Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[donnage99]

Northrop Grumman is not a major contractor of the f-22. A radar isn't that much to be called a major contractor. Northrop benefits more if the f-22 cancelled and so money can pour into f-35's acceleration, where it actually plays a major role in the this aircraft, building center fuselage, weapon bay, arresting gears, Distributed Aperture system, and of course the AESA radar.

 

[r16]

regarding production numbers of the F-35 ı have already betted on a Turkish equivalent of a hamburger that it will definitely reach 4 digits but it will be very close ...

 

[voidmage]

Numbers are a crucial parameter not only in establishing effective,projectional,operative value of a new weapon system,but also,indirectly,its cost.
If indeed,on the one hand, a established,condition-planned low cost can "codify" for a high number of unity in the production phase,on the other the same high unity's number aid to maintain low the cost in the middle period(writing off,at example,research's expenditures on a greater number of unity).
From the "crossing" between the function describing this dynamic equilibrium-governed parameter and that describing the technological and tactical impact(in the expected operative theatre and fruition role)of the single systems implemented in the design, you obtain the cost-efficiency value.
Now the very difficult question become only establish if F-22(with all possible modifications) in a significant higher number(like 600-700) would be,in the 15-20 time-projection’s window, a more cost-efficient aircraft than JSF (F-35).
From the the possible responses to this question derive also the motivations who each of us give to the choice of USA of prohibit ,still now,F-22(a VLO-high kinematical-performant aircraft )sale to any other nation (historical ally too)and,conversely, place “exportability”and even joint development at the foundation of the project JSF-F-35 (a VLO-low kinematical-performant aircraft).

 

[V8Interceptor]

what happens when one idiot tries to come for help

Maybe Lockmart can develop a dedicated anti-pirate version to go along with the Anti-IED variant (alright, technically it was not supposed to be a purpose built version) they were proposing:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001984.html

 

[airman]

so F-35 seems "brother" version of F-22 with one engine than two of their major brother !

 

[donnage99]

so F-35 seems "brother" version of F-22 with one engine than two of their major brother !

nope. It lacks the stealth and raw performance of the f-22. Being one engine, with similar max fuel, it should have similar range. It has more "up-to-date" sensors to allow it to work in a system of system environment, unlike the f-22, which needs serious upgrades to bring it up to date. The two are built around not just two different emphasis, but also two different combat doctrines. One is a lone tiger, while the other is a pack of wolves.

 

[voidmage]

Just today ,at ausairpower'site ,has been added a APA NOTAM on comparative cost of JSF and F-22's upgrade program: www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-110409-1.html

Imaging who some “a priori” scepticals (also facing aseptic numbers),will try to disown these numbers like unreliable,manipulated or (worst) absolutely compatible with annual inflation rate,i have searched also official March 2008 GAO -United States Government Accountability Office- document on that: www.scribd.com/doc/8371352/GAO-JSF-Program-Risks .
Good read.

 

[GTX]

Please remember that the "Air Power Australia" gang are extremely biased (to the point of being ridiculous) against the F-35/towards the F-22 (and the F-111 for that matter). I would take anything they write with a fistful of salt.

Regards,

Greg

 

[sferrin]

I'll bet someone had to talk Carlo off a building after Gates made his announcement on the F-22.

 

[voidmage]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[Triton]

Will the US Air Force buy the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle in the interim? Or will the F-15 Silent Eagle be an export only aircraft?

 

[voidmage]

Will the US Air Force buy the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle in the interim? Or will the F-15 Silent Eagle be an export only aircraft?

From the actual (few) informations we have,appear who F-15 silent eagle will be mostly destined to foreign market,with at actual estimated demand of about 190 unity.

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/17/323962/pictures-boeing-unveils-upgraded-f-15-silent-eagle-with-fifth-generation.htm

 

[donnage99]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely, proposing Marines to get f-22 (pretty much bordering McInerney's pirate killing f-22 proposal) and Navy to get a canard (retractable?) f-22 instead.

As for the article on f-35 hitting 100 millions price tag for israel: isn't it known that early procurement of the f-35 will result in unreasonably enormous cost for each plane as production is slow in the beginning. That's what Israel should expect if it wants to get the plane before other countries do. It's a curved price tag, common knowledge for every single program in history. It's nothing to hit your head and say "breaking news!"

 

[Triton]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely, proposing Marines to get f-22 (pretty much bordering McInerney's pirate killing f-22 proposal) and Navy to get a canard (retractable?) f-22 instead.

As for the article on f-35 hitting 100 millions price tag for israel: isn't it known that early procurement of the f-35 will result in unreasonably enormous cost for each plane as production is slow in the beginning. That's what Israel should expect if it wants to get the plane before other countries do. It's a curved price tag, common knowledge for every single program in history. It's nothing to hit your head and say "breaking news!"

If you want to be an early adopter, you're going to pay for it. ;D

 

[voidmage]

Donnage 99 this is not the price for a early procurement(LRIP –Low rate initial production). Please re-read the official document of GAO (i repost the link for you: www.scribd.com/doc/8371352/GAO-JSF-Program-Risks )
“But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely”
It is the opposite; APA has demonstred great correctness,it has not speculated on the study,at the contrary ,respecting its documentary,scientifical approach,has only used the numbers in a strictly comparative way.
If it want to take advantage of GAO’s survey(who collimate at 100% with APA projection and with those of three other indipendent organizations-see pag 19 of document )and its total reject of JSF office program’s work,it would cite wole paragraphs of it like:
“Program Costs Expected to Increase and Schedule Worsen” (pag.18) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Reliable”(pag.20) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Comprehensive”(pag.20) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Accurate” (pag.21) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Well Documented”(pag. 22)or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Credible”(pag.23)
If APA want to point on the words it would cite from pag 94 of March 2009 “Defences Aquisitions Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” (link in the same APA NOTAM):
1)“The program began testing its first production representative prototype—a short takeoff vertical landing variant flown in conventional mode—in June 2008(personal note: initially programmed for July 2006). A fully integrated, capable aircraft is not expected to enter flight testing until 2012, increasing risks that problems found may require design and production changes and retrofits of completed aircraft.”

2)“Despite the program’s continued manufacturing problems and the infancy of the flight test program, DOD officials want to accelerate production by 169 aircraft between fiscal years 2010 and 2015. This may require up to $33.5 billion in additional procurement funding in those years. We believe this more aggressive production approach is optimistic and risky.”

I remind who,for now,we are talking “only” of the cost problem,but Carlo Kopp has also challenged (in 17/02/2009 APA NOTAM www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-170209-1.html ) to disavow its words and data on operative capacity of F-35 with very low cost experiments, conducted ,or supervised ,by no money-political involved organizations. Anyone would bet on the results of similar neutral-conducted experiments? I can bet who Kopp would surely bet.....Davis almost surely not.

 

[donnage99]

I'm not talking about one particular "letter" to Gates by APA folks. I'm talking about APA's theme in general. It started off with just "f-35 is not suited for Australia's need" to proposing to scrap the whole JSF program. It did propose to replace them with f-22 for the marines and navy. GAO's report is but one tool represented by APA to further its agenda.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I know the F-16's sidestick controller has almost no movement (a fraction of an inch or so and for the most part is just a pressure-sensor) and allegedly this was to reduce the amount of effort for the pilot to move the stick under continuous 9-G loads.

Is the F-22's stick configured like that (i.e. it has almost no movement and is for most purposes just a pressure sensor) or does it have more movement on it (assuming it's not classified or anything)?


KJ Lesnick

 

[TomS]

A number of sites repeat the language used by Global Security, which is that the F-22 sidestick controller is like the F-16, with about a quarter-inch of throw. I have no idea of the original source for this statement, but GS usually steals copies from official documents, so it's likely to be correct.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cockpit.htm

 

[AeroFranz]

Thought this article from the DEW line was interesting

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/the-f-22-cant-do-what.html

 

[sferrin]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

 

[F-14D]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

But is any of it wrong (although I have heard that it was found early on that there was a problem mapping the F-22 cockpit for HMCS and it is true that early in the F-22 program USAF said they weren't worried about lack of HMCS or HOBS since in their opinion the F-22 wouldn't need them anyway)?

 

[sferrin]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

But is any of it wrong (although I have heard that it was found early on that there was a problem mapping the F-22 cockpit for HMCS and it is true that early in the F-22 program USAF said they weren't worried about lack of HMCS or HOBS since in their opinion the F-22 wouldn't need them anyway)?

Depends what you mean. If they want to throw the money at it of course the upgrades can be done. If they mean that upgrades on the early versions won't be as easy as on the later ones well, that's what happens when a programs gets stretched out so long.

 

[F-14D]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

But is any of it wrong (although I have heard that it was found early on that there was a problem mapping the F-22 cockpit for HMCS and it is true that early in the F-22 program USAF said they weren't worried about lack of HMCS or HOBS since in their opinion the F-22 wouldn't need them anyway)?

Depends what you mean. If they want to throw the money at it of course the upgrades can be done. If they mean that upgrades on the early versions won't be as easy as on the later ones well, that's what happens when a programs gets stretched out so long.

Mostly agree, especially on your last sentence. My understanding on one of the issues, though, is that it was found early on that there would be big problems mapping the F-22 cockpit for JHMCS. AF wasn't that concerned because in their view no one would ever get close enough to an F-22 where a Raptor pilot would need that capability. In fact, as they were going into EMD, AF even floated a trial balloon about doing away with AIM-9 capability entirely as the F-22 would be so invincible that they wouldn't need such a thing anyway.

One thing I'd be interested in finding out is what ever happened to the side looking arrays. AESAs have many advantages, but among their drawback is that they require a lot of power, generate a bunch of heat that has to be dissipated and have a narrower field of view than a mechanically scanned array of similar size. Raptor was to address this looking to the side by having smaller side looking arrays whose data would be fused with the larger forward looking array. They were "postponed" early on for cost reasons; I wonder if they ever go put back.

 

[r16]

logic says F-22 can't dominate the air . Take this with a pinch of salt as it comes from someone who has been pro-22 in the last two years . Which went against what ı used to be .

 

[Lampshade111]

logic says F-22 can't dominate the air .

What logic? It can certainly dominate the air and fill the role of the F-15. Probably the only reason these upgrades are an issue is because they would cost more money than on later production aircraft.

Billions spent over plenty of years to get the aircraft to production state, but we once there the politicians only want to build a handful. And naturally most of the media jumps on the cut production bandwagon. :

 

[F-14D]

logic says F-22 can't dominate the air .

What logic? It can certainly dominate the air and fill the role of the F-15. Probably the only reason these upgrades are an issue is because they would cost more money than on later production aircraft.

Billions spent over plenty of years to get the aircraft to production state, but we once there the politicians only want to build a handful. And naturally most of the media jumps on the cut production bandwagon. :

Actually, the 1st 97 Raptors are not "hardware enabled (USAF's words)" to receive increment 3.2, which among other things gets you the ability to use AIM-9X, AIM-120D and the ability to securely share data with B-2s and F-35s. In fact, except for those two aircraft, even the later Raptors will only be able to share data with other F-22s.

Possibly r16 is alluding to the truism that quantity is a quality all its own. If you have a flight of four F-22s, and if every one of their missiles functions perfectly, you will kill 32 enemy fighters (of course the eight AIM-9 shots will be a lot riskier than the AIM-120 shots). Will you still be dominant if you're facing 40 J-10s?

BTW, I support continued F-22 production and wish Congress would lift its blanket ban on export sales.

 

[sferrin]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

But is any of it wrong (although I have heard that it was found early on that there was a problem mapping the F-22 cockpit for HMCS and it is true that early in the F-22 program USAF said they weren't worried about lack of HMCS or HOBS since in their opinion the F-22 wouldn't need them anyway)?

Depends what you mean. If they want to throw the money at it of course the upgrades can be done. If they mean that upgrades on the early versions won't be as easy as on the later ones well, that's what happens when a programs gets stretched out so long.

Mostly agree, especially on your last sentence. My understanding on one of the issues, though, is that it was found early on that there would be big problems mapping the F-22 cockpit for JHMCS. AF wasn't that concerned because in their view no one would ever get close enough to an F-22 where a Raptor pilot would need that capability. In fact, as they were going into EMD, AF even floated a trial balloon about doing away with AIM-9 capability entirely as the F-22 would be so invincible that they wouldn't need such a thing anyway.

One thing I'd be interested in finding out is what ever happened to the side looking arrays. AESAs have many advantages, but among their drawback is that they require a lot of power, generate a bunch of heat that has to be dissipated and have a narrower field of view than a mechanically scanned array of similar size. Raptor was to address this looking to the side by having smaller side looking arrays whose data would be fused with the larger forward looking array. They were "postponed" early on for cost reasons; I wonder if they ever go put back.

The space is there, the money isn't. If you know where to look on a bare aircraft you can see where they go. Whether or not any occupy that space is anybody's guess but published info suggests it's empty at the moment.

 

[F-14D]

I thought it was par for the course. For that site that is.

But is any of it wrong (although I have heard that it was found early on that there was a problem mapping the F-22 cockpit for HMCS and it is true that early in the F-22 program USAF said they weren't worried about lack of HMCS or HOBS since in their opinion the F-22 wouldn't need them anyway)?

Depends what you mean. If they want to throw the money at it of course the upgrades can be done. If they mean that upgrades on the early versions won't be as easy as on the later ones well, that's what happens when a programs gets stretched out so long.

Mostly agree, especially on your last sentence. My understanding on one of the issues, though, is that it was found early on that there would be big problems mapping the F-22 cockpit for JHMCS. AF wasn't that concerned because in their view no one would ever get close enough to an F-22 where a Raptor pilot would need that capability. In fact, as they were going into EMD, AF even floated a trial balloon about doing away with AIM-9 capability entirely as the F-22 would be so invincible that they wouldn't need such a thing anyway.

One thing I'd be interested in finding out is what ever happened to the side looking arrays. AESAs have many advantages, but among their drawback is that they require a lot of power, generate a bunch of heat that has to be dissipated and have a narrower field of view than a mechanically scanned array of similar size. Raptor was to address this looking to the side by having smaller side looking arrays whose data would be fused with the larger forward looking array. They were "postponed" early on for cost reasons; I wonder if they ever go put back.

The space is there, the money isn't. If you know where to look on a bare aircraft you can see where they go. Whether or not any occupy that space is anybody's guess but published info suggests it's empty at the moment.

I suspect the limitation involves more than just physical space. There's probably power, infrastructure, computing capability, cable and fluid routing, etc. To draw a parallel, the earlier Hornet E/Fs have the same internal space as the later, AESA-equipped units, but they can not be retrofitted with AESA, the supporting assets aren't there. Block 20 F-22s would require so much change that they will only be getting minor upgrades. Block 30s can go to increment 3.1 and might be given some limited upgrades beyond that, to the extent that they can support it. They should be able to get much of the software upgrade, but when you have to change hardware, that starts getting complicated. Only the Block 35s will be able to come out of the box doing everything Some, but not all, of what they do might get into the Block 30s, where extensive hardware changes aren't necessary.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Next thing you know, we'll be hearing the can't transform into robots named Starscream either. ;D

 

[F-14D]

Next thing you know, we'll be hearing the can't transform into robots named Starscream either. ;D

They can, but only in disguise.

 

[Lampshade111]

It may be kinda obvious but I am a big fan of continued F-22A production. In fact if we do stop at 187 or such a number below the USAF's requirements, I hope somebody in our next non-Democrat administration resurrects the program with an improved F-22B down the road.

It seems like those demanding the F-22 be canceled, cut, and so forth forget the histories of our previous air superiority aircraft. The F-14A had engine problems throughout it's entire life until the F-14A+ (F-14B), and the F-15's engines were also unreliable at first for example. Most advanced aircraft have countless "minor" problems in their first couple of years of service.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I thought the F-22A had a helmet cuing system?

 

[sferrin]

I suspect the limitation involves more than just physical space. There's probably power, infrastructure, computing capability, cable and fluid routing, etc. To draw a parallel, the earlier Hornet E/Fs have the same internal space as the later, AESA-equipped units, but they can not be retrofitted with AESA, the supporting assets aren't there. Block 20 F-22s would require so much change that they will only be getting minor upgrades. Block 30s can go to increment 3.1 and might be given some limited upgrades beyond that, to the extent that they can support it. They should be able to get much of the software upgrade, but when you have to change hardware, that starts getting complicated. Only the Block 35s will be able to come out of the box doing everything Some, but not all, of what they do might get into the Block 30s, where extensive hardware changes aren't necessary.

The space is specifically set aside for the side arrays. It's a hollow space on either side of the fuse right now. Pull that piece of the skin off on either side and there is a big hollow space for the arrays. The avionics test bed even flew with them.

 

[F-14D]

I thought the F-22A had a helmet cuing system?

Doesn't. Never has. AF didn't require or even ask for the capability. No plans to add one now. Some sources say that there are technical reasons why it can't be added.

 

[F-14D]

I suspect the limitation involves more than just physical space. There's probably power, infrastructure, computing capability, cable and fluid routing, etc. To draw a parallel, the earlier Hornet E/Fs have the same internal space as the later, AESA-equipped units, but they can not be retrofitted with AESA, the supporting assets aren't there. Block 20 F-22s would require so much change that they will only be getting minor upgrades. Block 30s can go to increment 3.1 and might be given some limited upgrades beyond that, to the extent that they can support it. They should be able to get much of the software upgrade, but when you have to change hardware, that starts getting complicated. Only the Block 35s will be able to come out of the box doing everything Some, but not all, of what they do might get into the Block 30s, where extensive hardware changes aren't necessary.

The space is specifically set aside for the side arrays. It's a hollow space on either side of the fuse right now. Pull that piece of the skin off on either side and there is a big hollow space for the arrays. The avionics test bed even flew with them.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about space being available for hardware changes needed to get Block 20 and 30 F-22s up to the full capability Block 35s, when you were actually addressing my question about the side arrays. Good to know they've reserved the space. Thanks

 

[r16]

a little dissertation on the logic angle .

the pin the keeps the world rotating on its present course is the notion that the USA is the town sheriff who will shoot any mischiefmaker .Other notables in town might openly chafe about it , but the system works . Uncle Sam is probably spending more in defence dollars than 10 runner ups combined but he is also allowed to get the first glass of any beer keg . The presence of the Sheriff save the said notables of risky confrontations . ı am sure Americans tend to think they dominate the world on their efforts alone instead of being "allowed" and encouraged to .

whatever...

something to remember is that there are also Americans who really , really and for the third time really want to do something for the world instead of merely making it safe for capitalism . Their ears redden when they hear the good way to pay for costs of liberating Iraq is to make Iraqis pay through oil sales ; for they believe in the American ideal . Since such patriotism needs an insane amount of presence to survive the relentless onslaught of real life , many of these people are in US military services where it is only natural that the training involves lots of "nationalistic pomping" . And the guys and increasingly the gals think and deal in brutal application of force in case of need , which means they cyclically try to make the American superiority a reality through unmatchable military capability that can be used against a major competitor .

the 20th century has been one of the air . The use of air as a combat medium allows many options for a dominating military presence and the first of the super weapons/attempts was the Phantom . Anyone who knows something better overall please raise your hand . The Double Ugly's misfortune was it was the Sixties , which has been called the period of the Napalm Democracy , though not by me . Capitalistic needs of the years forced a showdown in Vietnam and the Commies could not budge . The optimal use of a weapon is a peaceful coercion of the opposition . The Vietnamese were ready to die if need be and those that did took 362 Phantoms with them in one way or another . ( The number includes the operational losses )

f-14 was the second ; the fighter that could fight anywhere on this planet . Notables of the planet did anything possible that it wasn't that unmatchable . There are patriots everywhere .

the third is confusing . It is either the ATF or the ADI , the Air Defence Iniative but the guys were sidetracked by the excitement of a US president to really dominate the planet through SDI . The intention of the attempts is to let the American Dream work its magic without let or hinderance ; not to fight for banana companies , there is something called a free market . Anyhow ı understand that smug satisfaction is still derived from the event .

the final or the enduring one is the F-22 . And while ı would prefer it over the unmentionable the equation of numbers multiplied by quality added to psychological conditions imply that the Raptor doesn't and actually didn't ever coerce anyone intending to challenge USA . Forget about the likes of Chavez , how many days he has stopped selling oil to America ?

750 by 1997 , now that might have done good for the cause . As a full scale ATF effort might very well result in the first produced examples retired to Davis Monthan this year . Nonetheless all is not lost ...

if in combat the very tomorrow , the Raptors would get all the attention they truly deserve . They are number one targets in the air or on the ground as they are , without opposition, the best fighters in squadron service today .

the next cycle will probably see a dusting off plans of Copper Canyon or whatever transatmospheric vehicle the guys were working on in those years .

for your information ı live in dreams , don't take everything ı say seriously . The lineup would include a battlestar flying X-wings and as the joke goes beware which way the sticks point ...

la la world , is this a correct way to call it ?

anyhow Americans nowadays are seemingly on a charm offensive , remembering that America's loveability is its prime asset but they don't intend to be getting out of scarecrow business as they might be looking at the number of countries that look like they will defy the world order . Without hiding the political aspect of it , the last two decades has not done well for America's credibility as the sheriff .

the view is probably that the wannabees will rock the boat but they will stay in the game boundaries ; the risk is they might encourage someone , maybe a figurative caveman coming out of the underground hole he has been hibernating since stone age and he will be itching to spear someone . Sinking the boat perhaps ?

as it is , say , the Chinese are not very impressed by the Raptor Force or the American capability it implies . ı personally believe thay are qoute lying unqoute in bloating the number of casualties in the current disturbances to politely decline the American wishes to do something about the wannabees transmitted in the military talks they had recently . See , have internal troubles , sorry can't do anything there or over there . Uncle Sam might discover that he might have to face it alone in the high noon.


logic ? Not much , ı am afraid .


by the way , during the Kennedy Administration an American reconnaissance aircraft in Africa photographed a spear thrown at it . Has it ever been published ?

 

[LowObservable]

On the HMD: at one point, the JHMCS was intended for the F-22 (although integration was never funded). By spring 2005, that was abandoned in favor of the JSF helmet or a version thereof (why that was so I cannot recall, but it does not make a lot of sense, since the F-22 doesn't have infra-red and has a HUD). In 2007 a LockMart guy at Paris said that the plans to integrate an HMD had been indefinitely delayed for technical reasons.

 

[F-14D]

On the HMD: at one point, the JHMCS was intended for the F-22 (although integration was never funded). By spring 2005, that was abandoned in favor of the JSF helmet or a version thereof (why that was so I cannot recall, but it does not make a lot of sense, since the F-22 doesn't have infra-red and has a HUD). In 2007 a LockMart guy at Paris said that the plans to integrate an HMD had been indefinitely delayed for technical reasons.

The capabilities of the F-35 HMDS are way beyond that of JHMCS, but it is a integral part of the F-35 navigation, flight control and weapons systems and as such is not really adaptable to other aircraft. To put something like that into F-22 would be extremely expensive and would essentially be a new, custom application. As you state, parts of it would be duplicative of some of the displays used by Raptor.

Regarding JHMCS, F-22 was started before Helmet Mounted Sights were a big deal in the West (outside of Israel). It wasn't until the MiG-29 and SU-27 systems were examined that it was realized how significant they were and what else you could do with them. USAF in the '90s said Raptor didn't need them anyway because no one would ever get close to an F-22. My understanding of the technical issue had to do with mapping of the F-22 cockpit being the problem. Possibly the simpler DASH system could be fitted, assuming the money is there, but I haven't heard anything about that.

 

[Lampshade111]

I imagine a good reason for the "indefinitely delay" factor is because of limited money to upgrade F-22As. Considering how much trouble the USAF has getting more F-22s, and the fact that upgrade for existing birds gets a ton of idiots shouting about the "worthless" F-22.

 

[F-14D]

I imagine a good reason for the "indefinitely delay" factor is because of limited money to upgrade F-22As. Considering how much trouble the USAF has getting more F-22s, and the fact that upgrade for existing birds gets a ton of idiots shouting about the "worthless" F-22.

I suspect it's deeper than that. Since JHMCS is a new system that didn't exist when F-22 was first started, lack of it wouldn't be held against the original design. After all, the F-15, 16 and 18 didn't have it either and no one screamed when it was added to them. It was considered a new, additional capability that was added to take the planes beyond where they already were. With over 2,800 delivered already, clearly funding seems to be there to add it if desired. In fact, given how few F-22s we're going to get, the problem that remains seems to be twofold. First, AF's original position when HMS first started being developed that the F-22 didn't need anything like that as it was so far beyond anything else (of course then they also thought they were going to get the side arrays). To now ask for this capability now would be an admission that they were wrong before. That simply doesn't happen, even if they can legitimately claim (sorta) that the threat has developed further than was originally envisioned. Second, there remain the reports of technical issues in integrating the JHMCS on the F-22. AF originally didn't care because of its stated position. Now, if they came out and said they wanted it but it couldn't be done without much more rework compared to other aircraft because of Raptor design (not just the APG-77), that would open up criticism (some legitimate and some unjustified). So, better not to ask