Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[Radical]

http://www.fighter-planes.com/f22vsf22y.jpg

According to this, the flaps were moved in due to deletion of IRST.

 

[F-14D]

USAF relaxed the range/fuel requirements. It was tradeoff for something else, can't remember what exactly. Speed or maneuverability?

Basically, as development progressed, Lockheed came back and said, "We can give you your desired speed, range and maneuverability. Pick any two".

 

[flanker]

Sounds about right.

 

[Radical]

I'm getting hypothetical here, but are the F-22's main weapon bays large enough to accommodate the MBDA Meteor missiles, or will the missile's intake ducts cause interferences? Are the side bays large enough to carry a Python 5?

 

[Steve Pace]

How long is a AIM-120?

 

[Radical]

12 feet. IIRC the Meteor is designed to fit on the Typhoon's conformal AMRAAM bay, and is the same length (I think).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/Aim-120_amraam_train.pdf

Interestingly, judging from this picture, I don't see how the bays can even carry an AIM-120A/B, since it looks like the C with clipped fins barely fit.

 

[F-14D]

12 feet. IIRC the Meteor is designed to fit on the Typhoon's conformal AMRAAM bay, and is the same length (I think).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/Aim-120_amraam_train.pdf

Interestingly, judging from this picture, I don't see how the bays can even carry an AIM-120A/B, since it looks like the C with clipped fins barely fit.

Well, the YF-22 fired an AIM-120 before the existence of the C was revealed so they had to be able to fit one or two in each side.

 

[Radical]

12 feet. IIRC the Meteor is designed to fit on the Typhoon's conformal AMRAAM bay, and is the same length (I think).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/Aim-120_amraam_train.pdf

Interestingly, judging from this picture, I don't see how the bays can even carry an AIM-120A/B, since it looks like the C with clipped fins barely fit.

Well, the YF-22 fired an AIM-120 before the existence of the C was revealed so they had to be able to fit one or two in each side.

The C was revealed before the first actual F-22 was finished, so it might have smaller weapon bays compared to the YF-22.

 

[F-14D]

12 feet. IIRC the Meteor is designed to fit on the Typhoon's conformal AMRAAM bay, and is the same length (I think).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/Aim-120_amraam_train.pdf

Interestingly, judging from this picture, I don't see how the bays can even carry an AIM-120A/B, since it looks like the C with clipped fins barely fit.

Well, the YF-22 fired an AIM-120 before the existence of the C was revealed so they had to be able to fit one or two in each side.

The C was revealed before the first actual F-22 was finished, so it might have smaller weapon bays compared to the YF-22.

Both the competitors had to have been briefed by USAF of the forthcoming C. In my opinion it would be inconceivable that they wouldn't have been because the C is such a radical change in dimensions that there would be a significant penalty in efficiency if the contractors had designed about the A/B. If USAF tried to correct it then by saying, "You'll only be using this smaller missile, so redesign your bay", they'd incur significant costs and have to modify the contract. So just tell 'em, here's the real missile you'll be designing for, but as far as the public is concerned, the -120A is what's going in the bay.

 

[Radical]

The question then is whether the F-22 can carry the AIM-120A/B internally at all. Judging from pictures there just doesn't seem to have enough clearance.

 

[Sundog]

Perhaps this helps answer your YF-22 questions?

 

[Radical]

Perhaps this helps answer your YF-22 questions?

I'm aware the YF-22 can carry the AIM-120A/B. I'm not sure if the same applies to the F-22.

 

[F-14D]

Perhaps this helps answer your YF-22 questions?

I'm aware the YF-22 can carry the AIM-120A/B. I'm not sure if the same applies to the F-22.

We also don't know if that was a special rig in the YF-22; maybe they could only fit one in the bay, sufficient to demonstrate a firing. that may also be why Northrop/MDD never botherd to fire a missile (it was not a required demonstration). I'm certain that both bays were designed from the start for the AIM-120C, it was probably thought that by the time the ATF achieved IOC, there would be plenty of -120Cs around, so there was no need to provide for A/Bs.

A similar situation could be seen with the F-14 and F-15. The Tomcat would be entering service some years ahead of the Eagle. So it was designed to be able to use the AIM-7E as well as the F and later versions. By the time the F-15 would be deployed, there would be plenty of Fs, so the ability to guide the earlier Es was not required.

 

[sferrin]

I could swear I read somewhere that the bays could fit 4 AIM-120A/Bs in lieu of 6 AIM-120Cs.

 

[Dreamfighter]

I could swear I read somewhere that the bays could fit 4 AIM-120A/Bs in lieu of 6 AIM-120Cs.

That is how I remember it as well; each side of the main weapons-bay can carry 2 AIM-120A/Bs or 3 AIM-120Cs.

 

[F-14D]

I could swear I read somewhere that the bays could fit 4 AIM-120A/Bs in lieu of 6 AIM-120Cs.

That is how I remember it as well; each side of the main weapons-bay can carry 2 AIM-120A/Bs or 3 AIM-120Cs.

IIRC, the requirement released publicly for production ATFs was for four AIM-120A/B. Given that the development of the C had not been disclosed at that time, this would be consistent with the size of the expected aircraft. If they had come out and said six, a number of experts would look at the aircraft and where the bay was located and would extrapolate the existence of either a new missile or a hitherto (always wanted to use that word) unknown, more slender AMRAAM.

If this forum had existed then I'd daresay (wanted to use that one, too) we'd reach such a conclusion.

 

[Radical]

I was scrolling through some old documents regarding the F-22, and I came across this.

F22 aircraft progress in achieving engineering and manufacturing development goals : report to congressional committees

books.google.com

This was an old GAO report from the F-22's EMD days and has estimates on how the F-22 is meeting the performance parameters. For things like supercruise and acceleration they only listed percentages, not actual mach numbers. However, when I look at this link,

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

Do the numbers at the bottom of the page actually correspond to the performance parameters detailed in the GAO report? I.e. the 53 second acceleration time corresponds to the acceleration parameter in the GAO report (listed as 0.8 mach to 1.5 mach at 30000 ft). It seems strange that a performance figure like this is publicly available.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/February%202014/0214raptor.aspx

Good article at the Air Force Magazine near the end they mention the difference between having a 'fielded' Gen 5 fighter constantly being upgraded and trained with and tactics developed over having a Gen 5 aircraft in only the 'testing' phase, mainly you haven't 'caught up' with the F-22 by just having an airframe.

 

[quellish]

Both the competitors had to have been briefed by USAF of the forthcoming C.

They were, and they were part of the development of the C.

 

[Radical]

So there's this claim by a USAF Colonel after Red Flag 2008 where he allegedly said that the F-22 sustains 28 degrees per second at 20,000 ft. There are people on various forums claiming this performance is unrealistic and grossly exaggerated. So I asked one of my classmates to put this turn rate in context. He said that this is a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots. Is this even possible for the F-22 at 20,000 ft?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/02/top-usaf-general-explains-exac/

 

[Sundog]

So there's this claim by a USAF Colonel after Red Flag 2008 where he allegedly said that the F-22 sustains 28 degrees per second at 20,000 ft. There are people on various forums claiming this performance is unrealistic and grossly exaggerated. So I asked one of my classmates to put this turn rate in context. He said that this is a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots. Is this even possible for the F-22 at 20,000 ft?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/02/top-usaf-general-explains-exac/

Just an FYI having looked at the article;

1) Aircraft don't rotate around their center of lift, they always rotate around their center of gravity, regardless of whether or not the wing is producing lift or stalled. Though, I assume what I meant was the post stall loss of lift meant the aircraft's movement was dominated by inertia (mass properties) and not aerodynamic loads. (One caveat, the only time the aircraft doesn't rotate around it's c.g. is when it's on the ground. Then it rotates around the main gear for rotation.)

2) The tactic he is referring to is the same tactic F-15 and F-16 pilots used against the Indian Su-30's when they fought them here. They, the Indians, had a tendency to pull through their corner speed, bleed their energy, then end up tail down/nose up as they stalled. The U.S. pilots would then go vertical and come back down on them to kill them.

 

[Machdiamond]

the only time the aircraft doesn't rotate around it's c.g. is when it's on the ground. Then it rotates around the main gear for rotation.)

Actually it still does rotate around its c.g. What actually happens is that the main gear reaction force is an important contribution to the balance of moments around the c.g. but it fades out as the aircraft is lifting up and the strut extends. Just imagine an aircraft with very flexible/mushy struts to figure out the concept.
--Luc

 

[Sundog]

the only time the aircraft doesn't rotate around it's c.g. is when it's on the ground. Then it rotates around the main gear for rotation.)

Actually it still does rotate around its c.g. What actually happens is that the main gear reaction force is an important contribution to the balance of moments around the c.g. but it fades out as the aircraft is lifting up and the strut extends. Just imagine an aircraft with very flexible/mushy struts to figure out the concept.
--Luc

True. but when we're sizing the tail , we don't really take the mushy landing gear into account, at least not in the preliminary design stage.

 

[Richard N]

For those in the Fort Worth, Texas area April 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm:


The B-36 Peacemaker Museum presents: Paul Metz-"Test flying the YF-23A and F-22 Fighter"


Details here: http://b-36peacemakermuseum.org/Lectures/tabid/799/Default.aspx

 

[Radical]

Not the best display of Air Force leadership.

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/20/pilots-career-stalls-after-criticizing-oxygen-system.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

http://news.usni.org/2014/05/16/air-force-evaluating-new-targeting-monocle-f-22-raptor#more-7787

Air Force Evaluating New Targeting Monocle for F-22 Raptor

The U.S. Air Force’s elite 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron recently evaluated the Thales Visionix Scorpion helmet-mounted cueing system on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., according to a senior service official.

The service had hoped to test the full-color lightweight paddle-shaped monocle display onboard the Raptor in the summer of 2013, however the Congressionally-mandated sequestration automatic budget cuts put an abrupt halt on those activities.

But even though money is tight, the Air Force personnel with the Nellis-based operational test community worked closely with the F-22 System Program Office (SPO) in Dayton, Ohio, to put a new test series together for the Scorpion.

“There were some close calls but the folks at Nellis working with the SPO made it happen,” says one senior Air Force official familiar with the effort to integrate the Scorpion onto the Raptor.

Pilots from the elite 422nd TES, who performed the evaluation, are in the process of writing their report, but initial feedback suggests that the operational testers are thrilled with the new helmet-mounted sight.

The integration of the Scorpion is a major step for the Raptor community, which currently lacks a helmet-mounted cueing system such as the Vision Systems International (VSI) Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) used on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 tactical fighters.

However, even though the Scorpion has been successfully tested on the Raptor, it is not certain the Air Force will be able to fund deploying the new helmet across the operational F-22 fleet even if there is a fielding recommendation.

Money is extremely tight, Air Force officials say, and there are mandatory upgrades for the Raptor that the service is struggling to fund. “The cuts are difficult. We have challenges trying to secure funding for all of our mandated items like Mode 5 [identification friend or foe],” the senior official says. Additionally, the Raptor must be brought up to compliance on the latest Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) air traffic management standards by around 2020.

The F-22 was originally intended to have a helmet-mounted cueing system, but the service ran into trouble integrating the JHMCS onto the jet because of problems with magnetically mapping the interior of the Raptor’s cockpit when the aircraft was still under development. Because of the added expense and technical complexity, the Air Force abandoned the JHMCS integration efforts and the F-22 was left without a helmet-mounted cueing system.

Further, at the present the Raptor is not able to carry the latest high off-boresight Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and is instead limited to the older AIM-9M version. Many Raptor pilots have expressed serious misgiving about the situation. Even though the F-22 grossly outperforms other aircraft at the “merge”, the Raptor can be at a disadvantage once it transitions into the within-visual arena against a threat aircraft equipped with a helmet-mounted cueing system and a high off-boresight missile.

However, the Air Force is currently testing new software called Update 5, which will add a rudimentary AIM-9X capability starting on October 2015. While the new software upgrade will allow Raptor pilots to take advantage of the performance of the new missile, the jet will not display the correct symbology for the AIM-9X. Instead, the weapon will have the same displays as the current AIM-9M.

The situation will not be rectified until a new enhanced stores management system (ESMS) is added to the frontline Block 30 and 35 Raptors in 2018 with the Increment 3.2B hardware upgrade. With Inc. 3.2B, the F-22 will display the proper symbology for the AIM-9X.

Raptor pilots will be able take advantage of superior capabilities of the AIM-9X even without a helmet-mounted cueing system. But to fully exploit the outer edges of the new Sidewinder’s greatly expanded weapons employment zone, F-22 pilots will need a helmet-mounted cueing system.

The Air Force currently has 186 Raptors in its inventory, of those, 143 are frontline combat aircraft. The breakdown is 123 combat-coded and 20 back-up inventory jets according to the service’s Air Combat Command.

Air Combat Command public affairs could not immediately comment on the status of the Scorpion test efforts.

 

[bobbymike]

Combat Ready Raptors, Anywhere in Three Days

Pacific Air Forces F-22s tested a new flash deployment concept known as “Rapid Raptor,” departing for a bare-base with everything needed to launch combat sorties within 72 hours aboard a single C-17. Raptor deployments were previously limited to established bases, such as Guam or Okinawa, making theater security package rotations predictable, according to officials. However, PACAF planners began work last year on a way to reduce Raptor's predictability against potential adversaries, testing the concept through three Polar Force exercises that culminated last week, according to a release. Several F-22s from JB Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, and a lone C-17 airlifter packed with weapons, equipment, and support personnel left for a simulated bare-base at nearby Eielson AFB. Less than 72 hours from a standing start, the jets were armed and ready to launch. The drills successfully proved PACAF's ability to deploy combat ready Raptors anywhere in the Pacific with sufficient runway in three days, states the release. “The ability to use the Rapid Raptor innovation, developed by JBER’s 3rd Wing in concert with the 477th Air Force Reserve Fighter Group, will allow PACAF to shape the future of fifth generation fighter strategy for multiple combatant commanders,” states the release.

5/19/2014

 

[F-14D]

http://news.usni.org/2014/05/16/air-force-evaluating-new-targeting-monocle-f-22-raptor#more-7787

Air Force Evaluating New Targeting Monocle for F-22 Raptor

JHCMS II should also work in Raptor, but there's probably no money for that either.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

As far back as 1994, when the F-22 was getting overweight (on part of the AF request which wanted additional A/G capability) the USAF I think, decided to relax some of the performance requirements. Specifically those were maneuver requirements (sustained turn rate at altitude) so the F-22 can meet them.

I remember a time when its empty weight was quoted as 14,5 tones and now its somewhat over 19 tones. That has to mess up a few things even if the plane can still pull 9Gs.

More recently, the F-22 has yet to demonstrate it meets the maintenance requirements. Reports suggests its readiness level is improving as the crews get more experience with it but its still not there yet.

Another thing I read a while back was concerns of limited supercruise. Because of the high operating temperatures of the two engines and in particular their proximity, the rear section was experiencing unexpected wear levels, forcing the planes to cut down on the time it can spend in supercruise.

The thing is that while the Raptor may have fallen short of some of the few requirements it was supposed to meet on paper, it more than compensated with other capabilities that came up expectedly and are still classified.

I know this is an old post, but is this what you were referring to?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Here are some rather interesting reasons given by the GAO for why F-22 depot maintenance was consolidated at Hill AFB.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2014/05/last-year-the-air-force-moved-f-22-modernization.html

It was about a year ago that the Air Force announced its plan to consolidate most maintenance on the F-22 fighter fleet from a Lockheed Martin Corp.-run facility to one of its own. Now we know why.

Manager turnover at the Lockheed facility was among several challenges contributing to delays in maintenance and inspiring the consolidation.

The Air Force announced in May 2013 that it would consolidate F-22 depot maintenance activities at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, rather than splitting the work between Ogden and a Lockheed facility in Palmdale, California. At the time, the decision seemed mostly tied to efficiency, with a Pentagon official saying it would allow the Palmdale workforce to focus on other programs.

But a Thursday report from the Government Accountability Office provides more specifics. The management turnover, combined with aircraft corrosion issues and an effort to ensure the planes maintained their stealth capabilities, led the Palmdale depot to return multiple aircraft back to the fleet months later than planned, according to the report. For example, in 2013, one aircraft returned to the fleet more than 10 months later than originally scheduled.

“According to an Air Force analysis of F-22 depot operations, management turnover at the contractor-run depot in Palmdale and additional workload to address aircraft corrosion issues contributed to this depot’s delays in delivering aircraft back to the fleet,” noted Michael Sullivan, GAO's director of acquisition and sourcing management, who authored the report.

And that brought with it a bloated price tag at Palmdale, where labor rates are higher than at the Ogden facility. Additionally, Palmdale had charged more labor hours than the Ogden facility when performing modifications. An Air Force analysis found that consolidating all F-22 depot maintenance at the Ogden facility should provide better schedule performance, while reducing costs for F-22 depot maintenance by approximately $20 million per year.

Bethesda-based Lockheed (NYSE: LMT), which didn’t respond to a request for comment, was awarded the contract to modernize the F-22 fleet in February 2013, valued at $7 billion over the next decade.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

I've been looking at F-22 article from AFM 8/2008 by Mark Ayton, and it claims that the Raptor will do Mach 1.4 at sea level. I believe Jay Miller also stated sea level Mach 1.4 in one of his books.

I don't know, but that figure just seems utterly ridiculous. That's not even getting into the thermal issues.

 

[sferrin]

I've been looking at F-22 article from AFM 8/2008 by Mark Ayton, and it claims that the Raptor will do Mach 1.4 at sea level. I believe Jay Miller also stated sea level Mach 1.4 in one of his books.

I don't know, but that figure just seems utterly ridiculous. That's not even getting into the thermal issues.

The Red Baron Starfighter (an aluminum aircraft) set the low altitude speed record at Mach 1.3. According to Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine there were some F-16 fliers planning on breaking that record (as well as some of the time-to-climb records) but the idea got squashed from above.

 

[VTOLicious]

The Red Baron Starfighter (an aluminum aircraft) set the low altitude speed record at Mach 1.3. According to Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine there were some F-16 fliers planning on breaking that record (as well as some of the time-to-climb records) but the idea got squashed from above.

The Panavia Tornado, designed for low level flying, is a contender for sure: Supposedly 800 knots, 1482 km/h, 921 mph indicated airspeed near sea level (GR4).

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

The Red Baron Starfighter (an aluminum aircraft) set the low altitude speed record at Mach 1.3. According to Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine there were some F-16 fliers planning on breaking that record (as well as some of the time-to-climb records) but the idea got squashed from above.

The Panavia Tornado, designed for low level flying, is a contender for sure: Supposedly 800 knots, 1482 km/h, 921 mph indicated airspeed near sea level (GR4).

Yeah, I heard that the Tornado was one the best when it comes to speed at sea level. However, even 800 knots at sea level is around Mach 1.2, and I've only heard rumors that it can make Mach 1.3. Which is why I find Mach 1.4 for the F-22 so utterly ridiculous. I'm just wondering what Mark Ayton's sources were for that.

Not only that, his AFM 8/2008 article also stated a minimum turn radius of 750 at sea level. For those who have seen F-22 demos, does that seem true?

 

[Ogami musashi]

The 750 turn radius is not incoherent since an F-16 in clean config is around 1000.


Problem is F-22 demos are done at full fuel load and the "minimum radius turn" move is done at the very begining of the demo. And the name "minimum radius turn" is quite unclear because it is done at max G's (sometimes above 9gs) which is by modern fighter standards neither to cornering speed (or, if a raptor has cornering speed at full fuel load above 9g's now that's ridiculous) nor minimum raidus turn..


Is there some range estimates ni the AFM article?

 

[quellish]

Not only that, his AFM 8/2008 article also stated a minimum turn radius of 750 at sea level. For those who have seen F-22 demos, does that seem true?

Once upon a time I had the opportunity to see a "demo" before there was a demo. One of the flight test aircraft performing at low level with an F-16 chase. I could believe a number even smaller than 750 based on what I saw.

 

[Magoodotcom]

I've heard stories about re-engined F-111Cs doing M1.4 down low and M2.6 at altitude...but some came back with paint ablated from the vertical stab and other areas, and other 'items' missing. GTX?

My understanding is the F-22's top speed is restricted compared to other types due to restricted intake airflow and the need to preserve the 'special' coatings...it's the mid-range transonic to M1.5 region where it excels.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Problem is F-22 demos are done at full fuel load

Both F-16 and F-22 are fully fueled up for single-ship demos. (F-16 7.000 lbs, F-22 18.000 lbs.)
The F-15E is fueled up to 17.500 lbs.

 

[GTX]

I've heard stories about re-engined F-111Cs doing M1.4 down low and M2.6 at altitude...but some came back with paint ablated from the vertical stab and other areas, and other 'items' missing. GTX?

I have heard similar - was part of the TF30P-108 or TF30P-109 development/acceptance I believe. I can't confirm the exact speeds but I can confirm the damage.

 

[sferrin]

I've heard stories about re-engined F-111Cs doing M1.4 down low and M2.6 at altitude...but some came back with paint ablated from the vertical stab and other areas, and other 'items' missing. GTX?

My understanding is the F-22's top speed is restricted compared to other types due to restricted intake airflow and the need to preserve the 'special' coatings...it's the mid-range transonic to M1.5 region where it excels.

Back in the day on USENET one F-111 pilot claimed a fellow pilot had reached Mach 2.8 in an F-111F. ISTR reading the F-111 had a 5-min. countdown timer but don't recall If it was 5 min at Mach 2 or Mach 2.5. (Heat.)