Posted on 05/05/2022 9:13:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The USAF wants to retire the F-22 beginning around 2030 mainly due to two reasons: the F-22’s high operating costs, and the F-22’s obsolescence in a number of areas, with the latter being the primary reason.
With regards to high operating costs, the F-22 fleet was not produced in sufficient quantities to replace the F-15, and therefore its logistics and supply chain do not benefit from economy of scale as much as jets like the F-16 and F-35. The F-22 also uses legacy stealth materials that increase maintenance costs; properly retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35’s more durable full material stack is also not possible without replacing the composite panels of every F-22. These composites are not the same, so the structural strength of the jet and possibly the thickness of its skin would be affected, requiring recertification of its life limit and likely some redesigns of panels and doors to accommodate altered geometry. There are also a number of other technological advances that allows fighters to be cheaper to maintain, but which would require redesigns of the F-22, some being quite deep.
In terms of obsolescence, the F-22’s biggest issues are its limited range, its outdated core avionics and its stealth design.
For range, the F-22 was designed primarily for fighting in Europe and turn of the millennium era threats, and so its combat radius of approximately 590 nautical miles (less with any use of supercruise) is not ideal for a war with China. This is because jets may need to be flying from locations like Guam and relying on tankers only ~400 nautical miles (if F-22s are using supercruise) behind the F-22’s, which would then be threatened by new very long range missiles and enemy stealth fighters that may be able to slip sufficiently far past fighter screens to take those tankers out.
By comparison, the F-35A (land-based variant) has an air-to-air combat radius of 760 nautical miles, with a new engine being developed for it which would boost that to nearly 1000 nautical miles. The F-22’s NGAD successor is also anticipated to have an approximately 1000+ nautical miles combat radius.
For its core avionics the F-22 is considerably hampered by old ADA code with limited modularity, being run on old processors. Because the software isn’t very modular or open, adding a new sensor requires a lot of extra work. For the F-22 to outperform jets like the J-20 into the 2030s and beyond, it needs to keep up by getting a helmet mounted display, a panoramic cockpit display, updated electronic warfare systems, long range infrared sensors, updated communications systems, improved sensor fusion and combat ID systems, etc. Developing a clean sheet system based around an open architecture will take time and money, but from there it’ll be much easier to keep cutting edge, which will be critical as we enter into something resembling a second Cold War.
For stealth, the F-22 is quite stealthy, but its potential was compromised in order to make it very agile, which in this day and age is becoming a lesser and lesser priority as air-to-air missiles become more advanced. By creating a clean sheet fighter, you can make a jet better shaped to have highly effective stealth against both fire control radar bands like the X-band, and lower frequency “counter-stealth” search radars operating in the UHF and VHF bands, allowing jets like NGAD to escort B-21 bombers as they penetrate deep into enemy airspace.
I’m wondering if the military has determined that in the new integrated battle systems, air superiority can be achieved by less expensive means.
I was thinking about a defense system with 5000 cheap autonomous wireless self recharging drones whose only job is to carry a small rod of titanium and put up a wall in front of a high value target. One gets sucked into an engine, there goes a hundred million dollar plane and a five million dollar pilot.
And the F-35 will magically deliver as:
* Pizza delivery platform
—
Perhaps the function it will perform the best ...
The F-117 did a hell of a job on Rio Hato starting off Operation Just Cause as well.
The F35 is not stealthy from behind, so it gets one punch.
To summerize the headline.
They want to replace it because it works.
If anything works, the government wants it eliminates.
Yup
We urgently need advanced stealth capability for pizza delivery in urban areas. This is probably what drives planning in this administration.
That's why they didn't give F-4 Phantoms guns. Well, until a few months of actual combat over Vietnam changed the minds of the geniuses.
.....the term “planned obsolescence” comes to mind...maybe I am totally off base, but I cannot believe this aircraft, which was touted to be such a great addition to the Air Force’s inventory, is now eventually headed to the boneyard....
The F-20 cost per plane radically ballooned such that it was canceled at low numbers making the unit cost even greater by reducing the number of planes to spread outrageous development and manufacturing start up costs over. The maintenance costs of both the F-20 and B-2 are both sky high to maintain their stealth characteristics.
As an aside…. In the Afghanistan War, the wings were flown off the B-1 fleet. It needs to be retired quite a bit earlier than would otherwise be required. I have read that some or all of the fleet is no longer low level, supersonic rated as designed for its role as a contested space penetration bomber.
Anyone please correct me if I’m off on any of this.
...you are spot on re: the gun-less models of the famed F-4 Phantom II ....they tried hanging gun pods on them at first, but no one liked them and the armament guys did not like them at all, if I recall....then came the F-4E with the M61A1 Vulcan gun in the nose, and that was a game-changer....
This whole defense industry crap is such bullshit
Nomatter the plane, Tommy Cruise will save us.
“The Air Force top brass are a bunch of bean counters that believe they can build and operate one aircraft that can meet the mission requirements of multiple roles.”
And provide ground support from 35000 feet.
It may have been a technological marvel. I certainly don't have the ability to judge that.
But a "cost per plane radically ballooned" should be a major concern - and perhaps the reason to consider it a failure.
In WWII, we had the most advanced fighter (the P51 Mustang). Something like 15,000 were produced, at a cost, if you believe government inflation statistics, at about $800K in today's dollars.
THAT is a successful program!
Jack of all trades, master of none.
A-10’s don’t fly at 35,000ft.
USAF was under pressure to get rid of A 10’s too a couple of years ago.
So we can update F-15’s but not F-22’s? F-35’s are to direct F-15 firepower as F-22’s provide cover. What will take over the F-22 role?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.