable, we could bug-hunt from the air and never lose a man. It is our choice to be doing this. Some invulnerable vehicle or armor to protect from every single IED or RPG is...well, if we had every weapons system in 2001 that we do now, we'd still be losing men."

These are men and women being sent into harm's way by the US government to do a mission of the highest possible importance.

If a war is worth fighting it is worth fighting to win. That is the lesson of Vietnam since you appear to have forgotten it.

The US is in a war today, and it needs the right tools to fight that war, today. It makes no sense to structure US military procurement around a hypothetical what-if war against China a decade+ from now when we are involved in a war today.

If you actually woke up every morning and went about the business of fighting this war you would probably understand that.

"Yes, prepare for the last war, so the next one bites you in the hump. Good idea. "

The US has already ordered sufficient F-22s to address a potential war in East Asia. The US is currently involved in a very real war in Central/Southwest Asia. This isn't about fighting the "last war" it is about fighting the CURRENT war.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 2/19/2010 2:50:39 AM

Its too specialized a plane to retain the engineer cadre as a group once it finishes.

we've already witnessed that problem with nuke subs for the brits... and to some extent, Seawolf

I agree to an extent but I'd like to add something of my own to this. If you work with a group of engineers on a program. They will have a collective "flavor" or "style" for developing ways to meet a specific requirement that dies when any one member of that group leaves for whatever reason. But I think if for some reason it became necessary to resurrect an out of production platform it isn't necessary to bring it back in precise detail. Depending on how long production ended you could have all kinds of issues including the unavailability of critical long lead time components from 3rd party vendors. To deal with this, you don't built to duplicate, you built to specification which is first updated to modern standards and such that compatibility with the older design are part of the criteria. Basically you copy what you can leveraging off of work already done and where you can't you innovate and integrate backward compatibility into the new design. In fact, this should be a benefit. I don't want Raptor 2011, I wan't a Raptor that includes lessons learned from the previous generation and can meet the spec.

In any event. It is well within the means of any technologically advanced nation to put back into production a platform that has already been though R&D/production cycles. It's just a matter of necessity and funding. I don't think the F-22 will require that however. As has been demonstrated, the USAF 4th Gen fighter fleet operating within our system are more than a match for anything flying now. The F-22/35 will be more than a match for anything flying later. Speaking of which, the Russians aren't out to reconstitute VVS. No, they are trimming the fat and more specifically with PAK FA only planning to operate about the same number of them as we do F-22's. Think about it like this. LM could manufacture more F-35's in a year than the total number of PAK FA the Russians are planning to procure. With F-22 && F/A-18E/F fully matured, F-35 in full production and F-X on the horizon things are good.

-DA

Quote Reply

Hamilcar MEN matter. 2/19/2010 3:04:49 AM

From the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act:

Sec. 133. Preservation and storage of unique tooling for F-22 fighter aircraft.

(a) Plan.—

The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan for the preservation and storage of unique tooling related to the production of hardware and end items for F-22 fighter aircraft. The plan shall—

(1) ensure that the Secretary preserves and stores required tooling in a manner that—

(A) allows the production of such hardware and end items to be restarted after a period of idleness; and

(B) provides for the long-term sustainment and repair of such hardware and end items;

(2) with respect to the supplier base of such hardware and end items, identify the costs of restarting production; and

(3) identify any contract modifications, additional facilities, or funding that the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the plan.

(b) Restriction on the Use of Funds.—

Happy? Can we stop acting like the Air Force is going to chunk the F-22 tooling into an ocean trench?

Rand also did a study that concluded restarting production of the F-22 would cost less than a billion dollars.

h*tp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_8_239/ai_n29454276/

If necessary, it should be possible to restart production of the F-22, assuming the proper steps are taken. (which are already in progress) It wouldn't be painless, but it could be done.

Why is Ed Heinenman and the A-4 Skyhawk really famous, Rufus? It isn't just that really remarkable plane. Its what else he (team of them actually) invented for the weapon system.

It was the family of "slicks" and the missile interfaces that he created for the Scooter. That tech has evolved in US servoice but you can trace its routes all the way back to 1954. It is present in every fighter or bomber since then made by anyone who got hold of an example of how it works.

What if the tech is like US class A,B,C armor plate? Anybody alive who can duplicate it? Its written down, how it was done, but the smelting process for the alloy is as much by eye as it is by measurement. You look at the run and if you are good enough you can tell when the mix is "correct" by color and pour. Huh? Experience from a long series of mistakes.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 2/19/2010 3:15:01 AM

fair and legitimate

But I think if for some reason it became necessary to resurrect an out of production platform it isn't necessary to bring it back in precise detail. Depending on how long production ended you could have all kinds of issues including the unavailability of critical long lead time components from 3rd party vendors.

Which gets down to value for govt, value for the asset owner, relevance and capability against cost and through life expectancy and relevancy of that rebuild against the extant and future threat. in short, it sometimes just does not make sense to do so. eg often the argument re capital ships is their armoured belt-line and its relevance and advantages against xx AShM. The reality is that the armoured belt-line in todays terms is about the sensor suite and sympathetic weapons actimg in a symbiotic relationship. eg you don't need to cause a 40degree list to achieve an outcome, all you need is a mobility kill - and a mobility kill could mean the complete evisceration of the antenna farm on top of the citadel.

To deal with this, you don't built to duplicate, you built to specification which is first updated to modern standards and such that compatibility with the older design are part of the criteria. Basically you copy what you can leveraging off of work already done and where you can't you innovate and integrate backward compatibility into the new design. In fact, this should be a benefit. I don't want Raptor 2011, I wan't a Raptor that includes lessons learned from the previous generation and can meet the spec.

Its not that simple though, eg architecture of the frame, architecture of the subsystems could mean that its a c ompletely cost negative solution to engage in when other response capabilties could be achieved via other means. eg a JSF managing a flight of 47's could do far more relevant damage in a gioven scenario. eg the LO advantages of a 47 used in standoff might mean that they can close the gap better than an F-22 and when they go active cause more distress to reds ADS. simplified for a reason, but the picture intent is what I'm trying to portray

Quote Reply

Phaid 2/19/2010 3:17:10 AM

War is a few guys in Humvees escorting a convoy of fuel trucks and hoping there are not IEDs, RPG teams or snipers along the way. If there are then they hope that the USAF or other have a UAV orbit that can give early warning of the coming danger in time to do something. They also hope that the have the latest up armor kit and body armor. But hope wont provide that. FUNDING DOES. Limited funding that if squandered on platforms that aren't essential due to romanticized institutional resistance change won't be available and they will die.

It's seriously incredible to read the above, and then realize the author is making this statement as an argument FOR the F-35. You don't want to spend the extra money for a couple hundred more air superiority fighters, which would allow us to replace our currently decrepit air superiority fleet without costing significantly more to operate, but you do want to spend hundreds of billions on the spiraling cost of developing the F-35 and then buying it by the thousands despite the fact that it costs vastly more to buy, fly, and maintain than its predecessors.

Meanwhile we have capabilities like the crop of UCAVs under development that need more funding. We have our entire maritime patrol fleet that needs replacement. We have run our JSTARS and AWACS fleets into the ground. Our tankers are in dire need of replacement. Our intratheater airlift is coming apart at the seams. We're wearing out our Navy fighters so fast that by 2015 we'll be struggling to scrape together eight air wings' worth of fighters. But we are willing to sacrifice all that on the altar of the JSF, because somehow we feel that having thousands of manned, stealthy tactical fighters is more important.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @GF 2/19/2010 3:35:24 AM

I'm not sure we disagree here on anything as I do not at this time and likely never will ever support any more F-22's in any form. What I meant to convey is that IF we restarted F-22 production for some reason, I wouldn't expect it to be identical to the F-22's we make today. It could be something simple and not obvious to casual inspection such as electrolytic cap change to higher rated component to increase MTTF. RCS improvement or even relaxing the requirement based on lessons learned. That's what I was talking about. IF. Personally I'd much rather see, assuming its the best option of course, something like you described.

-DA

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT