To ensure that it remains relevant for years to come, the Ogden Air Logistics Complex’s 574th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, through collaborative efforts of the F-22 System Program Office along with partners Lockheed Martin and Boeing, recently completed the last aircraft to go through the F-22 Structural Repair Program that has been generating aircraft for the last 14 years.
“This is a great milestone for the program,” said Misty Stone, 574th AMXS director. “Since Hill Air Force Base gained the F-22 workload in 2006, the 574th AMXS team of 400 employees has remained focused and dedicated on expanding the combat capabilities of the F-22 weapon system,”
The program was responsible for increasing mission capabilities by performing structural modifications to increase total flying hour serviceability on each aircraft by 8,000 hours.
The maintenance team processed 247 F-22 Raptors through six unique maintenance machines for structural repair, modification, coatings restoration and aircraft damage repair while completing more than 8,645 Time Compliance Technical Orders totaling over 3,880,000 hours; approximately 1,550,000 hours were dedicated to coating restoration, with the remaining 2,328,000 hours focused on mitigating corrosion, aircraft modifications, modernization and repair.
The 574th maintenance team processed 135 F-22 Raptors through six unique maintenance machines for structural repair, modification, coatings restoration and aircraft damage repair while completing thousands of hours of Time Compliance Technical Orders. In addition, hundreds of thousands of hours were dedicated to coating restoration, mitigating corrosion, aircraft modifications, modernization and repair.
With the program completed, the 574th AMXS will shift from a workload that was a structural based requirement to a 10-year reversion workload, which is a new sustainment modification that was first prototyped in 2019.
awesome pic, kind of wish the F-22 would stay in that primer color
I've a question about primer
why do these three have different color primers? any specific reason or is it just a choice? or is it because of the specific type of composite leads to different coloring?
The brown on the F-22 is just an expoxy primer that led to corrosion problems. The mint green now used has barium and strontium chromate corrosion inhibitors added. This isn't secret stuff, you can get it from any aerospace paint provider.
It looks like a plane that could take off and land on an aircraft carrier?View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyjOCjCFNOE
At 2:58 you can see the emergency arrest hook
View attachment 650634
An emergency arrestor hook is carried on the F-16, F-15, and F-22 for emergency landings at air bases equipped with emergency use only arrestor cable setups. These aircraft are not intended to use this method for regular landings and are not structurally able to handle the violent deceleration of an arrested landing without significant problems.It looks like a plane that could take off and land on an aircraft carrier?
(0v0)
The biggest advantages would be a longer range, greater power and thermal capacity, possibly larger weapon bays, likely (slightly) larger-diameter adaptive cycle engines, as well as a more maintainable and likely more broadband low observability.What is NGAD supposed to have, that cannot be installed in a potential F-22C? Or how is it going to be cheaper to develop it from scratch, than evolving an existing model? I mean, it is hard to understand that in the fleet they are proposing there is still space for the F-15, but not for the F-22, it does not really make sense.
Simply putting the adaptive engines would already yield substantial improvements in subsonic range compared to F119. A fuselage stretch (or just moving the engines which are very forward placed) would increase range at the expense of some agility, which seems not to be so important for USAF now.The biggest advantages would be a longer range, greater power and thermal capacity, possibly larger weapon bays, likely (slightly) larger-diameter adaptive cycle engines, as well as a more maintainable and likely more broadband low observability.
Upgrading the F-22 is said to be impossibly expensive, but Boeing modified the F-15 inside out for relatively little money. It is clear what the problem is IMHO.To make any of these modifications would require considerable structural work that would essentially require an F-22 production line to be re-opened. Between the RDT&E and the production line re-opening you'd be paying comparable money $$$ to what NGAD is likely to cost, but you'd be getting a vehicle pointlessly constrained by outdated design requirements.
Clearly uncertain, but to me it sounds as a rather close decision, once they talk about still having the F-16 and F-15s. That makes it even more strange.The thing that has me rather intrigued is what kind of timeframe they'd be looking at retiring the F-22s and how this might affect the mid-life upgrade that's been loosely discussed over the years. If they're talking about F-22's being retired by the 2040s (ie maybe just a decade sooner than previously planned) then they'll likely still need to do a big MLU to keep the F-22 relevant through to that point. If they're talking about retiring it this decade however, they can probably avoid trying to upgrade the F-22 beyond maybe one or two more minor increment upgrades.
They need to change the whole avionics, that is clear. But that cannot be that expensive, see above. All over the world this is daily business for aircraft manufacturers.This could potentially be a big factor in the analysis because the F-22's avionics architecture is apparently not very conducive to upgrades and modifications. Like whereas the F-35's sensor fusion engine doesn't care what a sensor is, so long as it abides by its VSIM standards, the F-22's fusion engine is apparently based on a more low-level form of integration that'd make replacing its radar or adding EO/IR sensors more complicated. The F-22's core processors and cockpit are also somewhat badly in need of an upgrade, and it's my understanding that it'd also likely need the databuses / intra-vehicle networking upgraded, which is no easy task. Basically a proper F-22 MLU could make the F-35's ~$14 billion Block 4 program look cheap.
It definitely would, but the reason I said they'd likely be larger diameter is that when P&W (or maybe it was GE) was talking about making an adaptive cycle engine for the F-35, they were uncertain if they could get one to fit in the same bay that the F135 fits, even though the XA100 and XA101 are designed to match the approximate dimensions of the F135. It does appear they're able to do this, hence why P&W is offering an adaptive cycle engine as part of their F135 "Growth Option 2" engine, but if they were concerned about matching the size of an F135, they'd presumably have even more trouble matching an F119 (which AFAIK has a similar sized engine core, but a thinner bypass duct and smaller fan module). As the tech matures I'm sure it'd be possible, but in a short-term timeframe I'm not sure it'd be feasible.Simply putting the adaptive engines would already yield substantial improvements in subsonic range compared to F119. A fuselage stretch (or just moving the engines which are very forward placed) would increase range at the expense of some agility, which seems not to be so important for USAF now.
The kind of modifications we're talking about for the F-22 are a fair bit more drastic than going from an F-15E to F-15EX. A lot of the new avionics being built for F-15EX have been under development for and funded for other F-15 variants as well. EPAWSS for example was originally being developed for the F-15C and F-15E; it's currently expected to cost $1.3B to develop and cost $4 billion to procure 361 sets through to 2024.Upgrading the F-22 is said to be impossibly expensive, but Boeing modified the F-15 inside out for relatively little money. It is clear what the problem is IMHO.
F-15EXs (being newly-built airframes) should be around for a long time as a bomb truck and ANG civil airspace defense jet, the F-16 is more of an unknown - with the recent SLEPs they should be safe to fly until 2048, but in contrast, the last USAF F-35A is theoretically meant to roll out of Fort Worth in 2044. I expect it'll all depend on how many F-35s the USAF can afford to sustain and what options are available by the 2030s. Maybe fewer F-35s get purchased and the F-16 fleet has to keep flying a little longer, through to the 2040s until some unmanned system is in service in sufficient quantities to take their place (and for some reason don't count towards the "4+1" airframes being discussed by Brown).Clearly uncertain, but to me it sounds as a rather close decision, once they talk about still having the F-16 and F-15s. That makes it even more strange.
Most fighters don't contain the same level of software and avionics complexity as an F-22. The F-35 is having >$14 billion spent on Block 4; a lot of that is in procurement of new hardware for several hundred jets, but I can't see the F-22's upgrade being any less than that, especially considering that you're starting from a less capable baseline. If you're building brand-new F-22s to facilitate the airframe modifications mentioned above then we're also talking about tens of billions more on top of that.They need to change the whole avionics, that is clear. But that cannot be that expensive, see above. All over the world this is daily business for aircraft manufacturers.