Air Force Raptor Fighter Starts Trials

[Kilgor]

Air Force Raptor Fighter Starts Trials
Associated Press
May 1, 2004


WASHINGTON - The Air Force's newest fighter plane has begun a final stage of flight testing aimed at preparing it for use with combat units.

This week, the F/A-22 Raptor underwent its first operational trials at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Combat pilots will gauge the performance of the aircraft in 105 simulated missions in testing through mid-September, Air Force officials said Friday while briefing reporters at the Pentagon.

They said the plane is ready, and that a series of problems during development has been solved.

Senior Air Force officials renewed their intense pitch for the plane, which critics say is too expensive and was designed for a high-tech enemy - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists. Some have called for its cancellation.

If that were to happen, new generations of enemy surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets could render some regions inaccessible to existing American air power, said Lt. Gen. John Corley, one of the Air Force's acquisition chiefs.

"Do you want to cede a portion of the globe to an adversary?" he said.

Continuing the F/A-22 Raptor program may be a tougher sell, however, because of the almost complete dominance of the air by the U.S. military in recent conflicts. The F-15C Eagle, which the Raptor is intended to replace, won 104 victories in air combat and has never been shot down in a dogfight, Air Force officials said.

In the second Gulf War, Saddam's air force stayed on the ground and didn't try to oppose U.S. fighter planes.

Air Force officials insist possible conflicts in the coming decades won't be so easy, as new Russian and European fighter planes equal in capability to the F-15 are sold around the world.

Congress capped the total cost of the F/A-22 Raptor program at $36.8 billion, enough to buy roughly 220 planes, but a far cry from the Air Force's original plan to buy 750.

Marvin R. Sambur, the service's acquisition chief, said the $36.8 billion will be spent by 2010. He said he believes he can persuade Congress to add $5 billion for another 50 planes, to reach the Air Force's stated need for 277.

The first combat-ready F/A-22s are supposed to join a fighter wing at Langley Air Force Base, Va., in December 2005. Unlike the F-15C, the plane is stealthy and can fly at supersonic speeds for long ranges.

To make the plane useful in more situations, the Air Force is also giving it the ability to drop bombs and intercept cruise missiles. But those capabilities, still in development, are not going to be tested yet, Air Force officials said.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. is making Raptors for testing, and President Bush's proposed 2005 budget includes $4.7 billion for the program, which would include the purchase of 24 fighters.

A final decision to begin full production is due only after some operational testing is complete.

woot

[seruriermarshal]

F-22 !

woot

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Expensive plane, but I'd still like to see us field it!

I've heard of a possible bomber version.

Can anyone confirm this?

[AFACadet]

Its actually been flying operational testing for over a month. All the avionics problems have been fixed, and they have already "shot down" flights of 8 F-15s or F-16s in BVR combat without being detected. Its also "shot down" F-15s and F-16s in multiple WVR fights from both the offensive and defensive starting points, again with no losses.

The pilots flying against them say "this plane is worth every ******* penny."

I don't know if its flown against SAMs yet though.

Ground crewmembers are getting the hang of it too.


Current date for IOC is December 2005, but if the program is going at its current rate, it may happen a few months sooner.


EDIT: Can anyone confirm this?

There's interest but probably not going to happen.

[wyrm_142]

I think that is when the 27th (I think that is who's getting them first at Langely) should be IOC. Not sure how many jets it will be (normal AD Eagle Squadrons being 18 or 24). Maybe the 22 will be less?

[Falco]

Cool woot

[Maverick77]

Good, **** those unmanned things.

[Pille1234]

Do they still have a cell phone aboard for backup?

[seruriermarshal]

Expensive plane, but I'd still like to see us field it!

I've heard of a possible bomber version.

Can anyone confirm this?

http://airbase.ru/sites/images.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr020524_1_p.jpg

:roll:

[AFACadet]

Good, f*** those unmanned things.

Well, the F/B-22 is planned as a manned aircraft. The unmanned aircraft like the X-45 are still on track (with a planned 2008 service entery last I checked)

[Maverick77]

yes i know

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Expensive plane, but I'd still like to see us field it!

I've heard of a possible bomber version.

Can anyone confirm this?

http://airbase.ru/sites/images.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr020524_1_p.jpg

:roll:

Many thanks! :D

I've heard that there are some advantages to being able to reuse
some aspects of the original design. Increase the "fineness" ratio?
Sorry, I just a blundering newbie. :)

Thanks again seruriermarshal!

[wyrm_142]

Face it folks, the F-22 / F-35 (JSF) will likely be the end of manned fighter aircraft (for the USA).

The F-15 entered service over 30 years ago, who then could have forseen all the changes that have gone into Air Combat.

Today we can't imagine the human brain outside of the cockpit, but what does 30 years bring us?

Today we already have unmanned armed aircraft - flying in active theaters of conflict (hellfire armed pred, MQ-1's).

Do I think we are at a position to have UAVs take over everything from man in the pit, in the sh!t? No, but lets see what 30 years brings. (Don't mind we'll be using something different for fuel in 30 years)

Then again, the end of humanity could come tomorrow and we'll all be back with sticks and stones. :P

[Ghostwolf]

I've heard of the FB-22, the fighter/bomber version of the F-22, but I
think the Pentagon would probably just cancel that project due to R&D
cost. But never fear, if you can put SDB/SSBs into the F-22's missile bay,
the F-22 can perform as good as a short range bomber

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0%2C12543%2C262063-3%2C00.html
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space0702smarterbombers_A2.gif

As for the J-UCAV and other unmanned combat aircrafts, they are going
to stay for good.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TECH/space/04/19/combat.drone.ap/story.drone.robot.ap.jpg

[usa320]

my understanding is the F/B-22 program was cancelled when the F-22 designation was changed to F/A-22. Cause remember, this thing is made mainly for air supremacy, but it can still kick ass on the ground.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

my understanding is the F/B-22 program was cancelled when the F-22 designation was changed to F/A-22. Cause remember, this thing is made mainly for air supremacy, but it can still kick ass on the ground.

You could very well be right. :)
I thought I had read an article that the F/A-22 was first
and the F/B-22 was just a conceptual effort they came up
with later so they wouldn't have to develop a whole new bomber.

It was an article Aviation Week and Space Technology (great mag,
btw) quite a while ago.

a related article on the F/A-22's software stability:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/vic05034.xml

[AFACadet]

The F/B-22 concept came after the F/A-22.


In recient months, the F/B-22 concept has become much more popular with the AF brass because they are seeing some threats emerge that will adversely affect the ability for us to fight in the future. So, right now we have a stealth fighter, stealth attack aircraft, stealth bomber, but nothing in the F-15E class.

Even with its range and supercruise the Raptor still does not have the range of a Mud Hen, nor does it have the air-to-ground payload.

The F/B-22 was offered to fufill this role with the bonus being that most of the design--thus most of the R&D--are done. It will alow the F/B-22 to cost less to design, test, and build.

The problem is that it's still expensive and the AF is alreay trying to ring out as many Raptors as it can. The JSF program is also gearing up now, and although the aircarft cost much less than the Raptor, the program as a whole will cost the AF much more simpy because they are buying so many more.

The F/B-22 may go forward in the future, or even as an unmanned version, but right now, chances are slim.

[esl]

Its entirely possible the F-22 could be canceled outright as a cost saving expediancy due to the war.

As costs spiral many assume the importance of this program will retain its integrity. However what IOF shows is that such fighter is not needed since cruise missiles and a handfull of stealth fighters and bombers can do the job,backed up with conventional fighters.....unless you plan to attack Europe or RUssia :roll: When such people speak of threats from part of the globe ,one really has to wonder whos side the Americans are on?

All it takes is Kerry to be elected and the cost of the war get out of control. THen every branch will have to justify its existance. THe lack of ground troops and the problems in Iraq as a result of that alone ensures the army profile will be higher while the lack of relevance of the Airforce now will reduce its importance. Navy is still vital [more so than Airforce] ,but does it need such expensive programs as DDGx or CCGx etc? What is the threat that justifies these expensive cold war leagacies? OR are these programes to make the airforce redundant?

[AFACadet]

Its entirely possible the F-22 could be canceled outright as a cost saving expediancy due to the war.

ummmm... no


We've gone over this before on this forum.

Plus, the budget just doesn't work that way.

[esl]

ummmm... no


We've gone over this before on this forum.



Thats funny LOL , so let me get this straight. Because you on this forum have descided, it can't be done? What people on the budget committee attend this forum? :D

There is no weapon more fearsome in the world than the budget axe.

[Ratamacue]

Notice that AFA here is a Cadet at the US Air Force Academy. Theoretically it's possible that it could be axed, but that's just not how things go. The Comanche wasn't cancelled because of the war, it was cancelled because it was no longer entirely necessary enough to justify its cost. If the FA-22 does get cancelled, that would be the reason, not the war.

[AFACadet]

I know the guy who oversees every dollar of the air force budget. Over the last year, I've really gotten an good overview of how the AF budgets and military budgets work. Cutting the Raptor for Iraq--It just doesn't work that way.

The military has already said that if any problems in budget come up in the AF, the JSF will take the ax and the Raptor will survive. Right now, almost all the money for research, development, and testing, has been spent. The majority of the money needed is to simply buy the aircraft themselves now.

The political fallout for cancelling the program would be too great as well.



Sure anything is possible, but its also possible to get struck by lightning while being attacked by rabid wombats, but that doesn't mean its going to happen.

[esl]

ok we agree that continuing the war will cut increasingly into current and future capability?

In UK they are facing possible delay in CVF and F-35 purchase to balance books and early retirment of Challenger tanks as well as Invincible carriers when the Sea harriers are axed. The budget strain is already being felt their.

[incubz5]

The war "will cut increasingly into current and future capability?"

LOL!

War on ever INCREASED our current and future capability. Our most effective, most advanced weaponry to date was developed in the crucible of war, be it Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War.

Defense contracts have grown since 9-11, not shrunk. The latest weaponry and countermeasures are much more subtle than the F-22, but they are coming nonetheless. They're aimed at warfare w/ tinpot dictators in the Third World, as the Soviet Union has ceased to exists. Hand-held counter mortar radar, tiny UAVs that spy and attack, a new machine gun to replace the M-16, etc etc.

Look again.

[esl]

The war "will cut increasingly into current and future capability?"

LOL!

War on ever INCREASED our current and future capability. Our most effective, most advanced weaponry to date was developed in the crucible of war, be it Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War.
Look again.

I guess you just don't get it. All these weapons and research cost money. Lots of money. Far more than you ever imagine. But wars are expensive . Possibly increasing the defence budget by 50%. Wheres that money coming from? research and purchase only counts for 1/6 of the budget so its the most likely to go since wages and operating cost account for over 3/4 of any budget, and they are always going up.

[wyrm_142]

Conflicts are expensive, no debate there.

What is different? Rather than coming out of the yearly budget we are paying for our current conflicts with supplimental budget requests. The first one for Iraq was 87 Billion (US). It appears that is close to running out, and the admistration (the Pres) has asked for another 29 Billion.

So unless congress goes in and cuts the next FY defense budget, these aren't impacting current programs.

[esl]

Conflicts are expensive, no debate there.

So unless congress goes in and cuts the next FY defense budget, these aren't impacting current programs.

Yes cause whats needed is more troops not technological toys like F-22 or FCS or F-35 etc.

Current programs means anything in current production. So cuts in these programs will effect capability.Maybe not now but down the road for sure. Theres a rummor that the FCS is overbudget and unable to meet tech targets in time. That is usually a signal that funding is falling off. It could mean the program will be cancelled or cut back. When you hear simlar statments about other programs and combined with Commanche and Crusader cuts, this suggests that the over all plan is in crisis.

I read that the british are already facing this budget crises to and are rumoring to make wide sweeping cuts.

There will probably be hard choices ahead.Budgets can't be artifically enlarged , the money has to come from some where.

[DLodge]

Theres a rummor that the FCS is overbudget and unable to meet tech targets in time. That is usually a signal that funding is falling off. It could mean the program will be cancelled or cut back. When you hear simlar statments about other programs and combined with Commanche and Crusader cuts, this suggests that the over all plan is in crisis.
Actually just about every weapons system ever developed has been overbudget and failed to meet tech targets at some point. It's pretty much par for course, and not a signal of anything and certainly not indicative of an "over all plan in crisis." Yes there are some spending issued that need to be resolved, but not at the expense of the Raptor (which is, contrary to what you seem to think, very necessary for the USAF in today's air warfare environment).

[Royal]

ok we agree that continuing the war will cut increasingly into current and future capability?

In UK they are facing possible delay in CVF and F-35 purchase to balance books and early retirment of Challenger tanks as well as Invincible carriers when the Sea harriers are axed. The budget strain is already being felt their.

When the Sea Harriers are axed? They've gone :cantbeli:

[Ian H]

They have?! I thought they were staying until 2006.

[Royal]

They have?! I thought they were staying until 2006.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't flying of any of our carriers...

We may not have sold them yet, but we might of well have.

[Ian H]

I have no way of knowing if they've gone or not. www.royal-navy.mod.uk doesn't mention their retirement in the past tense, although at the moment they may well not be deployed on any of the carriers, I don't know.

EDIT: 800 Sqn FAA decommissioned on 31st March, but 801 and 899 are still active as far as I can find out.

[weedman]

I'd still prefer YF-23, it looks so futuristic :)

[Ratamacue]

I'd still prefer YF-23, it looks so futuristic :)

And we all know that looks are all that matters...

[weedman]

I'd still prefer YF-23, it looks so futuristic :)

And we all know that looks are all that matters...As far as I know, the problem was the price... :roll:

But that can't stop me loving the design :roll:

[Ratamacue]

Supposedly the YF-23 was really the better plane in the ATF competition, but going for the lowest-bidder isn't necessarily being cheap but being practical. People are bitching enough about the price tag on the F/A-22 (~$120 million a piece), could you imagine if they'd selected the F-23 as the winner of the ATF competition?

[Airborneranger4israel]

Expensive plane, but I'd still like to see us field it!

I've heard of a possible bomber version.

Can anyone confirm this?

There have been several peliminary drawings of bomber version. Check out popularscience for more info.

[weedman]

http://www.machtres.com/yf%2023.jpg
Awesome :lol: