- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,257
Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
I think retiring the Block 20s makes sense if making that batch of parts available significantly increases the readiness of the rest of the fleet. My understanding is that F-22 available is some of the worst in the USAF and that finding parts for it's legacy systems is a primary reason for this.Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
Whichever option keeps the most combat-available, I'm for. I'd prefer it were done by purchasing the appropriate spares. If that means you have to modernize the early birds, so be it. We're not in a place of being able to toss away good aircraft at this point.I think retiring the Block 20s makes sense if making that batch of parts available significantly increases the readiness of the rest of the fleet. My understanding is that F-22 available is some of the worst in the USAF and that finding parts for it's legacy systems is a primary reason for this.Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
EDIT: additionally I question the absolute number of F-22s that could be surged into the WestPac at one time regardless of number of available airframes, and as far as I'm concerned this is the only peer threat/theater the F-22 force should be focused on.
There's an exercise going on that involves 17 nations down under. A report from its activities says that two RAAF F-35's ""shot down"" six RSAF F-15's in one exercise operation ----- and shot them down before the F-15's even knew they were there.Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
Where did the F-22s from the damaged base in Florida end up?
Where did the F-22s from the damaged base in Florida end up?
That is what I want to find out as well Josh_TN, they must have been moved to the boneyard to get used as spares or scrapped, which I do not want to see happen to them.
There are I believe two squadrons in HI and two more in AK, so to some extent the force is Pacific oriented already. Where did the F-22s from the damaged base in Florida end up?
@sferrin viscerally, emotionally I'm right there with you about no upgrade/retire, but my experience in another life with a high demand/low density assets taught me that the sacrifice of a few non-conforming airframes can benefit the surviving fleet for a short while. It's quite tough to come down on one side without full knowledge of how much effort is required to go from block 20. Admittedly, I haven't followed the Raptor very closely since I left ED and no longer know folks who work on the airframe. All that said, it may well be one of those budget dances to get money over and above what the old law authorized. Wouldn't be the first time...Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
And I get that. I just wish they'd stop blowing money on pie-in-the-sky and use it for important stuff. But then that would take effective leaders in Washington and we know THAT'S never gonna happen.@sferrin viscerally, emotionally I'm right there with you about no upgrade/retire, but my experience in another life with a high demand/low density assets taught me that the sacrifice of a few non-conforming airframes can benefit the surviving fleet for a short while. It's quite tough to come down on one side without full knowledge of how much effort is required to go from block 20. Admittedly, I haven't followed the Raptor very closely since I left ED and no longer know folks who work on the airframe. All that said, it may well be one of those budget dances to get money over and above what the old law authorized. Wouldn't be the first time...Retiring ANY F-22s is idiotic. We need every last one of them. Even after NGAD is in production we'll still need them. Gonna keep flying F-15Cs? An all-NGAD force will never happen for the same reason an all F-22 force didn't. (Before someone says, "but the F-35. . ." the F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not the F-15.Congress should stop the Air Force from retiring F-22s - Breaking Defense
As China looms, the Heritage Foundation's JV Venable argues for saving 33 F-22s from the chopping block.breakingdefense.com
Digital Twin Helps Pratt Expand F119 Performance For F-22
Steve Trimble October 03, 2022
Thanks to a newly created “digital twin” of the Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofan, a future software update for the Lockheed Martin F-22 will expand the kinematic performance in certain regions of the twin-engine stealth fighter’s flight envelope.
As digital engineering tools proliferate through the aerospace supply chain, operators and OEMs have touted benefits such as streamlining maintenance activity and refining the data used to inform new engines and aircraft as they are being designed.
But the pending F-22 upgrade may show that creating and analyzing digital copies of physical parts can yield unexpected performance improvements at the midlife stage in the operational career of a combat aircraft.
Specifically, Pratt executives started collecting data on the usage history of individual F119s in 2018. As terabytes of data from real flights were analyzed, Pratt found that operators used the engine differently than the F119’s designers had assumed when calculating how long the parts could last until they needed to be replaced. In some areas of the engine, such as the core and low-pressure module, real flight hour data showed that the parts could last up to 20% longer than the company had predicted. The front fan also was more robust than expected, but not by the same margin.
Knowing that the engine’s parts could last longer than expected, Pratt gave the U.S. Air Force options. They could continue running the engines as they have been doing, and capture more than $800 million in cost savings over the aircraft’s lifetime by deferring the replacement of certain parts. Alternatively, the Air Force could use some of that additional strength in the part and extract more engine performance.
“You realize you have margin that you could potentially spend without a negative detriment, then that opens up the ability to expand the capability of the engine,” Scott Ackroyd, the F119 chief engineer from Pratt & Whitney, tells Aviation Week in an interview.
As an engine produces additional thrust or acceleration, the parts are sometimes exposed to higher temperatures. Since the data from Pratt’s digital twin of the F119 shows that the parts are more robust than intended, operators can expose those components to hotter temperatures without paying more for maintenance later. In this sense, the operator trades more performance in some areas of the flight envelope for long-term cost savings from operating normally and deferring maintenance.
Pratt’s software engineers revised the software code for the F119’s digital electronic engine control (DEEC), a computer that schedules and maintains the operating point of an engine by regulating conditions such as rotor speed and nozzle throat area.
“We changed the order of how we control the parameters inside the envelope to provide more capability and kinematics and certain regions,” Ackroyd says.
Using agile software development methods, Pratt delivered the DEEC software update in nine months, including regression testing and 100 hr. of engine testing in a wind tunnel. Pratt has now turned the new software over to Lockheed, which plans to include the engine performance upgrade in a future update of the F-22’s operational flight program.
Pratt cannot disclose the details of the performance improvement, citing Air Force security restrictions. The maximum continuous thrust rating of about 35,000 lb. for the F119 will not change after the software update, but kinematic performance—meaning, velocity and acceleration—will be improved in certain areas. The Air Force wants to improve performance in a specific area of the existing flight envelope for the F-22, and the tweaks made to the F119 control software enabled Pratt to make that change.
“We were lucky that they lined up exactly where they wanted,” Ackroyd says.
The use of digital twins may spread beyond the F119, but there are limits. For example, Pratt introduced a DEEC in a fighter engine with the F100-PW-229, but the decades-old processor would have to be upgraded to run the algorithms that deliver the improved performance in the F119. Pratt also is working to perform the same usage life analysis on the F135 engine that powers the Lockheed Martin F-35, which would be based on creating a digital twin of existing engines now in service.
This reads like they were all put on one aircraftAn Air Force F-22 Raptor unit just fired off a record number of air-to-air missiles
F-22s usually only carry eight missiles for air-to-air missiles. These fighter squadrons pushed the fighter jet far beyond that.taskandpurpose.com
"They also demonstrated a high-level of proficiency while shooting the F-22's six-barrel, 20mm Gatling gun, and the M61A2 Vulcan at the Advanced Gunnery Target System."
Not when each member of the swarm is only 1/10th to 1/100th the cost of a CUDA.Disclaimer: the following is pure lucubration.
In theory, by using a couple Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods (or similar), one Raptor could be armed with 14 AMRAAM (six internally plus four per pod). Now replace each AIM-120 by two CUDA type missiles in tandem, and you have your 28 missiles (and the side bays still available for lunch packets). Could be useful against drone swarms.
Not when each member of the swarm is only 1/10th to 1/100th the cost of a CUDA.Disclaimer: the following is pure lucubration.
In theory, by using a couple Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods (or similar), one Raptor could be armed with 14 AMRAAM (six internally plus four per pod). Now replace each AIM-120 by two CUDA type missiles in tandem, and you have your 28 missiles (and the side bays still available for lunch packets). Could be useful against drone swarms.
A GBU-12 costs $20k, which is probably less than a new pickup. Similarly an AGM-65 is considerably less than a T-55. Other costs mentioned are justified by the fun factor.True but... dropping a LGBU on a pick-up truck, a JDAM on a cave entrance, shooting a Maverick at a T-55, a Hellfire at a machine-gun nest, a HIMARS rocket at a pontoon bridge, a Harpoon at a patrol boat, or an AMRAAM at a houthi drone is considered cost-effective?
My previous post was only about the 28 missiles possibility, not really its operationnal usefulness.
(By the way there was a smiley at the end of it, but it seems the forum only publishes the ones from the toolbar and rejects those from the keyboard).
A GBU-12 costs $20k, which is probably less than a new pickup. Similarly an AGM-65 is considerably less than a T-55. Other costs mentioned are justified by the fun factor.
Which is why ABMs are worth almost any cost.A GBU-12 costs $20k, which is probably less than a new pickup. Similarly an AGM-65 is considerably less than a T-55. Other costs mentioned are justified by the fun factor.
This is really the wrong calculus, though. It assumes that the budget of attacker and defender are symmetrical and that the cost of a weapon is equal to its value. A better question to ask whether to cost of the missile is less than the cost (financial or intangible) of the possible consequences if the target isn't shot down.
the enclosed weapon pods were made for leading edge alignment with the super hornet. That doesn't translate immediately to f-22. I think dedicated weapon pods were studied for f-22.Disclaimer: the following is pure lucubration.
In theory, by using a couple Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods (or similar), one Raptor could be armed with 14 AMRAAM (six internally plus four per pod). Now replace each AIM-120 by two CUDA type missiles in tandem, and you have your 28 missiles (and the side bays still available for lunch packets). Could be useful against drone swarms.
the enclosed weapon pods were made for leading edge alignment with the super hornet. That doesn't translate immediately to f-22. I think dedicated weapon pods were studied for f-22.Disclaimer: the following is pure lucubration.
In theory, by using a couple Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods (or similar), one Raptor could be armed with 14 AMRAAM (six internally plus four per pod). Now replace each AIM-120 by two CUDA type missiles in tandem, and you have your 28 missiles (and the side bays still available for lunch packets). Could be useful against drone swarms.
Have you ever had the misfortune of going to their site? Par for the course.Overly loud and excessive verbiage. Why take so long for a simple explanation. Are all these people on/need Ritelin?
Some interesting performance numbers. At Mach 2.0 and 40,000 ft ISA, the F-22 is only using 36% afterburner throttle. Based on the acceleration numbers, it also accelerates nearly twice as fast at supersonic speeds than in the transonic regime. It appears that the F-22’s balance of thrust and aerodynamics really is optimized for supersonic performance.
Some interesting performance numbers. At Mach 2.0 and 40,000 ft ISA, the F-22 is only using 36% afterburner throttle. Based on the acceleration numbers, it also accelerates nearly twice as fast at supersonic speeds than in the transonic regime. It appears that the F-22’s balance of thrust and aerodynamics really is optimized for supersonic performance.
The total temperature limit of 467 F (242 C) is also interesting, and would correspond to the characteristics of the BMI composites used on the wing leading edges and other components. Although the thermal and aerodynamic limit may suggest Mach 2.4+, the envelope chart indicates that operationally, the limits are Mach 2.0 and 60,000 ft likely due to maintenance and pilot emergency considerations, despite the immense excess thrust available.
Where did you get that?1500ft takeoff run. Supersonic (could) by the end of the rwy. Wow!
Back in the day (early 00's) one of those cable shows (Wings, History Channel, TLC) had a docmentary on the F-22. In it they interviewed Paul Metz, who was the Chief Test Pilot on the F-22A. When asked how fast it was he said, "it's fast. I mean it's really fast. The top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 miles per hour."Some interesting performance numbers. At Mach 2.0 and 40,000 ft ISA, the F-22 is only using 36% afterburner throttle. Based on the acceleration numbers, it also accelerates nearly twice as fast at supersonic speeds than in the transonic regime. It appears that the F-22’s balance of thrust and aerodynamics really is optimized for supersonic performance.
The total temperature limit of 467 F (242 C) is also interesting, and would correspond to the characteristics of the BMI composites used on the wing leading edges and other components. Although the thermal and aerodynamic limit may suggest Mach 2.4+, the envelope chart indicates that operationally, the limits are Mach 2.0 and 60,000 ft likely due to maintenance and pilot emergency considerations, despite the immense excess thrust available.