The Advanced F-15: Ready for the Fight

I hate to be such a bearer of bad news......

 

 

https://amp.thenational.ae/world/us-nuclear-weapons-scandal-34-officers-accused-of-cheating-tests-1.575469

 

 

....but it's really hard to find good help these days...

What I find most strange is how the production tooling for a 10 year-old fighter has vanished but the production tooling for a 43 year-old relic was easy enough to find. It's like some saying in 1990 that the production tooling for the F-15 was gone but that they could build some updated F-86s.

What I find most strange is how the production tooling for a 10 year-old fighter has vanished but the production tooling for a 43 year-old relic was easy enough to find. It's like some saying in 1990 that the production tooling for the F-15 was gone but that they could build some updated F-86s.

The Eagle's production line is still going to this day, unlike the Raptor, so there's no tooling to be lost - it's still in use. I agree it's odd the Raptor's tooling randomly disappeared though.

What I find most strange is how the production tooling for a 10 year-old fighter has vanished but the production tooling for a 43 year-old relic was easy enough to find. It's like some saying in 1990 that the production tooling for the F-15 was gone but that they could build some updated F-86s.

It hasn't disappeared, that's just Internet nonsense.

I wish I could be sure that was the case. J-20s are multiplying at an alarming rate.

Yes but they’re still using the WS-10. Engine development is the single most important part of any fighter procurement program. Without proper engines, capabilities are hypothetical. Especially for air sovereignty fighters.

The US navy Learned that with F-14. Several countries with 5th gen designs out are learning that lesson right now.

It hasn't disappeared, that's just Internet nonsense.

I've read multiple articles to that effect, so if it's nonsense it's widely propagated

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-americas-stealth-f-22-raptor-america-cant-19420

I've read multiple articles to that effect, so if it's nonsense it's widely propagated

Of course, it's on the Internet.

But, given that the study has shown that each newly produced F-22 would cost at least $200 million USD, it's of little use as it's deemed too expensive.

I would frankly build the other 570 F-22s, and make a note of the extra expense and to never do anything as stupid as cancelling a successful aircraft at 1/4 production numbers ever again.

By the time production was stopped the F-22 had very few supporters on the inside. The DoD and USAF, in particular, seemingly couldn't wait to terminate production. The resistance to do so came mainly from the politicians (and Carlo Kopp)!

I have never seen anything resembling an official explanation of why this was the case, so we have to rely on scraps of information, rumours and guesswork.

It certainly seems that upgrading aircraft to a later block standard, or upgrading multiple block standards simultaneously to support a new feature/weapons/sensor etc. is prohibitively expensive. So my guess is that somebody realized that it would be impossible to build a significantly larger fleet of aircraft that would ever be logistically sustainable!

Whatever it was, something was seriously f****d-up about the program - and, whatever the problem is, restarting production of the F-22 is unlikely to be a solution.

By the time production was stopped the F-22 had very few supporters on the inside. The DoD and USAF, in particular, seemingly couldn't wait to terminate production. The resistance to do so came mainly from the politicians (and Carlo Kopp)!

 

I have never seen anything resembling an official explanation of why this was the case, so we have to rely on scraps of information, rumours and guesswork.

 

It certainly seems that upgrading aircraft to a later block standard, or upgrading multiple block standards simultaneously to support a new feature/weapons/sensor etc. is prohibitively expensive. So my guess is that somebody realized that it would be impossible to build a significantly larger fleet of aircraft that would ever be logistically sustainable!

 

Whatever it was, something was seriously f****d-up about the program - and, whatever the problem is, restarting production of the F-22 is unlikely to be a solution.

That's not what I read. The USAF wanted to keep it funded but the top guy at the time was an army man and he wanted more funds to support the army in Iraq.

Well one of the upgrades proposed was to give the F-22 a modular avionics architecture to make it easier to upgrade. Additionally I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to re-skin newer models in the easier-to-maintain F-35 material. It's certainly a lot cheaper and quicker than building a new stealth air superiority fighter.

One of the main problems was that bits of it were being built in 42 separate states, ironically this was done to make it 'politically bulletproof', but ended up making production more costly, so that's one of the other ills that should be resolved in a hypothetical new F-22 build.

FYI..the Pentagon's office of the inspector general has opened an investigation into favoritism towards Boeing for the F-15X buy since the SecDef is a Boeing guy.

That's not what I read. The USAF wanted to keep it funded but the top guy at the time was an army man and he wanted more funds to support the army in Iraq.

 

Well one of the upgrades proposed was to give the F-22 a modular avionics architecture to make it easier to upgrade. Additionally I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to re-skin newer models in the easier-to-maintain F-35 material. It's certainly a lot cheaper and quicker than building a new stealth air superiority fighter.

 

One of the main problems was that bits of it were being built in 42 separate states, ironically this was done to make it 'politically bulletproof', but ended up making production more costly, so that's one of the other ills that should be resolved in a hypothetical new F-22 build.

You may be correct, but I would be surprised if the program could have been terminated so easily if the USAF were fully behind continuation.

The irony is that one of the key innovations that was intended to make the F-22 such a winner - 'integration' - may ultimately have led to its downfall.

You may be correct, but I would be surprised if the program could have been terminated so easily if the USAF were fully behind continuation.

 

The irony is that one of the key innovations that was intended to make the F-22 such a winner - 'integration' - may ultimately have led to its downfall.

There's a story in a KeyPubs book about it. The USAF was not onboard, I think they had to replace a guy in the end. But when push comes to shove, it's elected politicians who hold the vote.

The USAF was not on board with the Raptor termination. They wanted at minimum another 80 F-22's, if not 100.

The USAF was not on board with the Raptor termination. They wanted at minimum another 80 F-22's, if not 100.

It was supposed to be 381 before Obama's administration. Originally 750, Bush Snr reduced it to 648 as part of a post-Cold War climb down. Then Clinton reduced it to 240 or something daft and then Bush Jnr put it back to 381. Obama reduced it to 200 and then cut it at 187. There was also a sinister plot to make sure it never took part in any combat operations until after it was cancelled so that people could argue that it wasn't useful.

It was supposed to be 381 before Obama's administration. Originally 750, Bush Snr reduced it to 648 as part of a post-Cold War climb down. Then Clinton reduced it to 240 or something daft and then Bush Jnr put it back to 381. Obama reduced it to 200 and then cut it at 187. There was also a sinister plot to make sure it never took part in any combat operations until after it was cancelled so that people could argue that it wasn't useful.

Evil Democrat presidents killing off the Raptor? LOL

Sorry, I was laughing at your post.

As far as I can read here, it was cut down by OSD during Rumsfeld time to 179. I guess the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were draining their budget and took priority to what the USAF wanted/needed.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-production.htm

Evil Democrat presidents killing off the Raptor? LOL

 

Sorry, I was laughing at your post.

 

As far as I can read here, it was cut down by OSD during Rumsfeld time to 179. I guess the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were draining their budget and took priority to what the USAF wanted/needed.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-production.htm

Page 44 of AIR International July 2015. Congress authorised purchases for 381 F-22s.

Under Obama they asked for 272 but Gates said it was too high, so they reduced it to 240 but Gates wanted to shut down the production and on APril 13th 2009 he succeeded. Gates was a Republican but he never managed to achieve the shutdown under Bush, Obama kept him on and he sacked Wynne and Mosley in order to progress his agenda.

Page 44 of AIR International July 2015. Congress authorised purchases for 381 F-22s.

 

Under Obama they asked for 272 but Gates said it was too high, so they reduced it to 240 but Gates wanted to shut down the production and on APril 13th 2009 he succeeded. Gates was a Republican but he never managed to achieve the shutdown under Bush, Obama kept him on and he sacked Wynne and Mosley in order to progress his agenda.

So, what does Gates' desire to end the program have to do with all those presidents you've listed in the previous post? Or President Obama?

Congress could have easily voted to continue the production against the administration's proposal of the FY2010 budget, but they didn't.

There's no secret agenda, just short-sightedness and different budget priorities and views on the usefulness of the F-22, especially since at the time it had many bugs and was considered as rather expensive to maintain.

I guess back then they didn't seem to expect China to field advanced stealth fighters of their own anytime soon.

Here's the report used to brief the congressmen before that vote, I guess.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31673.pdf

So, what does Gates' desire to end the program have to do with all those presidents you've listed in the previous post? Or President Obama?

 

Congress could have easily voted to continue the production against the administration's proposal of the FY2010 budget, but they didn't.

 

There's no secret agenda, just short-sightedness and different budget priorities and views on the usefulness of the F-22, especially since at the time it had many bugs and was considered as rather expensive to maintain.

 

I guess back then they didn't seem to expect China to field advanced stealth fighters of their own anytime soon.

 

Here's the report used to brief the congressmen before that vote, I guess.

 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31673.pdf

His desire to end it was blocked while Bush remained in charge. Why did Obama keep a Republican as Defense Secretary?

Shortsightedness. If that vote had been delayed just 2 years they would have. In 2010 the Su-57 and J-20 hadn't flown yet and the F-22 hadn't been used in Syria yet. Very naive decision-making.

Absolutely, but since the production line is done there's no going back on that decision short of something really big happening like, say, the F22 being cleared for export

The F-22 Tooling and dies were destroyed. Even with the blueprints it would cost a fortune to start over.

There is nothing wrong with the F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/Fs and A-10s.

Yes they are "Old" designed but when these aircraft were designed they weren't designed by politicians looking at a price tag. They were designed by engineers looking for the best performance possible.

The second problem is exactly what happened to the F-22. The original plan was to replace ALL of the A,B,C,D eagles and Falcons p with F-22s. Politicians and Politics got involved and we ended up with 180. Why? So money could be funneled to the F-35...now the F-35 is being looked at for cuts and we're not going to get enough of them to replace what they wanted to replace...it's a pretty pathetic cycle.

We need an air superiority fighter no matter what politicians and fan bois tell ya. The Current F-15X and F-18E/Fs can fill the gaps until something that can SURPASS them comes along.

His desire to end it was blocked while Bush remained in charge. Why did Obama keep a Republican as Defense Secretary?

That's not true at all as nothing was blocked during the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and Gates were the major proponents of the idea to kill the F-22 as a single-use Cold War relic that wasn't useful to their current wars (compared to e.g. the upcoming F-35) and during Rumsfeld era, the number proposed by the OSD was cut down to 187 as I posted earlier.

The only reason why this came to a head during Obama administration was that at that time those 187 were paid for already and the decision had to be made whether to stop the production or continue it. Gates as the SecDef didn't add any F-22's in the proposed FY2010 budget and the Congress ratified it. The Congress could have opposed it and fight the administration on it, but didn't. Why? Because it made sense at the time given the state of the program and the dire state of the budget.

As to why Obama kept Gates, it was due to some political reasons that I'm not familiar with, but that had nothing to do with the F-22. The presidents don't stress about these military toys, they let other people handle these matters.

That's not true at all as nothing was blocked during the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and Gates were the major proponents of the idea to kill the F-22 as a single-use Cold War relic that wasn't useful to their current wars (compared to e.g. the upcoming F-35) and during Rumsfeld era, the number proposed by the OSD was cut down to 187 as I posted earlier.

 

The only reason why this came to a head during Obama administration was that at that time those 187 were paid for already and the decision had to be made whether to stop the production or continue it. Gates as the SecDef didn't add any F-22's in the proposed FY2010 budget and the Congress ratified it. The Congress could have opposed it and fight the administration on it, but didn't. Why? Because it made sense at the time given the state of the program and the dire state of the budget.

 

As to why Obama kept Gates, it was due to some political reasons that I'm not familiar with, but that had nothing to do with the F-22. The presidents don't stress about these military toys, they let other people handle these matters.

It wasn't though. Read the reference I gave. The number was 381 at the end of the Bush administration. The number was never cut to 187 specifically, that was just how many planes they'd made when they killed production in April '09.

Gates had to get rid of Wynne and Mosley to get his way. During the Bush years he couldn't find an excuse for this, but he used the mistake with the accidental loading of the nuclear-tipped AGM-129s onto a B-52 as an excuse. After that he was free to get his own way because Schwartz was more pliable. Mosley and Wynne knew that their defiance would eventually cost them their jobs as USAF chiefs. Even Schwartz asked for 272 though. He then reduced that to 240, but they cut it anyway.

I can't see any other reason for Obama keeping a Republican Defense Secretary.

I posted in my first response to that daft post of yours how it's actually Rumsfeld's OSD which pushed the 187 number after the study came back that OSD ordered on the matter (which didn't agree with the USAF study, but nobody cares what they think as they're not the ones who are paying for it).

Again:

Since the submission to Congress in early 2005 of the FY2006 budget, DOD plans have called for

procuring a total of about 187 F-22s—a figure that includes:

• 179 production aircraft;

• 6 Production Representative Test Vehicle (PRTV) II aircraft; and

• 2 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft funded with

research and development funding.

Or, e.g. here:

"But what ultimately sealed the Raptor's fate was Programme Budget Decision 753, which was issued by Rumsfeld on December 23, 2004. The memorandum axed over $10 billion from the programme and reduced the total buy to 179 aircraft."

So, Rumsfeld administration reduced the number down to (and paid for) 187 F-22's. It had nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Clinton and what not you listed there.

It's similar to the B-2 bomber. After all the money spent on development and production tooling, did it make sense to make only 21 of them instead of 132 planned? No, but, it was very late, had many issues and was super over-budget. And what happened? Nothing, it was barely used and is about to be replaced by the B-21 anyway and a lot of money was saved (i.e. spent on something else).

Would the USAF be happier with having more F-22's in a potential clash with China? Yes. But, Schwartz agreed to kill the F-22 production to get Gates to fund the B-21 development which was more important to them and in the low-probability case of the F-22's actually being needed in a war, the Air Force will have to adapt and work with what they have (and perhaps suffer more losses, unfortunately).

Nobody in politics cares about the F-22 and what it can or can't do that much, they won't fly them. They mostly care about how much it costs and what it can bring them in political points. And there's also never enough money for everything so somebody has to make some hard choices. The F-22 didn't seem useful to the Rumsfeld team anymore and worse yet it was late and had many bugs which were getting resolved too slowly so it's only logical for the Congress to agree to kill it off rather then fight the administration on it.

Since you keep insisting that the reason Obama kept Gates is so he can finish off the F-22 (i.e. if in some parallel bizarre universe he actually had a personal beef with this military toy, he could have named any other politician from his circle as SecDef and give him the same task), I really have nothing further to work with here.

Sorry for the smug attitude, but I really get ticked off by perceived conspiracy theories.

The other thing to consider is that the Obama administration had to deal with worst economic crisis since the 1930s, which certainly didn't help in keeping the Raptor production lines going regardless of the decisions made by previous administrations.

I posted in my first response to that daft post of yours how it's actually Rumsfeld's OSD which pushed the 187 number after the study came back that OSD ordered on the matter (which didn't agree with the USAF study, but nobody cares what they think as they're not the ones who are paying for it).

 

Again:

 

Since the submission to Congress in early 2005 of the FY2006 budget, DOD plans have called for

procuring a total of about 187 F-22s—a figure that includes:

• 179 production aircraft;

• 6 Production Representative Test Vehicle (PRTV) II aircraft; and

• 2 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft funded with

research and development funding.

 

Or, e.g. here:

 

"But what ultimately sealed the Raptor's fate was Programme Budget Decision 753, which was issued by Rumsfeld on December 23, 2004. The memorandum axed over $10 billion from the programme and reduced the total buy to 179 aircraft."

 

So, Rumsfeld administration reduced the number down to (and paid for) 187 F-22's. It had nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Clinton and what not you listed there.

 

It's similar to the B-2 bomber. After all the money spent on development and production tooling, did it make sense to make only 21 of them instead of 132 planned? No, but, it was very late, had many issues and was super over-budget. And what happened? Nothing, it was barely used and is about to be replaced by the B-21 anyway and a lot of money was saved (i.e. spent on something else).

 

Would the USAF be happier with having more F-22's in a potential clash with China? Yes. But, Schwartz agreed to kill the F-22 production to get Gates to fund the B-21 development which was more important to them and in the low-probability case of the F-22's actually being needed in a war, the Air Force will have to adapt and work with what they have (and perhaps suffer more losses, unfortunately).

 

Nobody in politics cares about the F-22 and what it can or can't do that much, they won't fly them. They mostly care about how much it costs and what it can bring them in political points. And there's also never enough money for everything so somebody has to make some hard choices. The F-22 didn't seem useful to the Rumsfeld team anymore and worse yet it was late and had many bugs which were getting resolved too slowly so it's only logical for the Congress to agree to kill it off rather then fight the administration on it.

 

Since you keep insisting that the reason Obama kept Gates is so he can finish off the F-22 (i.e. if in some parallel bizarre universe he actually had a personal beef with this military toy, he could have named any other politician from his circle as SecDef and give him the same task), I really have nothing further to work with here.

 

Sorry for the smug attitude, but I really get ticked off by perceived conspiracy theories.

Well I'm leaving it here but the 187 figure was never agreed by anyone at any time, that was just the number they ended up with after the cancellation on 13th April 2009 under the Obama Administration. You can read the facts on Page 44 of the July 2015 edition of Air INTERNATIONAL. Nobody suggested any conspiracy as such, although it is well known that Gates was the main protagonist behind cancelling the F-22 and made sure that it never dropped a single bomb before it was cancelled. Additionally, he used fake reasons for getting rid of Wynne and Mosley who would not give up on their 381 figure and Obama kept the guy on, these are all facts. He made a short-sighted decision based on short-term thinking and an ongoing asymmetric war where advanced technology was almost redundant. Much of the money saved was spent on equipment that has now been left in Iraq.

The F-22 Tooling and dies were destroyed. Even with the blueprints it would cost a fortune to start over.

 

Actually about 95% of the tooling is available and in storage according to the USAF report....

As mentioned above, production tooling is in storage {} for sustainment purposes, retained to produce spare parts if required in the future. As manufacturing methods have changed over the years, it is probable that some tooling will need to be re-created to meet today's manufacturing practices.