F-22 Raptor Cancelled 829
BayaWeaver writes "Slate reports that the F-22 Raptor has been cancelled by the Senate. At an estimated price tag of $339 million per aircraft, even the powerful military-industrial-congressional complex couldn't keep this Cold War program alive in these hard times. They look very cool though and have appeared in movies like Hulk and Transformers. But not to worry too much about the future of the military-industrial-congressional complex: the F-35 Lightning II begins production next year!
As a side note, in 2007 a squadron of Raptors became deaf, dumb and blind when they flew over the International Date Line."
Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled and the planes aren't going to be used by the US military. This is not the case. The Senate reduced the number of aircraft being produced such that no additional planes will be made. The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.
They didn't cancel the Raptor program... (Score:3, Informative)
Misinformation (Score:1, Informative)
The F-22 Raptor was not cancelled. A recent bill that called for production of _7_ additional F-22s (in addition to the 186 already in the pipeline) was cancelled.
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
The F-35 Lightning II is bad-ass, btw (Score:3, Informative)
How bad-ass? This badass [youtube.com]. The link is to a YouTube video where the guy who had the initial design ideas talks about getting the plane together, and the video features some awesome footage of the F-35's capabilities.
RIP F-22, you were cool and did a great job. The F-35 is a worthy replacement.
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
Having read about the F-35 [wikipedia.org], I can see why the administration and the Pentagon would favor it over the F-22.
-l
Which seems to make sense over all (Score:5, Informative)
The F-22 is a cool plane, but there are only so many the US really needs. Reason is that they are not carrier based planes, which is how a great many missions are done these days. It also is more or less strictly air superiority, not multi-role. Ok well there is value in that, while there may not be any current threats to the US, doesn't mean there won't be. You don't have good defense, in the real world or on your computer, by staying complacent. However that doesn't mean that there is the need or reason to roll out tons of the things.
The F-35 is more suited to a larger scale production because it is multi-role, and carrier capable. Thus with it likely to come out soon (next year if they remain on target) it doesn't make sense to produce a ton of F-22As. The F-35 also has the advantage of having a good deal of support from other nations, which helps pay for R&D and will also bring unit costs down in the form of increased orders.
So it makes sense to keep the F-22 around for when top-notch air defense is needed, it doesn't make sense to keep building them if an all around more useful plane is going to be coming out. Use what is complete, and use the research from the project on other projects (like the F-35).
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
And even that may be a bit misleading; the Senate eliminated funding for 7 additional F-22s that were proposed to be ordered, limiting the total run to 187, which includes not just planes which have already been delivered but also some that have previously been ordered which have not yet been delivered, so it is not the case that "no additional planes will be made", at least if by "additional" one means "additional to those that have already been made", rather than "additional to the ones already planned to be made".
Sucks for us (in Marietta, GA) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
Russia and France both have fighters in development on par with the F22. Russia, in particular, may not have many qualms about selling that fighter to foreign buyers who don't much care for the US.
Re:The Lightning is no replacement for the Raptor (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Lightning is no replacement for the Raptor (Score:4, Informative)
Wow - it's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you, right? Get at least your facts straight. Republicans and Democracts voted for the bill, and Republicans and Democrats voted against it. Not to mention that Gates, a Republican, Air Force and Joint Chief of Staffs didn't want to continue the purchase program. I don't know how you lump those people into the group of Obama's lunatic lefties.
How's the weather on your little planet?
Re:Poor Title (Score:2, Informative)
The F14 tomcat has already been decommissioned, but there's the F18 to add to that list.
Dave
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug (Score:5, Informative)
if 187 Raptors aren't sufficient to achieve that in some future conflict
Which conflict would that be? It's not the ones we are in now, which we're going into astronomical debt over. I don't know who has an air force that would rival us, but I'd guess China and North Korea. Either way, we can't afford it even with these cuts. In fact, I think/hope we can't afford to fight ANY more unilateral wars against ANYONE.
Any war/conflict in which 187 raptors is insufficient is a war our economy is also insufficient for.
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
The per unit cost is so high because, unlike past US-built fighters and the upcoming F-35, it is illegal to build an F-22 and sell it to another country, per Congressional mandate. Because there are no other customers available besides the US, and because the US has enough of them (for now), there's no way to take advantage of the economies of scale that could be brought to bear with continued production.
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting? Wrong more like. The cost of the program is $39,000M + 187 * $130M. The marginal cost per plane is $130M. $209M of the $339M is the upfront R&D costs, and that money has already been spent. /. should replace the new account captcha with a math exam.
i'm cool with it (Score:3, Informative)
My vote as a former USAF intel analyst is that this is a good move. We have plenty of them already and we can put that money to use in myriad other ways, for defense and other purposes. The 22 is bad ass and worth every penny, but i'd rather see more spent on HumInt or humanitarian stuff.
Re:R&D (Score:5, Informative)
So one F22 (properly maintained and competently piloted) is equal to how many old F16s?
Many. In war games, single F-22s often take out entire squadrons of F-16s before they're even seen on radar.
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831 [af.mil]
Re:Which seems to make sense over all (Score:5, Informative)
They blow up other aircraft :D.
In terms of what makes a good air superiority fighter these days, it is a number of things:
1) Stealth. If the enemy can't see you, they can't shoot at you. Thus if your aircraft has a low radar signature and thermal signature, you have an upper hand. That was one of the big design characteristics of the F-22A. You'll notice that it very rarely has weapons on the outside. The missiles are instead kept in internal bays. The bays pop open, eject a missile and close quickly. Makes it a hard aircraft to find.
2) Maneuverability. Even though you aren't dodging bullets any more, dodging is still important. This is in part because no matter how good a missile is, it can still be fooled and evaded. However it is more because to get a missile off, a plane has to have another plane in its sights. So you need to maneuver behind the other guy, then he can't shoot you and you can shoot him.
3) Communications. This is important for any military vehicle, but particularly fighter craft. A bomber can very well be given targets back at the base and then sent on its way. It follows a pre setup flight plan, unless it has to evade enemy fire. Not so for a fighter. Your objective is to track the enemy fighters/bombers and engage them. More, you want to approach them in such a way they don't notice you. Well having an AWACS tell you where to go via radio is good. Having the AWACS directly cross link target and navigation data to your computer is better (the F-22A does this). Having fighters than can then take over and act as mini-AWACS in the event an AWACS is lost or unavailable is even better (the F-22A does this too). You need to be able to locate targets and coordinate an attack.
4) Speed. Part of what makes a good fighter good is the ability to be where it needs to be, when it needs to be there. If you've incoming attack craft, you don't have the luxury of waiting. You need to hit them before they are in range of their target. Means your craft has to be able to go extremely fast when needed, even if that means having less payload.
So it isn't as though multi-role craft can't play fighter, and indeed they do, it is just that you can optimize a craft for the fighter role. Same deal with a bomber. The B-2B is a good example of a pure bomber. It can't defend itself, it is slow, it is larger, etc. All it does is drop a LOT of bombs, and do so unnoticed (hopefully).
The F-35 should hopefully be the jack of all trades. Should be a good fighter, good bomber, good attack craft and so on. However as such it is likely to never be quite as good a pure fighter as the F-22A.
Re:Most deserving (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps. But the 10th Amendment suggests that health care and education should be a state responsibility (if at all). People make a big deal of the Canadian health care system, but there's an important point: the Canadian health care system is not run by the Canadian federal government. Each province runs its own health care system. For example, the Alberta health care system operated very much like a private insurer until this year, whereas in Nova Scotia it is more like a traditional universal health care system. The Canadian federal government mandates certain minimum standards, but it has the constitutional authority to do that. The actual operation of the health care system is a provincial matter, as the Canadian constitution dictates it should be.
Re:Bad move (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you, Congress, for sacrificing the nation's safety so you can buy up the problems of those who make bad decisions. Not going to sacrifice power for their bad decisions, t.
Actually, the people who were OPPOSED to continued F-22 production include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and other top brass. The only people who are FOR the continued production are members of Congress whose districts include the defense contractors who build the plane, and those contractors themselves.
IOW, the MILITARY does not want any more of these planes.
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
The other three fighter craft available to the USAF were commissioned in 1976 (F-15), 1978 (F-16), and 1988 (F-15E). I know that the F-15 (I assume it's the 1970s units) have been exhibiting structural failures that have cost the loss of several craft and the grounding of all units a couple of times in recent years. It would be pretty easy for a foreign power (Russia and China) to have a modern aircraft that can out perform something we designed and built 30+ years ago. Basically those three craft all need to be phased out in the next 10 years, leaving us with the F-22 (clearly superior to anything anybody else has), and the F-35 (which will be available to multiple countries, and therefore not superior), as well as the unmanned aircraft. The F-22 out-rates the F-35 by every metric, even though it will be 6 years older.
Anyway, the GP didn't claim that creating more would make the new craft free. But the billions spent to develop the F-22 can't be recouped. What's important is, going forward, is whether it's better to buy 2 F-22s, or 3 F-35s. Consider, with better planes, your pilot can cover more ground, which makes it less difficult to find the pilots necessary to man the aircraft in question, which means you have to find and train more pilots to man the extra planes, and extra planes will also require extra ground crew mechanics and engineers to maintain the planes.
If it's me, I would always choose to build more of the superior plane as long as the extra cost isn't too high, and I don't consider the extra cost to be too different in this case.
Re:Which seems to make sense over all (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with that is you have to get in range to do so. Missiles do not have an unlimited range. So you have to move your ship or aircraft in launch range. Well, carriers have enormous force projection, and good intelligence assets. So getting your stuff in range is not an easy proposition. You are contenting with a carrier air wing which is two squadrons each of F/A-18 hornets and super hornets as well as the intelligence craft, a destroyer squadron, aegis cruisers, guided missile destroyers and two 688 or 774 submarines.
If you send aircraft, you are going to get to fight with the carrier's air force, and probably get shot at by the cruisers too. If you send ships, the subs are likely to sink you before you even know they are there.
While it certainly isn't impossible, it isn't a situation of "Just launch a couple missiles and watch them work." No, you'd have to launch a major attack with lots of craft to fight off the heavy resistance needed to get close enough to attack. Then, once you do get missiles off, you have to hope they don't get shot down. One of the functions of aegis cruisers is to shoot down ballistic missiles, and they are good at what they do. If the missile gets close, then the carrier will fire on it with its CWIS systems which are fairly effective.
Then, even supposing you hit it, you aren't necessarily going to sink it. Carriers are HUGE, they are literally floating cities. Takes a lot of damage to put one under water. Missiles could take out the flight deck, but probably couldn't sink it as they are going to make holes above the water line. Even with torpedoes it would probably take more than one to do the trick, and of course those are shorter range.
So while a carrier isn't invulnerable, nothing is, it would not at all be an easy target to take out.
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're joking, so ... the F-22 is superior to the F-35. Two engines instead of one. Larger payload. Stealth capability. There's no comparison. That's why the US was happy to share the F-35 with other nations, while the F-22 was a closely kept secret.
Re:Which seems to make sense over all (Score:3, Informative)
Aircraft carriers are tremenduously useful when you AREN'T fighting a nation which has a real ability to defend itself. Most of the well-defended countries have nukes anyway.
Aircraft carriers make force-projection possible even when there are no nearby friendly bases.
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why they went with the F-22 over the "F-23" anyway. It was a better plane on many levels...
Both planes met USAF requirements. One was produced by Lockheed, the company that had recently delivered the F-117 on-time and under budget. The other by Northrop, which had suffered delays and extreme cost overruns on the B-2, and McDonnell Douglas, which was having even greater problems with the A-12 bomber (the DoD would eventually sue them over this one).
The plane may have been better, but the companies behind it where not. Since both planes met requirements and were good aircraft, DoD chose the company with the better track record.
Re:We can't help it the world is retarded.. (Score:3, Informative)
Please provide proof. How are we holding them back? Who is we? Why have India and China succeeded the more they embrace evil capitalist ideals?
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
That's not strictly true - the F-22 has a decent internal carriage capability. It can carry two JDAMs plus four missiles internally. For strategic bombing missions that's plenty. If you want saturation bombing, get yourself a B-52 :)
But yes, your general point is correct - expanding it's payload beyond that does tend to lose you the stealth characteristics.
Re:Cost vs Return (Score:3, Informative)
No. The Nazi's lost in WII because (among many other reasons) they didn't invest much in R&D (especially D) until too late, because they were reluctant to disturb existing production lines because they needed the capacity to not lose, and were reluctant to convert civilian production to military production or to greatly expand military production. Which meant that in 1943/44 they were facing Allied 1943/44 systems with their own 1938/39 systems.
The Nazi's planned on a short war, and when it went into extra innnings they had no reserves.
Re:Poor Title (Score:4, Informative)
That second quote referred to the Thach Weave, which BTW does not rely on superior numbers. It is a method for forcing double teams. Boom n' zoom refers to restricting your engagements to situations where you possess superior energy. Basically it means attacking in a dive and breaking off immediately, only re-engaging when you have regained your altitude advantage.
There were a lot of other factors too, such as the Japanese lack of usable radios.
Re:Poor Title (Score:5, Informative)
China's GDP in 2008 $3.9-$4.4 trillion [wikipedia.org], so their trade with the U.S. accounted for about 9.3%-10.5% of their economy.
So economically, China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.
Re:Poor Title (Score:3, Informative)
and has always been, a boondoggle granted to military contractors by lawmakers who get large contributions from those contractors. As far as I know, no F-22 has ever flown a combat mission. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have never been used.
It is apparent to me that you do not understand how things like funding for these planes works, and why they are as expensive as they are. In fact, it would appear that most of the people in this thread are missing a crucial point about this aircraft - a point which should be flat obvious to anyone who has ever procured anything.
Quite simply, when you buy more of an item, it costs less due to the ability to distribute the distribution cost of the item over the whole set of items. How long would it cost per CPU if each 'version' of a CPU only had one in production? Billions of dollars each, more than likely. But because they're made by the ten thousand per batch (I'm guessing) with a lifespan of a lot, you can buy a high tech CPU for a couple hundred dollars.
This airplane has suffered greatly from this kind of purchasing. The original intent was to purchase 750 of them: by no means a "small" number of planes, but it's also not a whole hell of a lot compared to the past. They then commenced to cut the desired purchase number throughout the 1990s all the way down to the current number of around 100, resulting in a higher per-unit cost: realistically, not a damn thing was saved by doing this, because repair parts will now cost more as well.
As for those saying "this is old, outdated Cold War junk", realize that they only came into service in 2005 and they are more advanced than what the competition has.
As for never doing anything? They've only been in service since 2005, and we've managed to stay out of any major wars since then with the likes of China or Russia (ie those with more advanced aircraft), yes? Then I think they've served (part of) their purpose by dissuading hostile action. Nobody ever attacked Athens by sea or Sparta by land, for good reason.
As for the planes being well designed and error free, I can not attest either way. But limited-run cutting edge technology does tend to have its share of problems.
Where are you getting your figures? (Score:3, Informative)
"As another comparison, the cost per hour in 2008 was $19K, compared to the F15 which was $17k. History shows that this typically goes down as the plane matures and is ironed out"
I don't know where you get your info, but the Washington Post claims they've acquired Pentagon info [smartbrief.com] stating that exactly the opposite is true with the Raptor; maintenance costs are going up over time, not down. They also say this report shows costs of $44K per hour for the F-22, not $19.
Cheap? (Score:3, Informative)
"It is very cheap (inexpensive) and is a good asset."
Whatever else the F-35 is, it is not cheap. Far from it.
For comparison, Boeing is offering the Navy a fixed price quote for new Super Hornets at just over $50 million apiece if a minimum of 230 are purchased. Brand new F-16's are currently around $40 million apiece. The brand new Silent Eagle stealth redesign of the F-15 costs $100 million apiece. That's a top of the line air superiority fighter.
So how much does an optimistic estimate of F-35's run per aircraft?
If you're a taxpayer, read 'em and weep:
Year Aircraft Average unit cost/aircraft
FY2008: 6 $184.2 million
FY2009: 8 $200.2 million
FY2010: 18 $172.3 million
FY2011: 19 $146.4 million
FY2012: 40 $124.4 million
FY2013: 42 $115.1 million
Re:Poor Title (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Poor Title (Score:3, Informative)
The difficulty with the F-22 is that the F-15 is still the most dominant air superiority fighter in the world, and because of the cost involved in making anythign remotely better, is likely to stay that way for a good long time. The "Super Power" enemies, such as they are, relied on a greater number of less capable aircraft because they couldn't afford the price of the nicer aircraft.
Er, what? Su-27 and MiG-29 (especially in their upgraded versions) are definitely not less capable than F-15. They are cheaper, yes, but cheaper doesn't always mean worse.