Gates to cut F-22

[MikeD]

taking them apart and storing them is not the same as scrapping them.

Some are, some aren't.....for now. Though the ops birds at HMN are now at TTR; they're headed the fate of some of the Palmdale fleet. A couple of Palmdale birds went the way of museums, but only four are currently preserved: One at Blackbird Airpark, CA; one at the Air Force Museum in OH; one at Holloman AFB, NM; one at Nellis AFB, NV (that one is a hybrid of two crashed jets.) Truthfully, there's no real reason to keep them for too long. Great aircraft, but older (and complex, unlike older "simpler" aircraft like the B-52) and difficult to find a mission for. Couldn't contribute to the current wars (apart from opening OIF, but I mean since then) as the other aircraft in the fleet have adapted to. Very little $ were being put towards it anyway, as anything that took $ from the F-22 was dead on the table. Was always very expensive to maintain with it's older coating style, as well as other factors too.

I think CSAR-X program being scrapped is an important one that's being overlooked, though I've heard interesting arguments from both sides of that issue.

 

[darrenf]

Wow Mike, those pictures are heartbreaking.

 

[Maurus]

We don't have any F-117's anymore, actually. We recently scraped them.

Maybe because the F-22 was supposed to come a long and replace our fighter fleet?

I don't know about the full capabilities of the F-117 or the F-22, but the F-117 seemed pretty restricted in what it could do.

 

[thehobbit]

Some are, some aren't.....for now. Though the ops birds at HMN are now at TTR; they're headed the fate of some of the Palmdale fleet. A couple of Palmdale birds went the way of museums, but only four are currently preserved: One at Blackbird Airpark, CA; one at the Air Force Museum in OH; one at Holloman AFB, NM; one at Nellis AFB, NV (that one is a hybrid of two crashed jets.) Truthfully, there's no real reason to keep them for too long. Great aircraft, but older (and complex, unlike older "simpler" aircraft like the B-52) and difficult to find a mission for. Couldn't contribute to the current wars (apart from opening OIF, but I mean since then) as the other aircraft in the fleet have adapted to. Very little $ were being put towards it anyway, as anything that took $ from the F-22 was dead on the table. Was always very expensive to maintain with it's older coating style, as well as other factors too.

I think CSAR-X program being scrapped is an important one that's being overlooked, though I've heard interesting arguments from both sides of that issue.

Come on a crane. They couldn't destroy them in a cool fashion like blowing them up or sticking them on the shooting range. Or they could have torched it and gave the fire dept something to practice on.

 

[jtrain609]

It's an old, old, old airframe. I know we think of it as state of the art, but this thing was born out of Have Blue, which was flying in 1977. The theories that created it are out of date, and we've figured out how to do the same thing the F-117 did with flat surfaces on curved surfaces now.

 

[jtrain609]

Maybe because the F-22 was supposed to come a long and replace our fighter fleet?

I don't know about the full capabilities of the F-117 or the F-22, but the F-117 seemed pretty restricted in what it could do.

I couldn't speak to that, though I get the impression that the F-35 is aiming to pick up more of the role that the F-117 did. I.E. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter (though it would seem they're attempting to make it multi mission capable, I think it's obvious what the goal of the airframe is), where the F-35 is a multi mission aircraft that's designed out of the box for CAS roles.

MikeD could probably tell you a lot more about it than I can, though.

 

[MikeD]

Come on a crane. They couldn't destroy them in a cool fashion like blowing them up or sticking them on the shooting range. Or they could have torched it and gave the fire dept something to practice on.

I know....that sucks.

[yt]YbN1qoHpmFQ[/yt]

 

[aloft]

As much as I'd love to fly the F-22, we don't need more fighters right now, close air support stuff seems to be were the war is at...

Maybe where THIS war is at, but the AF has to plan for multiple, simultaneous worst-case confrontations with China, North Korea, Iran, et al. And as we're seeing with jets breaking in half under normal use, the F-15 is nearing the end of its useful life. And the F-16, though a decent dogfighter in its own right, simply doesn't have an adequate radar for long-range/BVR-type engagements.

 

[aloft]

Maybe because the F-22 was supposed to come a long and replace our fighter fleet?

I don't know about the full capabilities of the F-117 or the F-22, but the F-117 seemed pretty restricted in what it could do.

The F-22 is a replacement for the F-15C. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, and to a (far) lesser extent, the F-117. The F-117 was little more than a technology demonstrator, a low-observable precision strike fighter-bomber that had pretty much zero air-to-air capability. It certainly wasn't a "fighter" by any conventional definition. As Daffy said a while back, he was pretty much a weapons systems officer with landing currency.

 

[aloft]

You do know that the national debt Obama has created is twice the entire debt of G. Washington to Bush 43 combined?

I'm sorry...that Obama created?? I think not. Bush 43 inherited a balanced budget from Clinton, bro. Obama inherited the largest budget deficit in US history.

 

[MikeD]

I'm sorry...that Obama created?? I think not. Bush 43 inherited a balanced budget from Clinton, bro. Obama inherited the largest budget deficit in US history.

All very true....in fact, about a 1 trillion debt he inherited from Bush 43. But making that 1 trillion debt into a now nearly 3 trillion debt was something he didn't inherit; so this is now his piece of the pie.

On the 117, it was always interesting during preflight to see the AIM-9 umbilical connections that are still in each bomb bay of the jet.

 

[aloft]

All very true....in fact, about a 1 trillion debt he inherited from Bush 43. But making that 1 trillion debt into a now nearly 3 trillion debt was something he didn't inherit; so this is now his piece of the pie.

Meh. The first $750B was committed on W's watch. The rest is Obama's having to clean up the mess W left behind.

On the 117, it was always interesting during preflight to see the AIM-9 umbilical connections that are still in each bomb bay of the jet.

"Comical" is probably a better word. One would imagine it fairly difficult to acquire a heat source from within the bomb bay, doors open or not--even with an AIM-9X. The F-22 faces the same issue, which leads me to believe it doesn't carry anything but slammers.

EDIT: Looks like the AIM-9s nose is shoved out into the breeze for target acquisition prior to launch. So much for stealth at that point.

 

[MikeD]

Meh. The first $750B was committed on W's watch. The rest is Obama's having to clean up the mess W left behind.

The bar tab is just getting more and more expensive......you and I better have enough cash to cover

"Comical" is probably a better word. One would imagine it fairly difficult to acquire a heat source from within the bomb bay, doors open or not, AIM-9X or not.

Not in my time they weren't. The 117 was originally to be a HVAA killer of enemy Mainstay AWACS birds, since it was the only plane that could get even remotely close to the powerful radars. At that time, the way the 117 employed was to open the bay door, lower the trap, and expend the weapon. So the AIM-9 would be lowered from the bay to acquire (stealth didn't matter anymore by that point, since the Mainstay could easily see due to the sheer power of its radar) and be fired. AGM-65 Maverick was tested to be used in the same way, but never was. Though the program never went into full effect (that we know), 117s later only lowered traps for maintenance and weapons loading, as all future future munitions were free fall and were just dropped from the bay after the door cycled open, with the trap locked in the up position.

 

[Maurus]

The F-22 is a replacement for the F-15C. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, and to a (far) lesser extent, the F-117. The F-117 was little more than a technology demonstrator, a low-observable precision strike fighter-bomber that had pretty much zero air-to-air capability. It certainly wasn't a "fighter" by any conventional definition. As Daffy said a while back, he was pretty much a weapons systems officer with landing currency.

I couldn't speak to that, though I get the impression that the F-35 is aiming to pick up more of the role that the F-117 did. I.E. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter (though it would seem they're attempting to make it multi mission capable, I think it's obvious what the goal of the airframe is), where the F-35 is a multi mission aircraft that's designed out of the box for CAS roles.

MikeD could probably tell you a lot more about it than I can, though.

Good info.

I was just basically saying that we now has a new airframe in service that can do everything the F-117 can do plus more, hence the unfortunate destruction of the airframe.


I wouldn't mind saving a F-117 from the USAF. Just think of the havoc I could induce with ATC. :yar:

 

[jtrain609]

We've got two actually! I figure it's good to have options. We've got a destroy everything in the air style fighter in the F-22, and a fight your way in, fight your way out aircraft that can drop bombs over Baghdad in the F-35.

They're both stealth fighters, have zero or little radar cross section, and are being produced. It's numbers, in the end, that is the issue I guess.

 

[aloft]

I wouldn't mind saving a F-117 from the USAF. Just think of the havoc I could induce with ATC. :yar:

You can induce far more havoc with ATC by employing certain radar countermeasures within the terminal environment.

"______ FLIGHT, STOP BUZZER!!!!"

 

[Hacker15e]

The problem with your logic is though all of these states have decent Air Forces, or air defense capabilities, none of these countries have a quarrel with us.

None of them have a quarrel with us?

China -- I suppose they don't care any more that we are protecting their "rogue state" of Taiwan?

North Korea -- Who practically has an entire generation convinced that the US wants to invade them and take what they have?

India -- Who cannot stand that the US is currently snuggling up to their sworn enemy Pakistan in the name of what they provide in Afghanistan?

Besides...that was not the point of my post. I said that there were a half dozen countries that could give the US a black eye in an aerial shooting match. I didn't say BEAT the US...I said get in some solid punches that would really sting.

 

[Hacker15e]

We've got two actually! I figure it's good to have options. We've got a destroy everything in the air style fighter in the F-22, and a fight your way in, fight your way out aircraft that can drop bombs over Baghdad in the F-35.

They're both stealth fighters, have zero or little radar cross section, and are being produced. It's numbers, in the end, that is the issue I guess.

I didn't know we had F-35s on duty.

 

[aloft]

I didn't know we had F-35s on duty.

Exactly! They're THAT stealthy!

 

[///AMG]

India -- Who cannot stand that the US is currently snuggling up to their sworn enemy Pakistan in the name of what they provide in Afghanistan?

Maybe we should stop training their student Naval Aviators in T-45's then