Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[Sundog]

Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?

Wut?

High alpha isn't the same as high agility.

 

[sferrin]

Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?

Wut?

High alpha isn't the same as high agility.

Hmmm. . .9G, high AOA capable airframe? Nope, not agile at all. (Of course the pilots say different but what do they know?)

https://youtu.be/Yeq2hvSmtwE


https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

[Airplane]

Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?

Wut?

High alpha isn't the same as high agility.

Hmmm. . .9G, high AOA capable airframe? Nope, not agile at all. (Of course the pilots say different but what do they know?)




https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

I don't think anyone said the F-35A isn't maneuverable; only that it will never be anywhere near the same ballpark as a F-22, or for that matter an F-15C. When someone says that XYZ can pull 9g, that literally means next to nothing. The F-15 and F-16 are both 9g airplanes, but at altitude, the F-15 is simply better than the F-16. The things the F-35 will be good at aren't the things that make for great airshow performances like the F-22 demos. But then again, loaded with a useless 5000lbs of fuel and with 40,000lbs of thrust, it might do alright in the airshow circuit. If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.

 

[sferrin]

I don't think anyone said the F-35A isn't maneuverable; only that it will never be anywhere near the same ballpark as a F-22, or for that matter an F-15C. When someone says that XYZ can pull 9g, that literally means next to nothing. The F-15 and F-16 are both 9g airplanes, but at altitude, the F-15 is simply better than the F-16.

The F-15 is not a 9G aircraft ( the C definitely isn't). As for G factor meaning "literally next to nothing" you pretty much shot yourself in the foot. Do you have any objective, you know FACTUAL, information that suggests the F-35 can't maneuver? Certainly nothing published thus far supports that notion. I get it, some people can't get past the fact that it doesn't look as kewl because it doesn't have missiles hanging all over the outside. Some people can't seem to comprehend that aircraft don't go into combat in airshow configuration.

If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.

"Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA)."

"Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16."

" I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine."

Unimpressive? Sure, sure. : Maybe you should try actually reading the link I provided. A former F-16 pilot pretty much says the opposite of what you're claiming.

 

[lastdingo]

F-15C sustained turn rate (clean) is nowhere close to F-16 sustained turn rate at same altitude and speed:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-msOHnX8u22k/UW4c5YRZvzI/AAAAAAAACRs/QC9xg3CErlI/s1600/F-16Blk15+at+15k.jpg
(too big for embedding)

About 7 °/s less turn rate at 15,000 ft Mach 0.7 to 0.8, for example.
F-22 hasn't been and will not be exported, thus I wouldn't trust any turn performance claims made whatsoever. Intentional disinformation is almsot guaranteed, and we can't even know if it's exaggerating or downplaying.

 

[marauder2048]

About 7 °/s less turn rate at 15,000 ft Mach 0.7 to 0.8, for example.

So a turn rate in a domain lower and slower than the average engagement in the Korean War. Lets move on, shall we?

 

[Airplane]

I don't think anyone said the F-35A isn't maneuverable; only that it will never be anywhere near the same ballpark as a F-22, or for that matter an F-15C. When someone says that XYZ can pull 9g, that literally means next to nothing. The F-15 and F-16 are both 9g airplanes, but at altitude, the F-15 is simply better than the F-16.

The F-15 is not a 9G aircraft ( the C definitely isn't). As for G factor meaning "literally next to nothing" you pretty much shot yourself in the foot. Do you have any objective, you know FACTUAL, information that suggests the F-35 can't maneuver? Certainly nothing published thus far supports that notion. I get it, some people can't get past the fact that it doesn't look as kewl because it doesn't have missiles hanging all over the outside. Some people can't seem to comprehend that aircraft don't go into combat in airshow configuration.

If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.

"Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA)."

"Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16."

" I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine."

Unimpressive? Sure, sure. : Maybe you should try actually reading the link I provided. A former F-16 pilot pretty much says the opposite of what you're claiming.

F-15 for a fact will pull 9G. Please show me in my own words where I said the F-35 can't maneuver. Can you please show me that in this thread? Don't put words in my mouth. The only who can do that and get away with it is my wife, when I let her. You really are a piss head who can't help but to resort to putting words in people's mouths who say something slightly negative about your coveted F-35.

Ok "kewl" dude. You want to know what's kewl. Kewl is taking off, navigating around the sky for an hour ( including medium bank turns), and returning to base and flying the pattern all the way down to final approach all using nothing but rudder pedals, throttle input, and trim settings and not laying a hand on the stick (other than to touch the trim settings switch) until short final (no auto pilot). When you can do that, then you can lecture me all day long about what you think I think "kewl" airplanes are. Until then, go fizzle away in your basement.

 

[sferrin]

F-15 for a fact will pull 9G.

The F-15C is not rated for 9Gs. See attached.

Please show me in my own words where I said the F-35 can't maneuver.

"If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics."

 

[Ogami musashi]

re

All of this is completely off topic, but still..

F-15C sustained turn rate (clean) is nowhere close to F-16 sustained turn rate at same altitude and speed:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-msOHnX8u22k/UW4c5YRZvzI/AAAAAAAACRs/QC9xg3CErlI/s1600/F-16Blk15+at+15k.jpg
(too big for embedding)

About 7 °/s less turn rate at 15,000 ft Mach 0.7 to 0.8, for example.
F-22 hasn't been and will not be exported, thus I wouldn't trust any turn performance claims made whatsoever. Intentional disinformation is almsot guaranteed, and we can't even know if it's exaggerating or downplaying.

You probably misread the F-16 chart. The sustained turn rate at 15k ft is 14°/s (ps=0), which, by gross interpolation, is also the sustained turn rate for an F-15C at the same altitude.
You took the chart for a F-16A block 15, which had lower wing loading and thus better sustained (ps=0) turn rates than the block 50/52 now in service.
Actually on most of the enveloppe the F-15C is similar to F-16C with a slight high altitude/loaded configuration advantage for the Eagle (the F-16 accelerates better in most of the enveloppe though).
In real life however, the Eagle is often beaten. This is largely due to the flight control system which makes it hard for eagle pilot to actually hit the G limits while the Viper driver will always hit the max performance when it is physically possible.

The F-15C is not rated for 9Gs. See attached.

The F-15C is rated for 9G. The A equipped with the OWS was also rate for 9G (TO-1F-15-A, page A9-12)

 

[NeilChapman]

...
If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.

Please explain what you mean by this. I'm not an AE.

Thx!

 

[sferrin]

Re: re

The F-15C is rated for 9G. The A equipped with the OWS was also rate for 9G (TO-1F-15-A, page A9-12)

Interesting. Back in the day they made a big deal of one of the F-15Es improvements being to make it into a 9G aircraft (strengthened structure).

 

[sferrin]

...
If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.

Please explain what you mean by this. I'm not an AE.

Thx!

I'm interested too. I get the impression he thinks it doesn't mean anything other than back-flips at an airshow. What else can "modern" aircraft do, kinematically, that an F-16/YF-17 wasn't doing in the 70s?

 

[Sundog]

Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?

Wut?

High alpha isn't the same as high agility.

My point was you used high alpha photos as a response to a comment about maneuverability/agility, which was the equivalent of a visual non-sequitur. High alpha is actually more about control power and stability than it is agility. Nowhere in my comment did I speak of the agility or the maneuverability of the F-35.

Hmmm. . .9G, high AOA capable airframe? Nope, not agile at all. (Of course the pilots say different but what do they know?)

https://youtu.be/Yeq2hvSmtwE


https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

[Jeb]

Re: re

The F-15C is rated for 9G. The A equipped with the OWS was also rate for 9G (TO-1F-15-A, page A9-12)

Interesting. Back in the day they made a big deal of one of the F-15Es improvements being to make it into a 9G aircraft (strengthened structure).

i'm not sure that's apples to apples. The Strike Eagle was starting from an F-15B as baseline and was going to be a heavier overall airframe anyway. Just hanging all that stuff off a non-modified B would certainly drop the G-loading capability, so they'd have to built it back up.

 

[marauder2048]

Randy Forbes, who is the sponsor of the F-22 restart study but lost his congressional seat, is potentially back in a prominent position:

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/09/randy-forbes-is-the-favorite-for-trumps-secretary-of-the-navy

 

[marauder2048]

Recall, Wynne was the only SecAF to be dismissed (by Gates largely over the F-22).

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/trumps-dod-lineup-secdef-talent-depsecdef-wynne-secarmy-hipp-secaf-mccoy-secnav-forbes/

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_Xuf1VWH0

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-edge-verse-russia-china-f22-2016-12

 

[bobbymike]

Sorry page froze and double posted

 

[sferrin]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-edge-verse-russia-china-f22-2016-12

And we only have 180 of them.

 

[Sundog]

So that article is saying that the F-35 isn't as effective as it's proponents are claiming? LM has actually stated that the F-35 has a lower signature than the Raptor. I can't help thinking that article was just a Raptor "fluff" piece, as it didn't really offer any news that we didn't already know. As for only having 180 of them, our enemies don't have anything close in terms of performance or numbers. If they ever come close to having those kind of numbers of a 5th gen aircraft it will be when we're fielding the the Raptor's replacement, while still having most of our Raptors. It doesn't bode well for our enemies. And that doesn't even include the aircraft we're flying that are still classified Secret.

 

[sferrin]

And that doesn't even include the aircraft we're flying that are still classified Secret.

The numbers of those are likely so small as to be irrelevant (and not air dominance aircraft).

 

[Colonial-Marine]

If against all the odds there was a production restart of the F-22 would it be viable to make some changes to the dimensions of the aircraft considering all of the work that is already necessary to reestablish the production line? A few thousand pounds more internal fuel would be great.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881

If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.

 

[marauder2048]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881

If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.

Given the very different operating regimes for F-22 and F-35 this seems unlikely.

 

[sferrin]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881

If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.

Different stuff.

 

[sublight_]

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881

If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.

The F35's stealth is almost completely baked into the skin and the RCS gets slightly better with age. There are some places on the bird where it uses zinc "stealth putty" like F22 has.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1745830-air-force-cyber-protects-f-22

 

[quellish]

The F35's stealth is almost completely baked into the skin

As with any other physical object, the majority of the F-35 RCS comes from the shape.
What is "baked into the skin" is conductive material. The structure of the F-22, F-117, and B-2 are made of several different materials. Layered on top of the structure is a conductive coating. Layers of absorber (both RF and IR) go on top of this. Historically this has been problematic to maintain. The F-35 uses structural materials that incorporate conductive material, eliminating the need for a conductive coating.

 

[bobbymike]

From AFA

Maintaining the Raptor’s Stealth

2/3/2017

​​Lockheed Martin has completed work ahead of schedule on the first of 12 F-22 Raptors at its Inlet Coating Repair Speedline facility in Marietta, Ga. There are two more Raptors currently at the facility, one that arrived in December 2016 and another that arrived in late January. “Periodic maintenance is required to maintain the special exterior coatings that contribute to the fifth generation very low observable radar cross section,” according to a company release. “The increase in F-22 deployments, including ongoing operational combat missions, has increased the demand for ICR.”

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/f-22-getting-stealth-and-weapons.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1612527-f-22-gets-new-weapons-stealth-upgrade-2019

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx

Air Force upgrades F-22 sensors, weapons software

The Air Force is in the early phases of creating new sensors and performing substantial software upgrades to its F-22 Raptor to enable the stealth platform to fire new advanced weaponry, better identify targets and perform a wider scope of attack missions.

The software improvement will permit the Raptor to improve its air-to-air and air-to-surface strike technology, service officials said.

The weapons modernization effort includes both software and hardware improvements to the aircraft, service and industry developers said.

"In the Summer of 2019, the F-22 fleet will begin to receive upgrades to its available weapons with the Increment 3.2B upgrade. This upgrade allows full functionality for the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Air-to-Air missiles as well as enhanced Air-to-Surface target location capabilities," said 1st Lt. Carrie J. Volpe, Action Officer, Air Combat Command Public Affair, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.

An essential software adjustment, called “Update 6,” is now being worked on by Lockheed Martin engineers on contract with the Air Force. Work on the software is slated to be finished by 2020, said John Cottam, F-22 Program Deputy, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

A hardware portion of the upgrades, called a “tactical mandate,” involves engineering new antennas specifically designed to preserve the stealth configuration of the F-22.

“New antennas have to be first constructed. They will be retrofitted onto the airplane. Because of the stealth configuration putting, antennas on is difficult and time consuming,” Cottam said.

Lockheed plans to have the “tactical mandate” portion of the work finished by 2021, he added.

Also, the Air Force is beginning the process of identifying requirements for a next-generation sensor for the F-22.

“Enhancing sensor capabilities is needed to keep the F-22 as an air-dominance platform into the future. Threats are always evolving so we need to evolve this plane as well,” Cottam said.

In the nearer term, the software upgrades will enable the aircraft to fire a wider range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

The F-22 currently carries the AIM-9X Block 1 and the current upgrade will enable carriage of AIM-9X Block 2, Volpe added.

Raytheon AIM-9X weapons developers explain that the Block 2 variant adds a redesigned fuse and a digital ignition safety device that enhances ground handling and in-flight safety. Block 2 also features updated electronics that enable significant enhancements, including lock-on-after-launch capability using a new weapon datalink to support beyond visual range engagements, a Raytheon statement said.

Another part of the weapons upgrade includes engineering the F-22 to fire the AIM-120D, a beyond visual range Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), designed for all weather day-and-night attacks; it is a "fire and forget" missile with active transmit radar guidance, Raytheon data states.

The AIM-120D is built with upgrades to previous AMRAAM missiles by increasing attack range, GPS navigation, inertial measurement units and a two-way data link, Raytheon statements explain.

Additional future enhancements to the F-22 include the addition of a LINK-16 datalink designed to enable digital communications between 4th and 5th generation airplanes.

"The backbone of this upgrade also includes the installation of an open systems architecture that will allow for future upgrades to be done faster and at less expense than could be previously accomplished," Volpe said.

First time hearing of integrating new antennas into the airframe, this sounds like a rather substantial upgrade to hardware. Perhaps bring_it_on may know, but are there any plans in place for gallium nitride modules to make their way into upcoming F-22 upgrades?

 

[bring_it_on]

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx


First time hearing of integrating new antennas into the airframe, this sounds like a rather substantial upgrade to hardware. Perhaps bring_it_on may know, but are there any plans in place for gallium nitride modules to make their way into upcoming F-22 upgrades?

These changes have been on the cards for a while now. The F-22 is going to be getting Link-16 transmit capability around the turn of the decade.

USAF looks beyond incremental F-22 upgrade program to future mods

Meanwhile, the service is moving forward with its near-term F-22 modernization plans. The program is in the midst of flight tests for Increment 3.2B -- one phase of a progressive software and hardware upgrade. That increment builds on an earlier 3.2A upgrade and achieved milestone C in early August. The service expects to award a low-rate initial production contract for the first 35 kits in January 2017, McIntyre said. Kit installations will likely begin in the FY-18 time frame.

To date, 114 of the Air Force's 137 combat-coded F-22s are equipped with Increment 3.2A and a subsequent update package, called update 5. By the end of next summer, all combat-coded aircraft will have Increment 3.2A and the update installed.

Following increment 3.2B installations in the FY-18 time frame, the program has another upgrade known as Interoperability Update 6, which McIntyre said is focused on cryptographic modernization. The program then will move forward with a pair of tactical upgrades -- one that will field a Link 16 transmit and open mission systems capability and another that will field Mode 5 and combat-identification improvements. The first of those programs will field in 2020 and the second in 2021.

All of these modernization efforts precede the proposals included in the roadmap, McIntyre said. While he would not speculate on the pre-decisional components of the roadmap, he noted it does include plans for a new helmet-mounted display -- an upgrade the program had hoped to begin in fiscal year 2018 but which may be pushed to the FY-19 time frame due to competing priorities.

"At this point in time, we have a lot of financial pressures that we are looking to resolve in the FY-19 [program objective memorandum]," McIntyre said. "If we cannot resolve our financial pressures, we may be slipping a year."

 

[bring_it_on]

deleted

 

[phrenzy]

Regarding the previous contention that F-22 exports were impossible because of technology transfer risk, this was studied for USAF at the request of CAF for Australia specifically years ago when the risk and value of the tech and secrets was much higher and was found to be basically practical with no major issues.

It would appear that for at least a few allies this wasn't an issue.

I think this was covered elsewhere.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

 

[Sundog]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs. By the time the J-20 or T-50 are in service, in numbers and with capabilities that matter, we'll be flying the PCA and even without it we will still have a larger more modern air force than anyone else in the world.

 

[Airplane]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(

Deterrent to what? Nobody is threatening CONUS, nor has the capability to do so with the exception of SLBMs and ICBMs. By the time the J-20 or T-50 are in service, in numbers and with capabilities that matter, we'll be flying the PCA and even without it we will still have a larger more modern air force than anyone else in the world.

A deterrent to a resurgent Russian threat in Europe. A deterrent to Chinese action against Taiwan. A deterrent to a two front campaign such as wrestling with NK and Iran simultaneously.

That article is bullshit.