Dare I believe? Or is this hope wasted? https://www.flight

File: F-15 2040.jpg (1MB, 2500x1054px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1054px

Well, looks like America will go with these then.

>>30088698
I guess it all depends if the costs are truly prohibitive, it may be we got fed a load of bullshit in the last estimate.

File: 14642916194580.jpg (256KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 800x533px

>>30088698
looks like pak fa was better than expected

>>30088698
USAF General
>it would be neat to have more F-22's

clickbait media
>USAF GENERAL SAYS F-22 PRODUCTION IS RESTARTING!!!

>>30089384
alternatively

USAF General
>gib monies

clickbait media
>USAF GENERAL SAYS F-22 PRODUCTION IS RESTARTING!!!

>>30089378
Pfffft, pak fa has zero to do with it.

We need more fighters to stay around 2k combat aircraft.

The only way they're ever going to justify reopening F-22 production is if they get Congress to authorize foreign sales to supplement production numbers.

>>30089413
so why not build more f35s then?

why restart the costly production of a 1 trick pony ASF if the competition is shit

>>30089429
Apperently the current F-35 production facilities can only handle so much f-35s a year, falling short of how much airframes we are loseing to time.

>but why dont they open moar f-35 facilities.

Im sure they are exploreing that option too. But upgraded new production f-22s would be a nice "here and now" mature solution to the shortfall, assumeing its not cost prohibitive.

>>30089426
too late

japan started building their own domestic fighter after the us refused to sell the f22

that only leaves israel as a potential "customer", but in reality they pay with aid shekels and just steal the tech which they then flip to the chinks

funnily enough the main reason the f22 wasn't exported is precisely because of the distrust surrounding tech transfer with israel, otherwise they would've gladly sold it to the japs

>>30089426
Too little, too late.

Australia and Japan have moved on to the F-35.

>>30089439
>Apperently the current F-35 production facilities can only handle so much f-35s a year, falling short of how much airframes we are loseing to time.

No, that whole topic is about budget sizes, restarting F-22 production would just worsen the issue.

>>30089452
>>30089441
American fighters never needed public sales to be american fighters. If the F-35 got zero international sales, it would still be the current numbers for the US.

Exports are a bonus, not a need.

>>30089473
Budget is a concern, its how to keep the mandated number with the same budget, or if its possible, hence exploring options.

Its all about the fighter numbers, and the future fighter shortfall.

>>30089474
We're talking about restarting the F-22 line, not its beginnings.

There's no money here, the USAF is afraid it'll take funding away from the F-35 and the 6th gen program. Not to mention all the new programs it has going on. B-21, KC-46, new trainer, new JSTARs, etc.

>>30089548
If there is no money, the fighter shortfall will happen and thats that.

However, if the USAF can hit up congress for a restart of the F-22 line at a fixed price of 50~ million a pop (manufacturer pays overruns), why not?

File: 1420086156261.jpg (3KB, 126x111px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 126x111px

>>30089579
>F-22
>at a fixed price of 50~ million a pop

WEW
E
W

>>30089486
And again, restarting F-22 production would leave you with fewer aircraft.

>>30089606
A little hyperbole for sure, buy it is essentually legacy equpment nowadays.

If we could get them cheap on a fixed contract is a no brainer.

>>30089619
How so? The assumption is all current production stays at the same levels.

File: f-15j_kai_plus_r1p.png (100KB, 768x362px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 768x362px

>>30089335
you mean this but in real life:
Stealth thurstvectoring F-15s

File: 1378876393626.png (119KB, 1776x1018px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1776x1018px

>>30089628
>we could get them for less than a new F-16

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

>>30089634
Budgets are finite, F-22's cost more than F-35's plus the cost of restarting production.

If you got congress to throw in extra money for F-22's, it would be better spent on more F-35's.

>>30089648
>a little hyperbole to be sure

Dont get pedantic now anon.

File: 1255161811922.gif (342KB, 153x113px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 153x113px

>>30089659
>1/3 the cost
>a little hyperbole

>>30089654
You are assumeing you could start a new f-35 line for cheaper than an F-22 line, both in startup and product costs.

The we only have one source the f-22 restart costs. If LM can get it cheaper (and on a fixed contract), then there might be something there.

>>30089674
Ok anon, we get it, your autisim wont allow you to recognize hyperbole.

>last (you) from me!

>>30089579
>F-22
>50 million
You are fucking delusional, if they restarted production they would be by far the most expensive fighter aircraft in the sky. More so than they were were in early 2000.

File: 1464021487493.png (237KB, 616x480px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 616x480px

>>30089698
>make retardedly inaccurate claim
>i-it's hyperbole
>using autism as a defense

>>30089706
Wew
e
W

>>30089439
>loseing
>exploreing
>assumeing

>>30089682
You are not starting a new F-35 line, you are increasing F-35 production. Restarting F-22 production has costs that simply do not exist with F-35's, and this is without taking into consideration the higher cost of F-22's per plane.

Repeating fixed contract over and over is simply a meaningless handwave that lets you avoid the details.

File: 1397357537755.jpg (79KB, 496x515px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 496x515px

>>30089698
You said something dumb, and tried to play it off as only pretending to be retarded.

>>30089801
If they could make more F-35s on the current lines, they would.

The lines will be in full production.

They would have to start new production facilities, not only for airframes, but for components too to get any meaningful increase in numbers per year

>>30089452
>>30089441
ATD-X JUST had it's first flight, it's not even to EMD yet. Restarting Raptor production would still be significantly less costly than bringing the ATD-X to production.
As for the F-35 bid, Japan operates F-15s and F-2s simultaneously, AND they're continuing ATD-X development concurrently with the F-35 bid, so it seems JASDF might subscribe to the hi-lo doctrine - in which case there's still an appeal to the F-22. Australia is indeed probably a lost market at this point, admittedly. I wonder if Korea might be interested in procuring F-22s.

>>30088698

Just give the current ones IRST and much needed avionic upgrades so it can at least do a few of the things the F-35 does while still being assrapingly fast.

>>30089801
Too add, im saying fixed contract to make it abundantly clear that LM will have to deliver on the quoted price, if i dont people will just say they will pull a bait and switch.

If thats clear now, its clear.

>>30089825
The X-2 isn't even a fighter.

It's purely a tech demo like the X-29.

The Japanese will choose in 2018, whether to pursue an indigenous fighter or look for other options.

>>30089818
>If they could make more F-35s on the current lines, they would.

The aircraft 'shortfall' is a budget issue, not a production capacity issue.

>>30089850
Lockheed already has to eat any cost overruns with the F-35, you were using fixed contract as a handwave for absurdly low prices.

File: F-15S-MTD.jpg (53KB, 798x464px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 798x464px

>>30089637
Tried it, wasn't worth it.

>>30089928
>The aircraft 'shortfall' is a budget issue, not a production capacity issue.

In the sense that they fiscally unable to open more lines? Sure. But current lines can only do so much. Once it hits full production, thats pretty much it.

>Lockheed already has to eat any cost overruns with the F-35,

No, this is false.

>>30089928
>you were using fixed contract as a handwave for absurdly low prices.

To add, i was not. I was simply dispelling arguements before they came up; nothing more, nothing less.

Psst. Boeing here, just upgrade the F-15C/Ds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGY2JBuSCU0

But in a perfect world, more F-22s, upgrade F-15s and still have money left over for a sixth generation fighter.

>>30090429
Just as soon as we refit the A-10 to be a modern CAS bird.

File: a-12 avenger ii.jpg (44KB, 640x298px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x298px

Would have it been good?

>>30090743
>Range: 800 nmi
No

>>30089637
>Stealth thurstvectoring F-15s

We already have them, they're called F-22s

>>30090163
Thank you for acknowledging that the 'gap' is not due to production capacity.

>>30090194
>I was simply dispelling arguements before they came up

Funny, claiming you could buy F-22's for $50 mil with fixed contracts doesn't do very well at dispelling potential arguments.

File: F-22 tanks.jpg (977KB, 1240x1574px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 1240x1574px

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-lawmakers-want-cost-data-for-building-194-more-f-424404/

>McLean confirmed that any new-build Raptor would leverage the latest developments in radar and communications technology brought about by the advent of the F-35.

>On the propulsion side, Pratt & Whitney has already engaged with its F119 supply base for the thrust-vectoring F119-100 supercruise engine, which propels the Raptor to Mach 2.

>He says most F119 suppliers haven’t built parts for the F-22 since it went out of production and it will require many cold-starts to boost the expected overhaul rate. Many of those same suppliers now build parts for the F135 engine, which is derived from the F119 turbofan, and are willing and able to resume F-22 parts production, Crosswell says.

>>30090876
Production capacity is effectively unlimited when you can always open new production facilities, its about what is cheaper.

>>30091457
So are we talking about restarting F-22 lines or starting lines of an F-22 derived airframe? Because these things always scope creep.

File: FB-22_Top_1.jpg (553KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1280x720px

>>30091904
>an F-22 derived airframe?
FB-22 wen?

FUCK. They shutdown the assembly line not too long ago!!!
Do these fucks just think up ways to waste money?

>>30090429
Is this the new ace combat game?

File: 1455015713508.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>30091917
Ausfag here, deeply interested.

>>30090761

How is that a problem?

>>30092124
Like it or not, multiroles like the Hornet and F-35 make a lot of sense for the modern RAAF. The F-111 was a stunning aircraft but it doesn't fit with the direction that things are going.