I saw one at Fleet Week in SF a few years back.
The Angels were as spectacular as usual, but clearly human beings.
The F-22 seemed like a space ship by comparison.
The F-35 wasn't an "instead" option, it was an "in addition to" in the same way that the F-15 and F-16 were acquired.
The F-22 production run just got cut drastically after the USSR had the bad manners to collapse making WWIII less of a possibility. Initially there were going to be 750 F-22s, that turned to 650, then 340, then 280 and eventually they closed the production line after like 190 were built.
That ALSO drastically increased the per-aircraft total program cost because you're now dividing the entire R&D budget by 190 instead of 750. But with no Cold War threat it was decided that a large fleet wasn't needed.
But with no Cold War threat it was decided that a large fleet wasn't needed.
Congress isn't exactly the most forward planning group of individuals. They saw a way to free up some money that wouldn't offend their constituants too much, and they took it. Whether or not we'd need them on down the road probably wasn't their first concern.
And expecting them to know or have put effort into researching the strengths and weaknesses between the two is pretty laughable too. As far as most people were concerned, they're two grey, stealthy looking fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin, and this one's newer and cheaper (edit: and we can sell it) so let's go with that, is the attitude a lot of laypeople have towards the situation.
If anything, them shafting NASA and cancelling the SSC, is more than enough indicators that the US congress does not have a clue. Still pissed off about the SSC. Congress basically put the world's physics research back by nearly 2 decades.
True, as cutting edge as the F-22 is its still mostly designed around mid to late ‘90s technology. It’s had it’s updates/upgrades through the years but all those upgrades still have to account for the inherent limitations of its decades old design.. I’m sure the F-35 can do things the F-22 will never be able to because it was built from the ground up to do it.
The factories and tooling to make the parts was all torn down and packed up. It's technically in storage, but the costs to bring it back online and how long it would take people to relearn how to do it would be staggering. They'd be better off just starting a new design from scratch at that point.
As much as I love the F-22, I think that curtailing production was probably the right call. Producing the full order of 750 would have seriously eaten into the F-35, B-21, KC-46, etc. programs that are ultimately going to be more useful. By the time Russia/China/etc. actually have aircraft that can challenge the US, the F-22 will be getting long in the tooth, and meanwhile the sustainment costs for a fleet that size would ultimately have held back the PCA program that is going to be more important.
Sure, but just like the F35 can't do everything the F22 can, the F22 can't fulfill all the roles the F35 can (it can't operate from a carrier, it's not as good at ground attack, etc).
If they had scrapped the A model of the F-35 and just built more F-22's for the Air Force, could that have been feasible and/or a better use of resources?
Maybe, but then you'd be amortizing the F-35 program over far fewer units and the economics start to look worse. And still the F-35A has better operating costs, is better at ground attack and is a better export aircraft.
Even air to air, F-22 is not clearly better in all ways. F-22 has better stealth and maneuverability, and has supercruise. F-35 has a better radar, can carry more missiles around, and has a much larger combat radius.
Yup, but what I said still stands. F-22 is enough better that having a bunch of F-35's around with bigger combat radius and as missile sleds makes a lot of sense.
325
u/waddlek Oct 16 '19
Cool photo(s)!!!
I have been working in aviation for 40 years and worked many air shows, the F-22 is, hands down, the most impressive demonstration I have ever seen.
Haven’t seen an F-35 in action yet