With the USAF flying the oldest inventory it's ever had, it's no surprise to see F-15's finally having serious structural issues. When it takes 10-15 years to field a modern fighter, one has to wonder if this is going to be a permanent pattern. How long will it take to develop the F-22's replacement (UCAV or otherwise)? When you factor in the extremely small fleet size of the F-22, I think we could reach the end of service life much more quickly than the Eagle has.
I guess the one saving grace for the F-22, like the F-16, is that the flight control computer can extend the life of the airframe by limiting the pilots' ability to break the airplane. Of course, there's the commensurate loss of capability that goes with that--but it buys some time.
How you can take a precautionary safety stand down to review the records and check the aircraft after a major accident and turn it into doom for the F-22 program amazes me. Next time you board that airliner to fly where ever, think about is this one really safe or have the mechanics been putting band-aids on major issues? Are they pissed over contract negotiations? Did Joe forget a wrench inside the jet?
When a cargo or passenger aircraft are stood down for safety issues, it gets a quick word. When a fighter or bomber under goes the same, it is a major catastrophe. Don't expect doom for the F-22 because the aging F-15 is getting tired and showing its age. This incident could be found to be a localized incident. Stuff happens.
How many years did the C-5 fly without the ability to operate its rear cargo door or carry its intended capacity because of wing issues. Move over how many years has it been since those issues were addressed. She's still plugging away, but steadily declining.
Part of the reason there are fewer F-22 than F-15 is the mission has changed and the capabilities have improved. The F-15 started life as an air superiority asset then evolved into a ground strike platform. The F-22 has shown that it too can drop small bombs (again better capability in a smaller package).
Even you'll undergo changes in capacity if you haven't already. Systems begin to decline, capacities diminish because of internal structures weaken. Does this mean future generations are also doomed for failure? Probably not, their smarter, faster and better that we were.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Hawkeye <gvo...@new.rr.com> wrote: >How you can take a precautionary safety stand down to review the >records and check the aircraft after a major accident and turn it into >doom for the F-22 program amazes me. Next time you board that airliner >to fly where ever, think about is this one really safe or have the >mechanics been putting band-aids on major issues? Are they pissed over >contract negotiations? Did Joe forget a wrench inside the jet?
>When a cargo or passenger aircraft are stood down for safety issues, >it gets a quick word. When a fighter or bomber under goes the same, it >is a major catastrophe. Don't expect doom for the F-22 because the >aging F-15 is getting tired and showing its age. This incident could >be found to be a localized incident. Stuff happens.
I'm not sure that the original post was a prognostication of Raptor doom so much as simply pointing out that the F-15/16 have performed remarkably for longer than their predicted lifecycle based on the prior generation.
They've done so through extensive weaponry updates and modernization programs. They are still very effective and as you eloquently pointed out in the section of your rebuttal that I snipped, the grounding is nothing much more than an evaluation of current condition and determination of what needs to be done to insure continued operational capability.
What is being pointed out is that Raptor's development to operational cycle has been much longer than anyone initially anticipated and there is little apparent noise about RFP or concept development about a follow-on tactical air vehicle. I'm sure (at least I hope) that there are some closed door sessions in the bowels of a number of buildings in which the latest iteration of a "fighter mafia" is bouncing ideas off of rubber-room walls.
On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Hawkeye <gvo...@new.rr.com> wrote: ...snip agreeably
> Part of the reason there are fewer F-22 than F-15 is the mission has > changed and the capabilities have improved. The F-15 started life as > an air superiority asset then evolved into a ground strike platform. > The F-22 has shown that it too can drop small bombs (again better > capability in a smaller package).
IIRC the F-15 & 16 developements were based on "Vietnam experience" ... dog fighting skills, and the cold war. Hope we're not planning to fight the "last war". Ken
Your right about the time from concept to production on the Raptor. I believe than many of the promises made about what the manufacturers could do was done by promise everything we'll deliver what we can when we can. Over promise under deliver. Secure the contract and hope for additional money to offset our shortcomings.
As our 'global' economy continues to evolve as well as the military bonds between us and our allies, we'll start to see the role as a supplier of military equipment reverse more and more. Our front line combat aircraft will be designs from our allies. The trainer markets has already swung that way, and as budgets continue to tighten we'll see more emphasis placed on cross usage of systems. The Raptor might be the last all American fighter deployed. The future fighter platform that will replace the Raptor might well come from Sweden or France. They may be assembled here but they will be 'their' design.
There is always someone who is thinking ahead towards the future. The what-if factor is what drives them. Where would we be if those types weren't working...say for the phone companies envisioning individual portable phones...ala the cell phone?
We may reach or have reached a point where we take a backseat to development of a whole program, but contribute to it never the less. Let someone else come up with the platform, we'll just stick our gismos and weapons into it. Let someone else do the hard and expensive part for a change.
>> Part of the reason there are fewer F-22 than F-15 is the mission has >> changed and the capabilities have improved. The F-15 started life as >> an air superiority asset then evolved into a ground strike platform. >> The F-22 has shown that it too can drop small bombs (again better >> capability in a smaller package).
>IIRC the F-15 & 16 developements were based on >"Vietnam experience" ... dog fighting skills, and >the cold war. >Hope we're not planning to fight the "last war". >Ken
Whoa. If we were fighting the last war in -15 and -16 development we'd have been seeking another multi-role platform that the crews did all the missions it was capable of.
Some differences: 1. F-15A and follow on C both dedicated as A/A platforms with significant stand-off weaponry developed specifically to avoid getting to the merge. 2. Training shifts to mandate rather than prohibit dissimilar air/air. 3. Purchase and application of fully instrumented training ranges like ACMI. 4. Data integration and battle management with AWACS and fighters. 5. Focus on stand-off A/G delivery rather than automation of traditional dive-bomb methodology. 6. Development of all-wx/day-night capability. 7. Aircrew specialization by roles. 8. True tactical employment capability for strategic bomber platforms. 9. Development of GPS aircraft, weapons and tactics. 10. Focus on joint operational capability for missions like ground troop support--think A-10 JAAT. 11. Development of bare-base concepts and equipment for rapid deployment. 12. Reorganization the MAJCOM structure--even to the extent of illuminating the twin saints of SAC and TAC.
The equipment changed, the doctrine changed and the pace of change has continued to change.
Most assuredly there was no attempt to make Desert Storm look like its predecessor war and remarkably Iraqi Freedom didn't recreate Desert Storm. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com
On Nov 6, 6:44 am, "Mike Dennis" <map...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> With the USAF flying the oldest inventory it's ever had, it's no surprise to > see F-15's finally having serious structural issues. When it takes 10-15 > years to field a modern fighter, one has to wonder if this is going to be a > permanent pattern. How long will it take to develop the F-22's replacement > (UCAV or otherwise)?
Who cares? You are already defeated. Your military is abrogated to a foreign power to fight it's perpetual war........and those of you who don't go into the army as cannon fodder will go into labor camps.
When you factor in the extremely small fleet size of
> the F-22, I think we could reach the end of service life much more quickly > than the Eagle has.
> I guess the one saving grace for the F-22, like the F-16, is that the flight > control computer can extend the life of the airframe by limiting the pilots' > ability to break the airplane. Of course, there's the commensurate loss of > capability that goes with that--but it buys some time.
> Your right about the time from concept to production on the Raptor. I > believe than many of the promises made about what the manufacturers > could do was done by promise everything we'll deliver what we can when > we can. Over promise under deliver. Secure the contract and hope for > additional money to offset our shortcomings.
To refute this point, I will argue that the military is forever changing its requirements. Even seemingly minor changes require a tremendous amount of engineering, tooling, and testing work by the manufacturer. Why? Because there is no "extra" space in a modern fighter or attack airframe and when the military changes spec's, usually it causes a domino effect, requiring numerous systems to be reworked to accommodate a fundamental change to one system.
Beyond that, funding and schedule are always issues. Congress loves to take a program that would cost "X" dollars per year over "Y" timeframe and stretch the program. Then, it costs "X-" dollars per year over "Y+" timeframe. This inevitably raises costs and extends the length of the program. Extending the length of the program gives the military more time to dream up changes in the program.
On Nov 6, 7:44 am, "Mike Dennis" <map...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> With the USAF flying the oldest inventory it's ever had, it's no surprise to > see F-15's finally having serious structural issues. When it takes 10-15 > years to field a modern fighter, one has to wonder if this is going to be a > permanent pattern. How long will it take to develop the F-22's replacement > (UCAV or otherwise)? When you factor in the extremely small fleet size of > the F-22, I think we could reach the end of service life much more quickly > than the Eagle has.
> I guess the one saving grace for the F-22, like the F-16, is that the flight > control computer can extend the life of the airframe by limiting the pilots' > ability to break the airplane. Of course, there's the commensurate loss of > capability that goes with that--but it buys some time.
> Mike
F-22 was supposed to enter service in the mid-1990s. It didn't happen until a decade later.
If the Cold War had continued, the F-22C would be entering service now, and all if not most of the F-15 fleet would be retired (except perhaps for the Strike Eagle).
As of the late 1980s, the USAF was originally going to get 750 Advanced Tactical Fighters, be it F-22 or F-23. then in the early 1990s the F-22 program was cut to 650 aircraft. Then it was cut roughly in half that (300-400), and as of now, there will be well less than 200 planes made.
seems like we need a huge geopolitical change, a new cold war with Russia and/or China, so that the Air Force can get a significant number of F-22s and start developing (or speed up the development of) a replacement. probably not going to happen though.
The Merlin would have long legs, operate a high altitudes, swooping down to strike its prey. It is stealthy, fast, heavily armed, capable of multi role missions. Whether laying mines to anti satellite, air to air, air to ground or recce ops, the Merlin will do it all. Platform variants for single seat, two seat or four seat suite.
Yeah its all hypothetical, but this is where the fiction of today becomes the reality of tomorrow.
>"Who cares? You are already defeated. Your military is abrogated to a >foreign power to fight it's perpetual war........and those of you who >don't go into the army as cannon fodder will go into labor camps."
To Quote John Wayne & Buddy Holly: "That will be the day" :-P
