GOV/MIL Reviving F-22 Raptor production a 'non-starter' - Sec of Air Force

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
For links see article source.....
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reviving-f-22-raptor-production-a-non-starter-421019/

Reviving F-22 Raptor production a 'non-starter'
¤—¤˜
20 January, 2016 | BY: James Drew | Washington DC

The secretary of the air force has become the latest official to douse hopes of restarting Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor production, which was capped at 187 aircraft and closed in 2011.

The tooling and equipment needed to produce the twin-engine air-superiority fighter, which was barred from export because of its sophistication, remain in storage along with video instructions for various assembly processes.

This equipment will aid in the remanufacture of spare parts for the aircraft and its two Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, but some Raptor advocates want to see the assembly lines in Marietta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas reborn. This was done for improved versions of the Lockheed U-2 and Rockwell B-1.

That idea is 'pretty much a non-starter' service secretary Deborah Lee James said when asked about the prospect of resuming serial F-22 production at a recent CSIS event in Washington DC.

¡°If you were to ask [air force chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh] or any of the uniformed officers in the air force, they would probably tell you they would love to have more F-22s.

¡°The original plan was to have quite a few more additional F-22s, and it was a regrettable set of circumstances ¨C a combination of budget overruns and taking way longer than originally projected ¨C that actually caused what became an early termination for the F-22 programme.¡±

Optimised for air-to-air combat in a Cold War fight against Russia, the original requirement was for 750 aircraft. That number later dropped to 339, and then 187 plus eight test aircraft.

Some retired and serving USAF officials have called ending F-22 production ¡°the biggest mistake ever,¡± particularly as the aircraft sees combat action in Syria, and as Russia and China finalise development of competing fifth-generation combat jets. Former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney even pledged to restart F-22 production during his 2012 campaign.

Air Combat Command chief Gen Herbert ¡°Hawk¡± Carlisle said in September that he ¡°dreams¡± about the day F-22 assembly resumes, but admits it¡¯s an expensive proposition. In 2010, a RAND study commissioned by air force placed the cost at $17 billion (2008 dollars) for 75 more aircraft.

¡°The very prospect of re-opening that [F-22 line] is pretty much a non-starter,¡± says James. ¡°We¡¯ve got what we¡¯ve got. We¡¯ve got the F-35 coming, approaching initial operating capability. It¡¯s not the same, but they will complement one another and we¡¯ll have to go forward as is.¡±


Related Content
P&W expects influx of F119 overhauls as Raptor unsheathes talons
F-15C, F-35 to boost US air-to-air capacity, not more F-22s
Boeing doubles F-15C missile load in '2040C' Eagle upgrade
Lockheed would support restarting F-22 production line if Romney wins election
IN FOCUS: End of F-22 production closes chapter in eventful history

 

[Richard]

By the same token so is the F35 dead in the water as it is not developed or proven to be effective for many years if at all, the F22 is established.

 

[Richard]

I still have my doubts that the F35 will take off commercially and internationally.

I think the equivalent Russian and Chinese (F22 type) jets will not take off either.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
For links see article source.....
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2202

5/26/2016

Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'

By Vivienne Machi

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh III said May 26 that reopening the F-22 manufacturing line was within the realm of possibility, and that it may cost less than developing a sixth-generation fighter.

Congress recently asked the Air Force to look into resuming the canceled fighter program. Welsh, who will retire on July 1, said it wasn't a "wild idea."

"Rather than thinking of a sixth-generation fighter, can you modify the F-22 and reopen the line, cheaper?" he asked. That might keep the number of fighters the Air Force must maintain up, he said at an Air Force Association breakfast in Arlington, Virginia.

The Lockheed Martin manufactured stealthy fighter jet was discontinued in 2009, when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates insisted the money required to build more would be better spent on other priorities.

Welsh said the Air Force is currently conducting a cost analysis to see what it would take to revive the Raptor.

"Looking back at somebody raising the idea to build more is not a crazy idea," he said. "I think you've heard ... the secretary of the Air Force say that we think it's cost-prohibitive. We're going back right now and looking in detail at the number of what would it cost."

"The success of the F-22 — the airplane and the crews that fly it — is pretty exceptional," he told the audience. "I think it's proven that the airplane is exactly what everybody hoped it would be … it has been spectacularly successful and its potential is really, really, really remarkable."

His remarks were in contrast to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who previously said he was against resuming production of the F-22, calling it "an inefficient way to proceed," and "not something the Air Force has recommended to me." He also said that the Pentagon is upgrading the 187 fighter jets it already has.

Though the House Armed Services Committee has recently asked the Air Force to report on how much would be needed to bring the program back, Welsh said that the Air Force was conducting an analysis prior to the annual defense budget bill talks.

"We've been asked in the past … by Congress to look at this number," he said. "We've been doing this for a while."

Welsh said he has not seen results from that cost analysis yet. A timeline of when the cost analysis will be complete was not immediately available. The Rand Corp. estimated in a 2010 report that it would cost over $500 million in 2008 dollars to restart production.

Welsh linked the renewed debate to bring back the F-22 to the need for more air power. "The good news is, a lot of people are understanding that we can't keep cutting the number of fighter squads we have," he said. "Fighter squads and bomber squads and [intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance] … that’s the meat and potatoes of our Air Force. They're not always the sexiest things people want to talk about … but they are the things we're using every day."

Manpower, he repeated frequently, was a huge issue for Air Force readiness moving forward. He estimated that the force would need between 40,000 and 60,000 more personnel in order to be at maximum end strength, continue to work on the F-35 and add the ISR, space, cyber and other capabilities that are being requested of it. Boosting those numbers probably will not happen, he conceded.

"We have to be ready and capable to win the fight today … and 20, 30, 40 years from now," he said. "All the stuff we have today won't be enough to win the fight in 2030."

Where the Air Force fits into the military's joint scheme and where its priorities will be is a debate worth having, Welsh said. "We ought to be debating capabilities," he said. "But without air power, we will lose — that's just the way warfare is."

Photo: An F-22 Raptor (Air Force)

Posted at 12:16 PM by Vivienne Machi | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (7)

-----

Comments


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



The Air Force, Lockheed, and Boeing desperately want to stop the Navy from buying the F-23 as their F-18 replacement fighter. If the Navy does that it will make them all look like idiots for the F-22 debacle. Plus it would signal the reemergence of NG as a serious military airplane supplier.

Dfens at 5/26/2016 9:39 PM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



Reasons why F-22 Raptor production won't be restarted:
.
1. Production cost: Including R&D, the 195 built Raptors averaged $411 million each, though the average production-only (fly away) cost was $150 million each in 2009 dollars. But hold on.... The real decision is whether to commit to ALL future costs, including manufacturer/supplier restart costs, recent F-22 upgrades, and perennial inflation between 2009 and 2021 when the first F-22 would roll out. The Rand Corporation analyzed this and quoted an estimate of $276 million per plane to restart the line. That's 2.5 times the cost of the $110m F-35A including its engine and avionics.
.
2. Maintenance cost: In 2015 USAF reported that maintaining the F-22 costs $59,166 per flight hour. Compare this to $42,169 for the F-35 (similar for the F-15). Assuming a service life of 8,000 flight hours, the F-22 is more expensive to maintain than the F-35 by a difference of $136 million each. Now combine production and maintenance: a new-build F-22 costs a staggering $302 million MORE to buy and sustain than the F-35A. Not. Gonna. Happen.
.
3. USAF impacts: A proposal to replace all 192 F-15C/Ds with 181 new F-22s would require retirement of hundreds of other airframes to make budget space for the Raptors, with or without the annual budget sequester caps.
.
4. Impact on strike community: A decision to restart F-22s would involve curtailing F-35s, further increasing their cost to all branches and nine foreign buyers, all of which are seeking multi-role (primarily strike) aircraft, not air dominance fighters. The Air Force won't backstab allies and naval air, and 1,600 U.S. strike aircraft in three services can't be replaced by a small ration of $276m F-22s.
.
5. Sluggish adversaries: China and Russia have developed stealthy x-planes, but none have yet to achieve mass production. The risk is over-hyped. Today, 35 years after the F-117 Nighthawk's first flight, the U.S. remains the only nation with stealth aircraft in full service.
.
6. Safety: The F-22 has five non-combat crashes to date, four a total loss with two fatalities. The F-35 by comparison has no crashes, deaths or injuries. Legacy planes have been widow-makers compared to the F-35.
.
7. Range: Both the F-22 and F-35 are considered overweight, with the F-22 weighing 49% more. The Raptor equation traded away fuel and range for twin engine thrust to secure air dominance. But the Air Force, Navy and foreign buyers are noticing the F-35 can stealth-penetrate (without drop tanks) over 200 more miles into enemy territory. (Combat radius: 679 vs 472 miles.) This is a major consideration in selecting a low-observable strike aircraft.
.
8. Uncertainty and reversal: The five years necessary to produce the first upgraded new-build F-22 could see economic, political and strategic upheavals that call for un-starting the line, such as another global recession. This potential creates an embarrassment factor for appropriators and program bosses, as well as contractors dealing with their labor force. A restarted F-22 would likely be the first program cancelled. DoD sees nothing but risk here.

TMark at 5/27/2016 7:18 AM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



A navalized F-23 sounds like a fantastic idea - a jet that would exceed the ridiculous F-35 in every metric. The Navy needs a bird with greater range than the F-35, and more capability when it gets to where it's going.

MattXL at 5/27/2016 10:34 AM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



I'm sorry, calling the F-22 a 'widow maker' compared to the F-35 had me snorting my coffee out my nose.

Clearly you're in the F-35-can-do-no-wrong camp.

When the F-35 is actually in service, meeting production deadlines and has similar years in service, feel free to compare those safety records.

Until then, you just look silly.


Paul at 5/27/2016 1:23 PM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



Dumb, dumber, dumbest.
Dumb: Secretary Carter may indeed be right when he says that restarting the F-22 line is a dumb idea.
Dumber: One such idea is developing a sixth-gen fighter, or two, (still pretty much undefined) that would certainly not be in service in 2030. Furthermore, it would make that $18B F-22 restart price tag look very cheap.
Dumbest: Easy to spot. Shutting down the F-22 line and betting our air combat fanny on the F-35. Unfortunately that one's already been implemented.

Raymond Franck at 5/27/2016 1:44 PM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



It may be thoughtful to think we may be leaving the status quo into an entirely new operating environment. One where energy (and therefore) fuel prices rocket upward and stay in the 100$ a barrel range.

Our global F-22 fleet as is should be sufficient to ride out the "Storm" in advancing capability on the part of China and Russia, as long as the F-35 has a "good enough" air to air capability until global oil supply constricts sufficiently that air forces, and global power projection becomes a thing of the past. It would probably be better to earmark it towards things whose source of power (naval fission) is much longer lasting, or are very fuel efficient relative to capability (DDG-51's other large boats).

I'd suggest skipping the sixth gen program and more F-22's and either not spend the money, or if you're going to spend the money, earmark it towards modernizing the triad in all functionalities.

Because fuels going to get much, much more expensive in the coming decades, air forces will by necessity become obsolete.

Aversion at 5/27/2016 3:31 PM


Re: Air Force Chief of Staff: Building more F-22s 'Not a Crazy Idea'



It may cost $100 Billion to restart the assembly line for the F-22 Raptor; but this doesn't mean the US taxpayers would need to eat the cost as there are a number of countries who wanted to buy the F-22 Raptor 8 years ago except Obama said it was to advanced to sell while being obsolete at the same time. Every country that has bought the F-15 Eagle and scheduled to buy the F-35 Lightning II should be able to buy the F-22 Raptor fighter jets and they will offset the cost of restarting the assembly line.

OMEGATALON at 5/27/2016 5:51 PM

 

[OldArcher]

I believe that those that are against restarting the F22 production lines, with even newer technologies, are guilty of either gross stupidity, treason, or both. The F35 will never be an air superiority fighter, CAS, or multiple drone control platform. The F15/16/18s are very long in the tooth, and will not be capable of taking on fifth generation fighters fielded by the Russians, Chinese, or even the Japanese or Indians. We're in danger deep, and every Administration since Mr. Reagan has been guilty of everything up to, and including, treason... Hopefully, prayerfully, Mr. Trump will become President, and change this horrible situation we're in...

Maranatha

OA

 

[night driver]

That's what, two high end denials?

One more and we'll see the tooling and jigs rolled out to the back corner of the lot in Fort Worth back where they are still building either 15's, 16's or 18's for the Foreign Market.

THe toolings and jigs will just take up residence in another out of the way building and 22's will just magically appear, like the 15's, 16's or 18's they are magicing into existence.

(The Bro in law used to spend a bit of time back there when they had a sticky rework issue if something wasn't going together just right. He was one of the guys they called on to "fix" assemblies and such)

 

[NoDandy]

Just imagine if they had scrapped the F-35 early on. How much would that have saved?

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
For links see article source.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-07/the-f-22-raptor-back-from-the-grave

The F-22 Raptor: Back From the Grave?

The world’s most advanced fighter jet was canceled over cost. New threats have Congress asking if that was a mistake.

by Justin Bachman
June 7, 2016 — 3:00 AM PDT

The Pentagon collected its final F-22 Raptor from Lockheed Martin Corp. four years ago. Amid the Cold War’s end and shrinking defense budgets, the most advanced fighter jet ever built was deemed both unnecessary and unaffordable.

Now, Congress has ignited a flicker of hope for fans of the pricey plane. A House subcommittee asked the U.S. Air Force to investigate what it would cost to put the tactical fighter back into production. By many accounts, no other aircraft can match the F-22’s range of capabilities—many of which remain classified—for speed, agility, stealth, and battlefield sensor power. With 183 in service, a reboot could mean, theoretically, the delivery of 194 additional planes that were planned before the program was canceled. But at roughly $67 billion, the F-22 was ferociously expensive even by military contracting standards. The per-hour cost to fly it is higher than that of most of the Pentagon’s air fleet, including the newer, equally costly F-35 Lightning II.

Measured against these near-insurmountable fiscal realities is newly aggressive behavior and military upgrades by China and Russia. This year, Russia deployed its most advanced striker, the Sukhoi Su-35, for combat operations in Syria and is working to sell versions to China, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, and Brazil. And China has begun marketing its advanced FC-31 tactical fighter, which analysts believe is based largely on data stolen in an April 2009 hack of Lockheed Martin systems related to the F-35 program.

In an August report, the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group called the 2009 decision to end the F-22 “an unexpected way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” The fighter is revered among some as the guarantor of American air supremacy for decades to come, if only there were enough. It's dismissed by others as a gold-plated hammer in search of a nail, namely a mission beyond projecting air dominance.

The F-22 finally saw combat in September 2014, nine years after its entry into service, against Islamic State forces in Syria. And contractors long ago secured major tooling needed to restart the line, just in case. Nevertheless, any effort to revive it faces enormous obstacles, said Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with Teal Group. He’s described the F-22 as a brilliant fighter without a mission, while the F-35 has a clear mission but troubles as an aircraft. “It’s not impossibly far-fetched,” he said of the F-22’s resurrection. “It’s just that there are very big hurdles.”

One of the biggest is the F-35, which like the F-22 has stealth capabilities. Also made by Lockheed Martin, the multiservice plane with variants for the Navy, Air Force, and Marines has grown into the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history—$379 billion for a planned fleet of 2,443. Through the fighter’s remaining life span, about 50 years, it’s expected to cost $1.12 trillion for operations and support, according to the most recent tally.

The F-35 joint strike fighter program has endured years of criticism for steep cost overruns and performance shortfalls, due in part to the task of making three versions of the plane. For example, the Navy’s variant must be able to land on an aircraft carrier, while the Marines wants its F-35 to take off vertically. Each F-35 costs an average of about $106 million. If Congress decides to curtail the order, costs would surge. The F-22, meanwhile, was about $140 million per copy. (The tens of billions of dollars in development costs for each plane aren’t included in these figures.)

The faster, higher-flying, more maneuverable F-22 is the superior fighter, while the F-35, as Aboulafia noted, has been tagged with software, speed, agility, and even hull strength problems. Last year, the F-35 was embarrassed by an internal Pentagon report that found an older F-16 outperformed the new jet in certain dogfighting scenarios.


While the F-22 has no equal in the sky, it seems unlikely it will ever beat the enemy that is government funding. For one, there is the key question about whether it would be available for sale to U.S. allies. The F-22s built for the current fleet were restricted from foreign sales owing to its advanced technologies. The F-35, on the other hand, has been sold to U.S. allies. Aboulafia said several F-35 customers abroad, such as Japan and Israel, would likely switch to the F-22 “in a heartbeat” if it became available.

Another big question is whether Lockheed would be asked to build copies of the F-22 now in service, or one with updated elements. Its software was considered dated more than a decade ago and would probably need a major revamp. And if some of the other platforms on the current F-22 are considered sufficiently “obsolete,” how much would modifications add in terms of complexity?

In the end, it’s likely to be a zero-sum game. For the F-22 to return, something else at the Pentagon would need to give. A 2010 Rand Corp. study (PDF) on the F-22 shutdown calculated that restarting production for just 75 more jets would cost $17 billion, or about $227 million per copy. A revived F-22 program would almost certainly need to siphon funds from some of the military’s most expensive programs: the F-35, or the new B-21 long-range bomber, which the Pentagon awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. last fall. The B-21 has a development budget of $23.5 billion and the new bombers are expected to cost at least $564 million each.

Another strike against the F-22 is that, aside from the existing B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, it's the most expensive U.S. military plane to fly per hour, at $44,000. That’s about $12,000 more than the F-35, according to Representative Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), who included the figures in a January letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter seeking more funds for the A-10 program, a ground-support attack jet built to destroy Soviet tanks and nicknamed the Warthog. McSally is a former Air Force A-10 pilot, and many of the planes are based in Arizona.

It’s unclear when the F-22 inquiry report is due, but Lockheed Martin, for its part, is going along with the review. Spokesman John Losinger said the company is giving the Air Force “any information and data” needed, but declined further comment. Air Force officials have said in the past that they consider a renewed F-22 program to be too costly.

An Air Force spokeswoman, Ann Stefanek, said the future of the F-22 review, if any, would become clearer once Congress passes an overall defense budget. She added, however, that the Air Force is less focused on “generational leaps” and more on “rapid deployment and prototyping” to remain ahead of threats.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
For links see article source.....
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/air-force-needs-new-high-low-mix/

June 9, 2016
Daniel Gouré, Ph.D.

The Air Force Needs A New High-Low Mix

The U.S. Air Force faces a serious force structure dilemma. On the one hand, it desperately needs to modernize its fighter, bomber and drone fleets in order to be able to maintain air dominance in the decades to come. Fourth-generation aircraft will not be survivable in a high threat environment. Even today, integrated air defenses are forcing the Air Force to rethink how it achieves air superiority and at what price in terms of losses, both adversary and its own.

The primary role for the F-35A fighter, with its advanced stealth features, superb electronics suite and ability to share data is to operate in such high-end threat environments and help “kick down the door” for the fourth-generation platforms. But the growing threat to American dominance of the air is why the idea of restarting the F-22 fighter’s production line is being floated. Ensuring the ability of U.S. forces to hold at risk any target regardless of how well defended, is the reason that the ability to penetrate integrated air defenses is one of the key performance requirements for the new B-21 bomber. The Air Force also is mulling over the challenge posed by future integrated air defenses for its drone fleet.

On the other hand, it is virtual certainty that the Air Force, along with the Navy and Marine Corps, will spend most of its time in much less stressful operational environments. Lots of different platforms can be employed in such circumstances. In counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and stability operations, most flying hours are spent going to and from the operating area and just loitering.

Without question, a force designed for the high-end threat can address the demands of lower-end campaigns. Care to guess what platform has conducted the greatest fraction of close air support and battlefield interdiction missions against ISIS over the past year? The B-1 bomber. With its long-range, high speed ability to carry the full range of air-deliverable weapons and to stay on station for long periods of time, the B-1 has been repurposed from its Cold War mission of penetrating the then high-end threat.

But building a high-end force and then employing it for low-end missions is akin to owning a Ferrari but using it to transport your kid’s soccer team to practice. Not necessarily the best use of your asset and much more expensive than operating a car more suited to the needs of a soccer parent. This is true for the force structure the Air Force wants to build for the 21st Century. Even with the planned complement of 1,763 Air Force F-35As, the growing anti-access/area denial challenges in Europe, the Middle East and Asia make it likely that all of them will be fully occupied preparing for high-end operations and by doing so deterring major conflicts. Of course, in lower-end conflicts, some number of F-35s could serve as command and control nodes.

As it acquires fifth-generation platforms for the high-end threats and continues to upgrade its residual fourth-generation fleets so that they can play a role in the event of major conflicts, the Air Force should consider some focused investments in capabilities that are particularly well suited to the kinds of less stressing missions it is likely to be conducting in many parts of the world. The most important objective of such an acquisition plan would be to lower the operations and sustainment (O&S) costs associated with providing air support in permissive environments.

There are platforms already available, some even in production, which would meet the Air Force’s needs. For example, the U.S. has a program called Light Air Support (LAS) to provide the Afghan Air Force with a robust, flexible and low-cost aircraft to conduct ISR and ground attack missions. Currently, there are eight A-29 Super Tucano aircraft operating successfully in that country. Lebanon is planning to buy the A-29 and Nigeria is looking at this platform for its fight against Boko Haram. At one time, the Air Force considered acquiring for itself a wing of LAS so as to be able to train and operate more closely with partner countries. For these reasons, but more significantly to reduce the costs of providing air support to U.S. and friendly forces in low-intensity conflicts, it would make sense for the Air Force to resurrect the idea of buying its own fleet of A-29s.

A similar argument could be made for acquiring a fleet of low-cost, long-endurance drones to complement the existing force of MQ-9 Reapers. The Reaper fleet is being run ragged by all the Combatant Commander’s demands for ISR. As I wrote back in March, the Air Force should consider acquiring a platform such as Aurora Flight Sciences’ Orion, an ultra-long endurance drone specifically designed to reduce O&S and personnel costs. The need for a low-cost ISR drone is only going to increase as the Air Force confronts the need to invest in stealthy unmanned platforms for the high-threat environment.

A high-low force mix made sense even during the Cold War. It is even more the right answer in a national security environment characterized by a broader spectrum of possible conflicts and tight defense budgets. The high-end portion of the force should be acquired for its performance. That is why it needs to consist of F-22s, F-35s and the B-21. But the low-end portion should be designed around the lowest cost approach to meeting mission requirements.