| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Strategypage: F-22 Secrets Revealed |
| 2009-02-12 |
| February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has released some performance data on the F-22. The stealthiness factor of the F-22 has turned out to be better than predicted. For radar purposes, the F-22 is about the size of a steel marble. The F-35 comes out as a steel golf ball. The AESA radar turned out to have a longer effective range of about 210 kilometers, versus a 200 on the official spec sheet. The AESA radar is also able to detect enemy radars at a considerable distance, meaning that, if an approaching enemy aircraft is using its radar, an F-22 can detect it about 300 kilometers distant. That gives the F-22 more time to get into position for a decisive first shot at the enemy aircraft. These goodies are being released as the air force makes a pitch to delay some F-35 production in order to build more F-22s. The air force generals point out that the first 500 or so F-35s will cost $200 million each (without taking R&D into account), while F-22s only cost $145 million each (without taking R&D into account). The construction cost of the F-35 will eventually go to about $100 million each as more are produced. The air force also points out that their simulations (which are classified, so it's difficult for anyone check their accuracy) indicate the an F-22 would destroy 30 Su-27/MiG-29 type aircraft for getting destroyed. But the F-35 would only have a 3:1 ratio, while the F-15 and F-16 would only have a 1:1 ratio (there are a lot of F-15 and F-16 pilots who would dispute this). Thus the need for more F-22s, even if it means fewer F-35s (in the near and long term). That would be because the F-35 is designed for those icky bombing missions instead of being a pure fighter designed to make aces out of God's annointed ones. The air force also points out that, with a force of 183 F-22s (all Congress will allow them to build at the moment), only about a hundred would be available for combat (the rest would be down for maintenance or used for training.) By building another 60-100 F-22s, and reducing initial F-35 production by that much, American air superiority would be much improved, at no (well, not much) additional expense. Or so goes the pitch. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #4 To add to this, the F-35 comes in both Air Force and Navy/Marine versions. It's also our export fighter of the future, and the Brits, several Euro nations and the Aussies have put serious coin into its development. That was done in part to drive down the unit cost by ensuring sufficient sales. The F-22 was supposed to be USAF only with no export, but the Japanese in particular would love to have some. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-02-12 14:47 |
| #3 If we need to spend billions of dollars to stimulate the economy why not buy more F-22s and F-35s more quickly? |
| Posted by: Donald McConnell 2009-02-12 14:35 |
| #2 They are going with the F-22 and F-35 for the same reason they did a F-15 and F-16 mix. High/low cover. The F-22/F-15 are designed to take on aircraft and provide air cover for the other planes. They can provide air-to-ground cover if needed. The F-16/F-35 is the multi-role part of the mix. They get in low, bomb and provide the air-to-mud mix, but they can perform as good air-to-air fighters if needed. The reason the air force likes the smaller and cheaper aircraft for the low mix is they will have a much higher attrition rate than the high mix aircraft. Bullets flying at you from all directions will do that. Therefore it makes logical sense that the cheaper aircraft are designed for the low mix. The F-35 was supposed to follow the same principle, but with all multi-committee designed projects the costs have spiraled. Personally, I think it would make more sense to make more F-22s, provide them with ARMM capabilities and then let the F-16s go in and tear up shit. Later we can design, on our own (US) a stealthy replacement to the F-16. The F-35 will be a good aircraft, but now is becoming so damn expensive that most countries will not be able to buy it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-02-12 12:56 |
| #1 Let's see if I understand: the F35 is both more expensive and less capable than the F35 and it is getting into production? Anyone sees the rationality? (That is assumming it is not built in Murtha's constituency). Yes I know about the air to ground role) but, except for the VTOL frames wouldn't it be more rational to develop an air to ground version of th e F22 a la Strike Eagle and shutdown the F35? (Screw the Euros) At least while less capable the F16 was cheaper than the F15. |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-02-12 12:24 |