Should The F-22 be cancelled?

26-nov,2004 | Me

[Haro_546]

Yes. This type of aircraft has no place in the modern battlefield and Foreseeable conflicts. The money could be put into more usefull sistems (each unit cost about $235 million for 239 planes) Whats your opinion?

[Haro_546]

cool thx

[skybolt]

Should F22 be canceled?

Har to question to answer absolutely, when there are so many variables involved. Maybe not make as many of them. Transfer technology to other systems

But hey, a good topic & a good question to stimulate discussion.

Now for my unqualified & low seniority response (which makes it as valid as any other here ;-).

We always design these weapon systems with everything and the kitchen sink thrown into them, then the aircraft is never used that way such as the F-111, or on the other side we design the aircraft to a narrow spec, and then proceed to load it up with all the other requirements, take the F-104 as an example. Of course which design bureau the acft was designed in plays a large factor.

I remember (when I was in the service in the early 70's) and the B1-A was a semi-secret/public thing, we had Generals claiming all they needed to stop a Soviet sweep of east Europe was a fleet of 10 B1's.
But then the B1-A & B1-B ECM suite never lived up to expectation as I understand. No matter though, the B1 has never been used for its original mission account the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

But who knows how a weapon system will function until it is tested in real warfare?

Even with the flaws of the B1, a fleet of them on the deck at 900 knots, with their imperfect ecm suites, but good crews, loaded with SRAM's and HARM's would have been a serious threat to any adversary.

[Dundee]

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - AUGUST 25, 2004

---

Boeing offers options for USAF interim strike
NICK COOK JDW Aerospace Consultant
London

Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) is supporting a multi-pathway approach in its bid to win the US Air Force's (USAF's) interim long-range strike capability with a 'D' version of the company's X-45 unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) as its "centrepiece", according to company officials.

The USAF issued a request for information (RfI) three months ago for concepts that could meet an interim strike capability. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing responded to the request with a set of ideas ranging from upgraded variants of the USAF's existing bombers - the B-1B, B-2 and B-52 - to conventionally modified intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Given the plethora of concepts received by the USAF - thought to number as many as 25 individual systems - there is speculation that the service could soon follow up with a more formal request for proposals (RfP) that would whittle the ideas down to a more manageable list.

Boeing's menu of options comprises a re-engined version of the B-1B, known as the B-1R (Regional); a Peacekeeper ICBM solution modified to accept a Boeing-developed re-usable space vehicle armed with precision kinetic weapons; a variant of the company's work on the blended wing-body (BWB), dubbed Arsenal Ship, which will be fitted with cruise missiles; a hypersonic missile capable of speeds in excess of Mach 6; and the X-45D, a notional, much larger variant of the X-45C UCAV currently under development for the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) demonstrator programme operated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

An interim strike capability is needed by the USAF because a replacement for its current bomber fleet cannot be funded for several decades and there is concern that some B-52s and B-1Bs will have aged into obsolescence before 2035: the date scheduled for their replacement.

To meet the interim capability's 2015 in-service requirement, development of the chosen solution - or, as Boeing believes, solutions - will need to commence around 2008. Central to concepts proposed by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are solutions based on the F/A-22 (the intermediate-range FB-22 bomber) and upgrades to the B-2 bomber fleet respectively.

Ron Marcotte, who heads Boeing's long-range strike activities within IDS' Air Force Systems group, believes it would be "inappropriate" for the USAF to pick one solution for the interim capability. Marcotte, who was the USAF's first B-2 wing commander, is counting instead on the USAF requiring a "basket" of capabilities in what, by 2015, will amount to a sophisticated network-centric environment.

Whatever system or systems the USAF eventually chooses, Boeing officials believe that an X-45-based capability will lie at the heart of it. Progress on the X-45A demonstration programme has been good since the two vehicles made their maiden flights two years ago.

A major argument for UCAVs is that they need to be highly autonomous. Boeing has demonstrated this autonomy via a series of increasingly complex tests designed to validate the ability of the two X-45As to co-ordinate with each other throughout the mission envelope. Earlier this month, the two vehicles successfully demonstrated their ability to co-ordinate their activities in flight while under the direction of a single ground controller. Current concepts envisage that as many as four platforms can be handled in flight by a single operator.

Boeing has begun construction of an X-45C, which will be evaluated against Northrop Grumman's X-47B for the J-UCAS demonstration programme. The Boeing X-45C, with its 36,500 lb (16,500kg) gross weight, will weigh three times as much as the X-45A fully laden. The X-45C is designed for a high fuel load to give it the persistence - a radius of action and time on station well beyond the capabilities of a manned fighter - that the USAF needs to justify its investment in an unmanned combat aircraft.

Missions envisaged for the X-45C are pre-emptive destructive suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD), electronic attack (EA) and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). UCAVs are intended initially to complement the manned fighter force, not replace it. However, given the high-threat SEAD, EA and ISR environments, they are likely to have these as their exclusive domain from the outset - as long as the concept proves itself.

Boeing began work on the X-45C in June and the first flight is anticipated in late 2006. The company is building three C models all in a USAF configuration and optimised for the SEAD and EA roles.

The X factor

The US Navy (USN)-led ISR configuration, which will emphasise a multisensor payload, has not been defined yet, according to Steve Teske, J-UCAS business development manager for Boeing IDS. This is down to the fact that the X-45A was originally sponsored by the USAF and the X-47B by the USN until the two programmes were rolled into J-UCAS in October last year. In addition to its ability to carry two 2,000 lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions or eight 250 lb Small Diameter Bombs, the X-45C will also feature a synthetic aperture radar and electronic support measures suite.

Boeing is confident that the X-45C can be adapted for the more demanding long-range strike role. "One thing we've found is that the X-45 is pretty scalable," said Marcotte. The X-45D, the centrepiece in Boeing's long-range strike offering, is viewed by the company as a capability for "breaking the door down" - eliminating ground-based air defences and well-defended sensor sites - before the intervention of a manned capability such as the B-1R.

Boeing's other interim strike offerings will depend on the premium placed by the USAF on other factors - speed and survivability foremost among them. If the service wants a weapon capable of responding to an attack on US assets within hours, or even minutes, it will need to go down the ICBM or hypersonic cruise missile routes. If saturation attacks in an environment in which the USAF has air superiority is perceived as a need, a BWB armed with a heavy complement of conventional cruise missiles may emerge. Or, if Boeing is right and a number of solutions are deemed appropriate, a combination of systems optimised for performance within the network may be the eventual solution.

[Quix]

Thanks.

Just tuned in, BTW, history channel . . . WHEN UFO'S ARRIVE or some such title.

There's some expectation that the history channel UFO programs in Dec will be releasing--as they typically do--yet more bits and pieces, puzzle pieces unreleased heretofore.

Certainly the bug craft and other means of surveilance are increasing geometrically in effectiveness and pervasiveness.

Have long felt that privacy was virtually totally gone.

But . . . if . . . interdimensional sorts of things can occur with some level of sophisticated control and focus. . . one wonders what surveilance options that would allow.

BTW, an air traffic controller friend of mine once saw in Alaska, a UFO on the ice/snow somewhere with an open door in the night. Nothing more seen--light in the shape of the door. Barely discernable craft in shadow/dark around the lit doorway.

[Haro_546]

few people agree with me.

[Quix]

Have been in that kind of minority most of my life.

Mercifully, God has confirmed many such positions over the years--usually when the other players were long gone and it didn't matter that much anyway! LOL.

[norton]

"Air dominance is better insured by better missile/bomb/satellites than by Ultra advance and expensive planes that can be easily destroyed."

'Air dominance' has to be obtained before it can be insured - 'bombs', 'missiles' and satellites don't seize airspace from the enemy, they work in the relative calm after dominance has been won.

It'll be a long time before we develop unmanned vehicles capable of taking over from a defending air force so that the A-10s of the future can do their thing.

[Pukin Dog]

Air dominance is better insured by better missile/bomb/satellites than by Ultra advance and expensive planes.

I think you ate too much turkey today. Either that, or you are just trolling for comments. It is hard to believe anyone could be so uniformed.

Hey LC, what's up, dude? Thanks for the ping, but sometimes, it aint worth the effort when folks don't know what they are talking about. Just got home, so I'm going to bed. I might add some comments to this thread in the morning.

[Cableguy]

They should scrap it and work on the next generation. No one has answers for our F-15/16/18's even now.

[Redcloak]

Stealth beebers. They're truly stuning sistems.

[rlmorel]

4 years, 3 deployments, and there were always things I had no explanation for. I think that i part and parcel of being in the military.

I did see a lot of things...

A tomcat going into the ocean in darkened ship, me a the bow, all alone watching it. Seems like a dream, now...

Being chased by a transvestite with a knife while pulling Shore Patrol in Naples, Italy.

So many unusual things...I still don't understand what the transvestite with the knife was about...

[GBA]

"Cut him some slack. I doubt either of us could do as well trying to post in his native language."

I'll bet you this is a kid in jr. high who gets his information from playing video games. Spell check works well no matter what grade you're in (or country you're from).

And as to his posts? All he does is copy what he wrote (spelling errors and all) and re-post it over and over. That's what kids and drunks do.

[GBA]

Great pictures!

[tm22721]

The dollar is crashing we need to build up our military before the coming trade war erupts into a hot war.

BUMP

[topcat54]

It does seem odd that you ask for evidence while avoiding acknowledging that your positions on modern day gifts have no Scriptural evidence at all.

That's another thread. (I believe it's a violation of rules to jump arguments from one thread to another.)

I'll ask again: Evidence?

[topcat54]

I apologize if you feel assaulted and insulted but I don't know how you can post such bizarre stuff and then be so touchy about it.

Don't you know this information comes direct from God?

[SirLurkedalot]

LOL is this guys next thread going to be advocating adoption of the Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang tactical bomber?

[.45MAN]

I just left a company where we had a long term contract with Lockeed/Martin for a particualr system on the F-22. The contract has been cut back 3 times in the past couple of years and looks like it will be cut more in the future..

[.45MAN]

There was to be a Navel/Marine varient but it was cancelled>

NATF Projected naval version of F-22A with swing-wing, to replace F-14 Tomcat. Cancelled in 1993.

[Long Cut]

Trust me, Bro, this one's worth it. These two rocket scientists are spreading absolute Bravo Sierra to people who are honestly looking for answers and discussion.

We've got one apparent teenaged cellar-dweller who just FEEEEEEEeeeellllllls that the -22 should be scrapped (and who will not provide bona fides OR proof of his case) and REPLACED with the F-35, and a guy who thinks crop circles and UFO's are real.

Your help would be appreciated in separating the wheat from the cow patties.