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In terms of obsolescence, the F-22’s biggest issues are its limited range, its outdated core avionics and its stealth design.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.
What the hell are you talking about?
Those networked radars that sometimes allow detection do not assist at all when it comes to fire control. No lock-on possible and therefore rather useless. The stealth mission is not compromised.
“And provide ground support from 35000 feet.”
To give the AF F4 Phantom pilots some small credit, a few of them DID come below 10,000 feet AGL doing their version of “close air support” during the southeast Asia games.
There is an excellent reason why the Marine Corps has our own air support.
“There is an excellent reason why the Marine Corps has our own air support.”
Had a friend that was in Quang Tri province that said they called in support fire from the New Jersey. He said they usually counted down from 5 to 1 for their indigenous support (howitzers) but when they called the New Jersey they started counting down from 21. He said that when they got to 1 the whole mountainside disappeared.
Posted here before about having the New Jersey fire over us in Quang Tri airbase to demolish Camp Carroll. Denying the NVA the fortifications and all.
A sleepless night with freight trains going overhead. I would never have guessed how loud they were. Never heard them hit, just flying over was bad enough.
“I do believe that the USAF learned a lot about computer architecture during development of the F-35.”
After the debacle of the first flight of F-22s heading west had to turn back at the date line, using their tanker as guide dog.....I would hope to hell the software weenies learned a few things.
Thanks…. I had mind that the F-4U migrated to the Air Force along the way but sounds like that is not quite right.
After Korea and the F-4U was retired from the active forces (Marines) and to the reserves, did it stay with the Marine or the AF reserve for those last few years? I’m saying reserves but perhaps it was National Guard?
Cheers…. Hoot
You know Lamborghini does actually manufacture tractors and agricultural equipment?
“What the hell are you talking about?” [dljordan, post 61]
It’s called the introduction of facts into the discourse.
Large numbers of respondents seem to be screamingly ignorant of many facts, public law, military history, doctrine, and DoD routine practices.
And they cling like death itself to their false notions. The they grow angry. Doesn’t advance any useful debate at all.
“...After Korea and the F-4U was retired from the active forces (Marines) and to the reserves, did it stay with the Marine or the AF reserve for those last few years? I’m saying reserves but perhaps it was National Guard?...” [Hootowl99, post 67]
I haven’t any information on post-1953 service life nor final disposition of the Vought-designed Corsair, with regard to their use in US military service.
Bear in mind that national defense organization, military dept authorized mission areas, operating/employment practices, nomenclature, administrative/logistic support, and nearly everything else changed radically from 1945 into the mid 1960s.
To the best of my knowledge, Corsairs remained entirely under the Navy Dept throughout their service life within the American military establishment. None ever came under USAF control, nor was the Dept of the Air Force responsible for an support.
The Air National Guard has always been blessed with a dual nature: partly under state control and partly under national (Defense Dept) control. Similar to the National Guard simultaneously falling under the separate states and Army Dept. The Navy Dept has a Reserve component only, no Guard equivalent.
“...After the debacle of the first flight of F-22s heading west had to turn back at the date line, using their tanker as guide dog.....I would hope to hell the software weenies learned a few things.” [doorgunner69, post 66]
The F-22 navigation systems flopped big time. their present-location readouts reset to zero latitude and zero longitude when they hit 180 degrees west longitude (which is also 180 degrees east longitude): the systems suddenly thought they were at a point over the Gulf of Guinea, due south of Ghana and due west of Gabon.
Good thing the air refuelers were there, minding them.
These errors have hit fighter nav systems at other times. Prompted concerns that nav systems in larger aircraft (bombers, transports, etc) might malfunction in similar ways.
After serving many years in operational test organizations, I’d never bet money that software developers can learn enough to stay out of trouble.
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.