With the cost of the F35 program going through the roof

[alphatarget1]

Wouldn't it make sense to just keep building F22s? Many F22s are already operational...

From Wikipedia

F-35A: US$122 million (flyaway cost, 2011)[7]
F-35B: US$150M (avg. cost, 2011)[8]
F-35C: US$139.5M (avg. cost, 2011)[8][9]

F-22: US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)[5]

I wonder how hard would it be to rig a F-22 carrier variant. Obviously there is no STOVL capability for the F-22, though.

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't get it. You said F35 is getting hella expensive but then you post numbers showing the F-22 is the most expensive. wtf?

 

[alphatarget1]

I don't get it. You said F35 is getting hella expensive but then you post numbers showing the F-22 is the most expensive. wtf?

F35s are less capable fighters that are still in the development phase and the program has a ton of cost overruns.

 

[Schadenfroh]

F-35 is a multipurpose fighter
F-22 is an air-superiority fighter only

An F-35 can do air-superiority, just not nearly as well as an F-22.
An F-22 is poor at being a swiss-army knife type fighter like the F-35

Different planes for different jobs

 

[Throckmorton]

What characteristic of the F-22 makes it not multipurpose?

And what's the point of it then? I'd think technology should be advanced enough that one fighter can do everything equally well depending on configuration.

 

[ElFenix]

there was a proposed strike F-22.


edit: apparently F-35's radar and avionics are more advanced
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22684.pdf


edit2: F-22 has ground attack capabilities. whole point to F-35 is supposed to be cost, but if fly-off cost is the same as the F-22 i'd rather be equipped with F-22s. the vtol version of the F-35 is already on the chopping block iirc.

 

[alphatarget1]

What characteristic of the F-22 makes it not multipurpose?

And what's the point of it then? I'd think technology should be advanced enough that one fighter can do everything equally well depending on configuration.

That's what I was thinking. F-22s can carry a variety of armaments including air>ground missiles and bombs.

 

[ayabe]

That's what I was thinking. F-22s can carry a variety of armaments including air>ground missiles and bombs.

Lack of external hardpoints? I thought the F-22 only carried internal ordinance and that was a limiting factor.

What really bugs me about the F-35 is that they expect it to fulfill basically every role in the Marines/Navy and Air Force. It's a joke, especially CAS missions - gonna replace the A-10? Yeah right.

 

[ShawnD1]

F-35 is a multipurpose fighter
F-22 is an air-superiority fighter only

An F-35 can do air-superiority, just not nearly as well as an F-22.
An F-22 is poor at being a swiss-army knife type fighter air-craft like the F-35

Different planes for different jobs

Sounds like a job for missiles.
Take out planes --> shoot ground to air missile at it
Bomb things on ground --> shoot ICBM at it

Alright so maybe the missiles have trouble properly locking onto an enemy plane. No problem. Get it within maybe a football field then make a HUUUUUUGE explosion to knock the plane out of control so it crashes. Done. If the missiles are not accurate enough, make them blow up bigger. If they need more range, make the rocket engine bigger. If they are too accurate, make them bigger. If they don't look nice, make them bigger.

 

[chucky2]

For CAS, nothing is going to replace the A-10. Nothing.

Hanging a bunch of non-stealthy ordandance off a stealth aircraft, thereby immediately making it non-stealthy, isn't going to help the F-35 one bit.

Given how long these aircraft will be around, we should have just spent the extra $$$ and done F-22 all around and been done with it. Oh well...

Chuck

 

[ElFenix]

Lack of external hardpoints? I thought the F-22 only carried internal ordinance and that was a limiting factor.

What really bugs me about the F-35 is that they expect it to fulfill basically every role in the Marines/Navy and Air Force. It's a joke, especially CAS missions - gonna replace the A-10? Yeah right.

it can carry external stores
http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html


for CAS i think the army preferred its own helicopters anyway

 

[Zargon]

Sounds like a job for missiles.
Take out planes --> shoot ground to air missile at it
Bomb things on ground --> shoot ICBM at it

Alright so maybe the missiles have trouble properly locking onto an enemy plane. No problem. Get it within maybe a football field then make a HUUUUUUGE explosion to knock the plane out of control so it crashes. Done. If the missiles are not accurate enough, make them blow up bigger. If they need more range, make the rocket engine bigger. If they are too accurate, make them bigger. If they don't look nice, make them bigger.

quoted to preserve the fail.



the f35 is getting HELLA expensive, costs keep going up and we have shit for flyable aircraft

they wont even let F22's leave the states

 

[alphatarget1]

Lack of external hardpoints? I thought the F-22 only carried internal ordinance and that was a limiting factor.

From Wikipedia

While in its air-superiority configuration the F-22 carries its weapons internally, it is not limited to this option. The wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank or a rail launcher that holds two air-air missiles. However, use of external stores compromises the F-22's stealth, and has a detrimental effect on maneuverability, speed, and range (unless external fuel is carried). The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks. These hardpoints allow the mounting pylons to be jettisoned in flight so the fighter can regain its stealth after exhausting external stores.[155] Research is currently being conducted to develop stealth ordnance pod and pylon.[156] Such a pod would comprise of a low observable shape and carry its weapons internally, then would open when launching a missile or dropping a bomb. The pod and pylon could be detached when no longer needed. This system would allow the F-22 to carry its maximum ordnance load while maintaining stealth without loss of maneuverability.

 

[Schadenfroh]

What characteristic of the F-22 makes it not multipurpose?

Unless they role (pun intended, roll for grammar nazis) out a new variant, it has some limitations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22

The F-22's ground attack capabilities are minimal. It has no Forward looking infrared, Laser designator or laser spot tracker and it cannot carry an external pod to provide these capabilities. It's ability to locate ground targets with radar is still under development and it can only carry a very modest bomb and fuel load in a stealthy configuration.

And what's the point of it then?

It was designed to destroy enemy fighters that are already in the air. No plane in the world is better at that than an F-22. When you're air force is outnumbered big time, planes like the F-22 can help make up the difference.

The F-35 is a Swiss Army-Knife, the F-22 is a surgeon's blade. Yes, you can do surgery with a Swiss Army-Knife, but it will be messy. You can use your surgeon's blade for utility purposes / other purposes, but it might be delicate and may not be the proper tool for the job.

 

[ShawnD1]

quoted to preserve the fail.



the f35 is getting HELLA expensive, costs keep going up and we have shit for flyable aircraft

they wont even let F22's leave the states

How is it fail? Show me something that cannot be killed with missiles.

We can even transport things with missiles. Check this shit out:

 

[ElFenix]

space shuttle looks funny in that orientation

 

[chucky2]

But imagine the ride...

 

[ShawnD1]

But imagine the ride...

 

[Schadenfroh]

space shuttle looks funny in that orientation

Looks like that when we launch it horizontally from the undercarriage of this puppy:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1108/massive-ufo.html

 

[chucky2]

Haha, perfect!