The Air Force Word Notwithstanding, the F-22 Is Likely to Restart Production

[Her Lao]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19056/sorry-the-f-22-production-line-is-dead/

Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah James words notwithstanding, I think the Pentagon will likely build another 200 or so F-22, given the current uncertainty climate of the world... with China and Russia upping their games when it comes to fighter jet procurement.

Now that the Pentagon has been able to build the compromised jet (F-35) for the Marines and Navy --- both of which CAN NOT easily use the much larger, faster, and more powerful F-22 because the Marines are a mobile, first-call to battle branch of the armed force and where they go, no fast, powerful fighter jets could safely accompany UNLESS those jets could hover like the old British harrier jet or the new F-35

And since the F-22 is way too powerful and big to safely land on the deck of a carrier, unlike the come compacted Super Hornet F-18.... the Navy should be happy with their larger-wined F-35, too...

And, so, while the Air Force WILL still get is quota when it comes to the F-35s, because, again, despite all the BS to the contrary, it is a VERY CAPABLE fighter jet... JUST NOT as powerful or fast as the older F-22... I am sure the PENTAGON is thinking about re-starting production for more, upgraded F-22, with an entirely NEW SET OF SUPER COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE...

Indeed, the only thing lacking in the F-22 is the slower and more limited computational architecture built in it, from the 1990s, when the F-22 first came on-line.

Computer power and sophistication, as we all know, double every, what was it?, 18 months.... so no matter how you TRY TO UPGRADE it, the F-22 is stuck with an original computational architecture from the 1990s.

If the US builds more and I think they will, the F-22, while retaining its powerful twin engines and body shape, WILL be fitted with an entirely new and even more powerful computational architecture than the F-35, which is smaller. And that make sense, since the F-22 WILL BE THE FIRST AND ONLY JET to fly into dangerous enemy air space, to take out important enemy assets before all other jets could go... so the Pentagon would want the new F-22 to have EVERYTHING the Air Force wants and more... this is especially true of the Republican wins the White House and maintains Congress...

Remember, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and all GOP presidential candidates want to double or triple the Pentagon budget, something they said Obama has gutted... which is absolutely not true, since the current Pentagon budget, the public one we are allowed to see, is almost $700B a year, with the TOTAL from under the table and/or the "discretionary" chunk from the government likely pushing the REAL Pentagon budget closer to $1T a year already...

I think the US currently as about 189 or so F-22s... they figure if they augment that number by another 200 or so, plus around 2,000 to 2,400 or so of the smaller F-35s, they'd be safer, with China's military budget getting close to 1/3 or so of the USA in recent years...

It WILL BE EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE... but, hey, it's not rich people's money the Pentagon and the US politicians are playing with... it's mostly the middle class and working class labor and wealth they're using, so, why not?

But I think it'd make sense, if the Pentagon would reduce the total F-35 to around 1,500, if they're going to re-start the F-22, which costs around AT LEAST twice as much as the smaller and slower F-35, on a per unit cost basis... in real terms...

Note that the Pentagon and "researchers" never put out a definitive cost for the F-22... it's always pegged between $150M to as high as $400M per unit... and, knowing the government and how it spends our money, I think it's closer to the $400M per unit than it is to the $150M per unit...

Think about it: the F-22 is superior in EVERY WAY to the compromised F-35, and the latter cost $100M to $150M currently... the F-22 must cost a whole lot more! The only thing that the two have on common are the INFORMATION that flows into the fighter jets and the missiles they carry... with the F-35 having a set of faster and better super computers, true, because its computer architect is of 2015, while the one physically built into the F-22 was from the 1990s, updated notwithstanding. But that can be quickly remedied if the F-22 are to be built again...

[Her Lao]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/01/21/US-deploys-F-22-Raptor-stealth-fighters-to-base-in-Japan/2181453402285/

[Her Lao]

Remember, my hero and the next Prezdent of the US of A, Donald J. Trump WILL triple our military might....

That means we will have to INCREASE the size of our over-seas military bases from the current 800 bases...

And now that my hero has been briefed on what the Nuclear Triad means, we gonna start using it to ensure nobody's gonna think we're weak, like we are under the current pussy of a man....

Think about it:

If you increased out public MILITARY BUDGET to $2T or $3T, we could easily double, at least, our military bases we current have around the world; build 20-30 more giant aircraft carriers to add to our current 10.

Increase our active Military Forces (Marines, Air Force, Army, Navy, etc) by 200%, to equal those Communist soldiers in China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. That's the only way they'd be scared of us! And, don't worry, my hero the billionaire Orangutan Man KNOWS how to NEGOTIATE; he don't always need to resort to using NUCLEAR TRIAD missiles!

Here, again, for those who missed it... My hero will DOUBLE to TRIPLE the CURRENT POWER of the Air Force, as PARTIALLY represented below here... an Air Force Kenyan-born Islamic Hussein Obama has been dismantling the last 7 years that he's been in the White House...

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-of-the-us-air-force-2015-8

[Her Lao]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/us/despite-decades-of-stealth-sticking-points-bedevil-f-35-jet.html?_r=0

More reason why, I think, the Pentagon might re-start F-22 production... for at least 200-300 more jets... for the Air Force.... and cutting back the projected buying of 2,400 F-35 to just 1,500 to 2,000 units.

What no one disputes, in the larger and more powerful F-22, is that the 2-engine F-22 is faster, more maneuverable, able to carry more weapons both internally and outside.

One of the only overtly lacking of the F-22 that the smaller, slower, and less maneuverable F-35 has is that the latter is equipped with extremely powerful 2015-2016 COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE, whereas, despite the updates, the F-22 is basically stuck with 1990s computer architecture.

Well, actually, it's quite powerful, in their updates --- some say the equivalent of 2 Cray Super Computer... and if you know any thing, you know Cray Supercomputers used to be the most powerful in the world.... so the F-22 ain't as slow as snails... I think I read somewhere that the ORIGINAL computing power of the F-22 was "only" about 9M bits per second.... while your top-end iPhone today is capable of 20 BILLION bits of calculation per second... But that's the original power put in the F-22 in the 1990s... updates have made its computing power much faster after some 20 years, of course...

But the point is, despite retrofit and upgrades, the F-22's computing power is NOWHERE close to the super-computational machines designed to fit into the slower, less expensive, and smaller F-35... despite the fact that PHYSICALLY as a fighter jet, it is in virtually every way superior to the compromised F-35.

For those interested in details, of both pros and cons, on the F-22, read the following...


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/

[Her Lao]

It is becoming very clear now, that the F-35's problem is not that it is a compromised fighter jet --- slower, one engine, less manueverable, short range, etc.... as all those were KNOWN from the start as qualities that the Pentagon COULD accept, if it were made so much more able through its unsurpassed computational ability....

Okay, so it turned out, the what was it?, 9 million lines of codes?, the F-35 has make it so complex, it is now extremely vulnerable to hacking!

Hell, the computer engineers who were tasked to complete all those codes, which control EVERYTHING in and out of the F-35... they're having a very hard time completing them on time... because THEORY (of how great it'd be, if you're to have to most complex flying COMPUTER MACHINE) and APPLICATION (cranking out the necessary codes in a reliable manner) don't cooperate very well!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/01/27/F-35-Stumbles-Again-Test-Chief-Find-New-Weakness-Cyberattacks

So, though it may seem a bit counter-intuitive, that's more reason why the Pentagon (not sure if Hillary or Sanders wins... but I am 95% sure if Trump, Cruz, or Rubio wins the presidency) WOULD WANT to produce 200 or so more units of the PHYSICALLY SUPERIOR F-22, and give it just enough computational codes to stay ahead of competitors but NOT ENOUGH to make it a mess like it is with the F-35 today...

Because, after all, the F-22 is naturally superior as both a long-range, radar evading and destroyer and a class dog fighter in the air... due to its incredibly powerful twin engines, maneuverability, speed, high ceiling flight, and ability to carry both conventional and nuclear missiles (but the Pentagon won't publicize the second ability)....

Further, while the F-35 would be made available to about 10 countries in the world... and more later.... the F-22 is prohibited by Congress to be sold outside of the USA... so no other nation, allies or enemies, would have any true knowledge of its capabilities... so America will be the only one to possess 400 or so of the most advanced MANNED fighter jets in the world, for the next 35 years...

Of course, that would mean === if America is to produce more F-22, alongside the really late and expensive F-35 === we would go into debt FOR EVER and EVER... and when the US Empire collapses, whenever that happens, due to incompetent Liberal and Islamic presidents or from sky high debt too high to count... we would still have hundreds of the most impressive fighter machines in the world!

[Her Lao]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nation-wants-americas-most-lethal-stealth-warplane-ever-15078

Some Australian military leaders and elder statesmen want to lobby the US Congress to allow them to buy the older F-22, instead of the newer but trouble-some F-35.


Further, the Australians said, S. Korea, Japan, Israel, NATO, and other close allies will also buy in, since the F-22 --- unlike the cumbersome F-35 --- is already a proven superior fighter jet.

Pretty sound argument, really.... especially if, by the Pentagon's own estimate, it'd cost ONLY $17B to restart the F-22 and buy 70 of it.

Obviously, if its closest allies are allow to buy it, too, then PRODUCTION COST will come down, so it will ultimately cost LESS for everyone, including the USA...

Further, newly built F-22 (one and two seaters), up to 1,000 or so among half a dozen or so of America's most trusted allies, with new and powerful computer architect --- adding to the F-22's already proven physical superiority --- will mean simply assure that China and Russia's relatively advanced BUT LIMITED T-50 production won't be serious a threat...

[Her Lao]

Since this is still mostly on the theoretical level, personally I think the F-23, which lost to the more conventional F-22, should have been the winner, since it was, it is so much more revolutionary in design than the much more traditional/conventional F-22...

The F-23 is also more stealthy; nothing is every true stealth or invisible to radar, using high energy frequencies... but super computational modeling, when it comes to how radar frequencies interact with the various surfaces, says SOME surfaces (and materials) are better at deflecting and absorbing radar than other surfaces... And the F-23 was observed to be a bit better than the F-22, due to its more radical design...

[Her Lao]

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/02/f-35s-terrifying-bug-list/125638/

[Her Lao]

Islamic President Hussein Obama sending 12 F-22 to Japan... to a new air field other than the usual Okinawa one... to "beef up" its presence there in the Pacific Oeania region... due to China's aggressive activities in China's own declared China Lake (South China Sea)...

[Her Lao]

Is it more "sign" that the NAVY really wants MORE of the bigger, faster, and more powerful, twin-engine F-22... so that's why they are okay with a temporarily reduce purchase of the smaller, slower and less powerful F-35?

Remember, the US Air Force has primacy when it comes to LONG-RANGE activities over enemy territories. The much larger, much faster, more powerful F-22 is more ideal for the Air Force, even if the smaller, more compacted F-36 models are better for the Marines and Navy.

You can't land the very powerful F-22 on aircraft carriers for the Navy...

The US Marines are usually the first to be called on any dangerous front line that requires muscles beyond special operations but are still too dangerous for the much larger but slower Army... so that means the Marines need a fighter jet that is versatile enough to land and take off vertically, so the jet could be called in to help in very remote places that are too far for helicopters...

http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-lockheed-martin-f-35-423786

The change in the Pentagon's plan for the $391 billion weapons program defers orders for 45 Air Force jets, compared with last year's plan, while accelerating orders for the Navy and Marine Corps models of the aircraft, the sources said.

The Pentagon still plans to buy a total of 2,457 jets for all three military services in coming years, they added.

The Pentagon's plan does not include an estimated 260 international F-35 orders over the five-year period, said the sources. Those orders could rise further over the period given potential orders from countries including Finland, Denmark, Belgium and Singapore, the sources said.

The new plan calls for the Air Force to buy 243 F-35 jets through fiscal 2021, 45 fewer than planned, as the service juggles funds to pay for a new long-range bomber to be built by Northrop Grumman Corp , and KC-46A refueling planes to be built by Boeing Co .

It calls for the Navy and Marine Corps to buy 64 F-35C jets, which can take off and land on aircraft carriers, over the next five years, and 97 F-35B jets, which can land like a helicopter, the sources said.

[Her Lao]

Is it more "sign" that the NAVY really wants MORE of the bigger, faster, and more powerful, twin-engine F-22... so that's why they are okay with a temporarily reduced purchase of the smaller, slower and less powerful F-35?

Remember, the US Air Force has primacy when it comes to LONG-RANGE activities over enemy territories. The much larger, much faster, more powerful F-22 is more ideal for the Air Force, even if the smaller, more compacted F-35 models are better for the Marines and Navy.

You can't land the very powerful F-22 on aircraft carriers for the Navy...

The US Marines are usually the first to be called on any dangerous front line that requires muscles beyond special operations but are still too dangerous for the much larger but slower Army... so that means the Marines need a fighter jet that is versatile enough to land and take off vertically, so the jet could be called in to help in very remote places that are too far for helicopters...

http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-lockheed-martin-f-35-423786

The change in the Pentagon's plan for the $391 billion weapons program defers orders for 45 Air Force jets, compared with last year's plan, while accelerating orders for the Navy and Marine Corps models of the aircraft, the sources said.

The Pentagon still plans to buy a total of 2,457 jets for all three military services in coming years, they added.

The Pentagon's plan does not include an estimated 260 international F-35 orders over the five-year period, said the sources. Those orders could rise further over the period given potential orders from countries including Finland, Denmark, Belgium and Singapore, the sources said.

The new plan calls for the Air Force to buy 243 F-35 jets through fiscal 2021, 45 fewer than planned, as the service juggles funds to pay for a new long-range bomber to be built by Northrop Grumman Corp , and KC-46A refueling planes to be built by Boeing Co .

It calls for the Navy and Marine Corps to buy 64 F-35C jets, which can take off and land on aircraft carriers, over the next five years, and 97 F-35B jets, which can land like a helicopter, the sources said.

[Her Lao]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-uses-400m-f-22-raptor-jets-syria-173004949--abc-news-topstories.html

Wasting (sorry, "practicing") top-of-the-line, $400M fighter jets on AK-47-wielding in mostly sandals and donkeys... is not the way to spend our military taxes at all, even if they gave pilots the biggest of smiles and Lockheed Martin CEOs huuuuuuuuuuuuuge accounts!

[Her Lao]

http://www.businessinsider.com/forget-developing-a-6th-generation-fighter-restart-the-f-22-2016-4

[Her Lao]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 12:22:55 AM UTC-5, Her Lao wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/forget-developing-a-6th-generation-fighter-restart-the-f-22-2016-4

http://www.investors.com/news/will-the-air-force-finally-get-the-rest-of-their-f-22-raptors/


GILLIAN RICH
4:49 PM ET


Congress wants to know how much it would cost to restart production on Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-22 Raptor, nearly five years after production ended prematurely, amid doubts about the F-35's ability to out-fly other planes.

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee issued a legislative directive as part of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Bill Tuesday that would require the Air Force to conduct a cost assessment.

The F-22 program was canceled in 2009 with only 187 operational planes -- less than half of the 381 the Air Force requested -- as costs soared. The Air Force has maintained that restarting the program would be too expensive.

A 2011 RAND study put the cost of building just 75 more F-22s at $13.7 billion-$17.4 billion in 2008 dollars, depending on a variety of factors. Lockheed did not respond to requests for comment.

The committee wants a report no later than Jan. 1 on estimated costs and the time it would need to achieve low-rate production to build another 194 jets to meet the original target of 381. The Air Force would also look at opportunities for foreign export and partner nation involvement.

++++++++++++++++

With our Black Belt and Decisive Great Friend and Ex-KGB generalissimo willing to eat potatoes with Russia's 145M people === so they could spend massively on weapons ....

(Note that Russia GDP is less than South Korea's and bankrupt socialist state California's economy generates a yearly number that lands it between Britain and France, as in THE USA being the largest economy in the world, China is the second largest, Japan is the third largest, Germany is the fourth largest, Britain is the fifth largest, and CALIFORNIA, the bankrupt socialist state ran by a Libral is the sixth, following by France, etc.)


Anyway, due to our good friend-comrade from Russia, the USA is likely, as I keep saying, looking to re-start the F-22 program again.... with everything, except the over-all shell, being new.... a very solid fighter jets that flies as fast as Russia's top-end fighter jets but one that is almost "invisible" on a radar, compared to the table-sized radar signature of top Russian jets even if, again, they are second to none in classic 1945-1990 visual-ranged "dog fight" activities...

As I surmised, if the Air Force gets another 200 or so newly built F-22s to add to the 180-plus it already has in possession, I believe the smaller, singled engined F-35 may be allocated to only the Marines (which has the version that hovers like the old Harrier and lands and takes off from standing still), the Navy's larger winged, with carrier deck specifications... and that means rather buying 2,400 of the smaller, single engined F-35, they may only buy, say, 1,500 or so, since the Air Force will focus exclusively on the larger, more powerful F-22, upping its number to around 400... and between $300M-$400M a plane, that's all we could ever afford...

But if Congress reverses itself and allow other close allies === Australia wants it above all, since it needs to speed and power to patrol Australia's vast continent and even larger seas around it... but I am sure Japan, Israel, Britain, Norway, Germany, and South Korea will also want it === to buy a few hundreds, too, the plane, I think, could be built slightly cheaper... between, say, $200M-$300M per plane... which is a steal, compared to the smaller, less capable, slower, less powerful, single-engined F-35... which costs between $100M-$150M per plane...

[Her Lao]

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-aircraft-strength-of-every-country-2016-5


When you are no more than 4 or so percent of the world's population, like the USA, and you have 13,000 aircraft === compared to other giant nations like Russia, China, India, etc, each with only 2,000 to 3,000 at most === and YOU DON'T FEEL SAFE, YOU THINK YOU DON'T HAVE THE MILITARY POWER YOU USED TO, LIKE BACK IN THE 1940S, WHEN YOU HAD MORE SUCH THINGS, per Romney and all Republicans,.... and you say the US Military MUST double or triple its military budget... you are too paranoid and likely sick in the head...

[Her Lao]

Remember, I predicted here first... that the US was likely to restart the F-22 program, just when the top official of the Air Force, Debra James, said it was a non-starter.

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-might-restart-f-22-2016-5

And, no, the Pentagon hasn't said any thing about it, yet; but with the constant delays and problems on the smaller, slower, less powerful, and single engine F-35... with the latest fiasco being that full production activities will be again delayed until at least 2018, after many delays of years and years....

I think now more and more people, both at Congress and the Pentagon are saying perhaps it is time to resurrect the most powerful, faster, bigger, 2 engine F-22... a plane that was so well put together === with the only weakness being its slow 1990 computer architecture === that it was prohibited by Congress to be sold to any other country...

Think about it: the ONLY REASON the F-35, a compromised program, was started was that the F-22, being between $300M-$450M a piece, was too expensive. The Air Force had wanted around 500 of them, but eventually got less than 200.

But over the last 10 plus years, the F-35's total price has gone from $400B to $1T to now an estimated $1.5T over a 30 year operating cost.

But that's not even the biggest problem; biggest problem is, the F-35 === the A, the B, and the C models === was supposed to be highly interchangeable, TO REDUCE COST, remember?

Well, they are now three completely different fighter jets, with no more than about 20% interchangeability beyond a few nuts and bolts and mainly the cockpit; otherwise, the Navy one is about 20% or so bigger than the Marine one, which is entirely different from the Air Force and Navy version, since the Marine F-35 could take off and land vertically, if they choose to do it, so that means the body is entirely different design in actuality, from the other two...

This, then, gets back to why the Air Force shouldn't be saddled with a smaller F-35, when it could simply restart a physically superior F-22 that could fly about 30% faster and more powerful and more agile... go 50% further, carry almost twice as much weapons, including small tactical nuclear missiles, internally, and theoretically safer since it has two equally powerful engines...

Further, in a worst case scenario, where the Air Force is called upon to go against an advanced enemy, like, say the Chinese or Russians, the F-35 is way too slow and now powerful enough... so the Air Force won't use it as the first fighter jet to fly into enemy territories...

It will have to be the F-22, which is the only US fighter jet right now that could more or less safely penetrate enemy territory with reasonable assurances of a success and return... and, THEN, the smaller F-35 and others could join in, once most of the sophisticated radar systems in the enemies strategic locations have been destroyed by the F-22...

Of course, to restart the F-22 would be just as expensive, if not more so (as the F-35), but, again, it is already a proven fighter jet; and we only have to build around 700 or so, with the US keeping around 350 to complement its 189 ones already in service... and the rest be sold to Australia, Britain, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Norway, etc., all trusted allies who will fly with us in case of a major war...

But if you equipped the F-22 cockpit and helmet exactly like the F-35, and do about 10-20% adjustments/polishing to the plane, it is going to last into the 2050s easily, since physically/structurally, it can't be improved upon that much, other than building an entirely UN-MANNED fighter jet...

[Her Lao]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-07/the-f-22-raptor-back-from-the-grave

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/11/f-22-raptor-restart-for-air-force-may-not-be-so-far-fetched.html

There's more and more talk the last 6 plus months... about re-starting the expensive but superior F-22.

It just makes sense. The Air Force should really be given more F-22, and its allotment of F-35 should be totally cut or signficantly reduced. The Marines DO need this smaller, more versatile F-35, because the Marines version could hover like a helicopter, land and take off either in really short run-ways or even from standing still, if needed.

And the Navy does need the wider-winged, newer F-35 to replace their useful but aging F-18 Super Hornets. Given the nature of the oceans vast expenses, the ultra sophisticated F-35, which is really nothing more than a set of super computers, is the way of the future...

The larger and more powerful F-22 can not be easily handled by aircraft carriers, due to the premium of the small flight deck and storage limitations...

But since the Air Force is the branch that is expected to dominate the sky in any war, it must have the most powerful, fastest, and most agile fighter jet. And the single-engine, smaller F-35 is not going to do it for the Air Force.

Simply restart the F-22 and buy about 250 or so more F-22 === with about 10-25% modification to it, including its physicality and give it a totally new, F-35-like set of super computer machines, and a F-35-like helmet allowing F-22 pilots to see and do everything exactly like it is in the newer F-35 === and the Air Force does not need more than 100 of the smaller F-35, with close to 400 incredibly powerful, fast, UPRADED high altitude F-22.

In terms of aerodynamics, body structure, and other physics of fighter jets, we are already at the end of what can be done, if the plane must carry a human in it. Yes, if it is a non-manned plane, then the shape and other utility considerations can be radically designed, so it could fly virtually as fast as the fast missiles we have today....

But since manned flights must take humans fragile biology into consideration === for example, no matter how fast a plane could fly in a straight manner, with a human inside the cockpit, YOU DON'T WANT THE PLANE TO PULL A 10 OR 15 Gs, since they will render most humans unconscious immediately === the F-22 is more or less the limits at which a plane can be designed, with, again, no more than 10 to 25% additional upgrades, modification, etc., and there WILL NOT BE ANOTHER PLANE to best it in the next 30-50 years.

The PHYSICAL PART of the F-22, for example, is being COPIED by the Chinese (note that they go the American way in fighter jet design, NOT the Russian way even though most of the Chinese top fighter jets are still the top-line Russian fighter jets... like the incredibly acrobatic and powerful Su-35/37, which the Chinese had just ordered another 25 or 30....

But the ENGINES of the F-22 and the F-35, incredibly powerful and reliable and sophisticated... that is something the Chinese WILL NOT ACHIEVE for another 10-20 years, at best.

And there's no doubt Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, the engine designer for the F-22 and F-35, are working to improve on the existing engines, so they could achieve 5 to 15 additional percentage of power or efficacy for those installed in the next 5-10 years...