Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

So the F-22 may get a reprieve from the chopping block and the axe if Lockheed can upgrade them to see service into the 2040s, that would be good news indeed. Though I wonder what sort of upgrades the F-22 would need? New engines for a start, radar and quite possibly an update to the stealth coatings.
 
FighterJock said:
So the F-22 may get a reprieve from the chopping block and the axe if Lockheed can upgrade them to see service into the 2040s, that would be good news indeed. Though I wonder what sort of upgrades the F-22 would need? New engines for a start, radar and quite possibly an update to the stealth coatings.
Click to expand...

I would think that improved sensors, i.e. an IRST, possibly expansion of the AN/AAR-56 MLD into some kind of EODAS, or even using the EODAS hardware itself. Radar upgrades and improved connectivity, like the MADL as an IFDL replacement, LINK16 TX capability and upgrade to the latest standard, sensor fusion enhancements to take advantage of new/improved sensors and ofcourse new weaponary incl. AIM-260 etc. Certainly improvements in the RAM coatings and where feasible structures would be invitable. Whether an a new engine is necessary, let along affordable is yet another question. Likely ECS and PGS upgrades and maybe an engine life and performance enhancement could do the trick. I don't think that more thrust performance is required, but that fuel economy and performance increase for increased cooling and power generation are more important. Range and endurance is certainly the greatest drawback of the Raptor, albeit the new LO tanks should help to alleviate that issue, with some drawbacks.
 
I had forgotten about the IRST Scorpion82, Though I would also like to see the EOTS from the F-35 being integrated at some point as well as the F-22 has lacked a decent designator for smart weapons such as GPS and laser guided bombs.
 
Scorpion82 said:
I would think that improved sensors, i.e. an IRST, possibly expansion of the AN/AAR-56 MLD into some kind of EODAS, or even using the EODAS hardware itself. Radar upgrades and improved connectivity, like the MADL as an IFDL replacement, LINK16 TX capability and upgrade to the latest standard, sensor fusion enhancements to take advantage of new/improved sensors and ofcourse new weaponary incl. AIM-260 etc. Certainly improvements in the RAM coatings and where feasible structures would be invitable. Whether an a new engine is necessary, let along affordable is yet another question. Likely ECS and PGS upgrades and maybe an engine life and performance enhancement could do the trick. I don't think that more thrust performance is required, but that fuel economy and performance increase for increased cooling and power generation are more important. Range and endurance is certainly the greatest drawback of the Raptor, albeit the new LO tanks should help to alleviate that issue, with some drawbacks.
Click to expand...
Some of these upgrades have been listed in RDT&E budget documents for F-22 squadrons, specifically:

- Sensor enhancements to include a dedicated long-range IRST and dynamic SAR
- Low drag tank and pylon, intended to minimize host aircraft signature when jettisoned as well
- Engine enhancements, although specifics aren’t stated
- Cryptographic enhancements
- SATURN radio
- Navigation enhancements
- M-code GPS

This isn’t an exhaustive list, as aside from these items listed on the annual budget, several other upgrades were called out in other channels such as HMCS integration by the DIU. The F-22 is also the initial platform (threshold) for the AIM-260 JATM.

As far as the mirror-like coatings, since they’re found on OT jets but not DT ones, they may be a bit more prosaic that what some may be expecting.
 
FighterJock said:
So the F-22 may get a reprieve from the chopping block and the axe if Lockheed can upgrade them to see service into the 2040s, that would be good news indeed. Though I wonder what sort of upgrades the F-22 would need? New engines for a start, radar and quite possibly an update to the stealth coatings.
Click to expand...

The most significant of the current upgrades are external hardware - low RCS drop tanks and pylons that can be ejected in a more clean fashion than current ones such that the F-22 is more stealthy with tanks and doesn't pay a penalty for carrying drop tanks even when they are ejected. There are also new stealth pods for the outer pylons with undisclosed capability; likely at least one of them is a IRST. We've also seen new coatings tested on F-117s, F-22s, and F-35s so I could easily see that as a future update.

I don't think we will see major overhauls of central F-22 systems. I doubt the engines or radar ever get swapped out before retirement. The USAF has plainly stated the retirement of the F-22 will be directly linked to the success of the NGAD program (and the CCA program that has spun off as a separate program). They won't continue to maintain the type once NGAD is fielded in numbers.
 
I see your point Josh_TN, I wonder though how many NGADs will be purchased in comparison to the F-22? I wish that the USAF learn from the mistakes of the F-22 and purchase many more NGADs/CCA.
 
Josh_TN said:
The most significant of the current upgrades are external hardware - low RCS drop tanks and pylons that can be ejected in a more clean fashion than current ones such that the F-22 is more stealthy with tanks and doesn't pay a penalty for carrying drop tanks even when they are ejected.
Click to expand...

What kind of penalty are you talking about with regard to the tanks? Extant tanks are already jettisoned along with the pylons. Is it about the "holes" that remain open when the tanks are jettisoned?
 
Scorpion82 said:
What kind of penalty are you talking about with regard to the tanks? Extant tanks are already jettisoned along with the pylons. Is it about the "holes" that remain open when the tanks are jettisoned?
Click to expand...
I've read that yes, even after the dropping the standard tanks there is an RCS penalty. I assume its the rough edges and fixtures of the hard point. Apparently the new tanks address this in some way. I don't have details.
 
Same subject, slightly different interpretation(s)...

www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Could Adapt F-22 Stealth Fuel Tanks for Other Aircraft Like F-35

Capabilities like stealth fuel tanks being readied for the F-22's final years could be used by the F-35 and NGAD platforms.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

Also, no mention of F-22s remaining in service once NGADs would/will be available in sufficient numbers.
(Only that F-22 and NGAD will be part of the combined testforce at Edwards.)
 
FighterJock said:
Regarding the number of manned platforms in the NGAD/CCA Josh_TN, I would think that 200 is not nearly enough, I would think that the ideal number would be at least 300 NGADs/CCAs.
Click to expand...

The numbers the USAF is throwing about right now are 200 manned platforms and 1000 CCAs, or at least a thousand initially. The first number probably isn't going to change much due to the high costs of the platform (said to be hundreds of millions of dollars). The CCA number I could easily see fluctuating wildly in either direction depending how it gets used, how expensive it is, how successful it is deemed to be, etc.
 
Scorpion82 said:
possibly expansion of the AN/AAR-56 MLD into some kind of EODAS, or even using the EODAS hardware itself
Click to expand...
Both were once considered, especially the former, as it was deemed that a software improvement through new OFP was thought to be able to do the trick and was at some point seriously considered as later increment component during the early 2000s, iirc. Of course it never happened.

Scorpion82 said:
LINK16 TX capability and upgrade to the latest standard
Click to expand...
It is already getting a version of MIDS JTRS CMN-4 specifically meant for F-22. I guess the "special" part is concerning the integration of the terminal with F-22 ICNI suite.
 
FighterJock said:
I see your point Josh_TN, I wonder though how many NGADs will be purchased in comparison to the F-22? I wish that the USAF learn from the mistakes of the F-22 and purchase many more NGADs/CCA.
Click to expand...
Apparently China is looking at buying ~1000 J-20s. Those 150 F-22s are gonna be busy.
 
sferrin said:
Apparently China is looking at buying ~1000 J-20s. Those 150 F-22s are gonna be busy.
Click to expand...

If I were them I'd start by re-engining the existing ones so they had a kinetic advantage over a F-35.

To the extent the USAF has a problem facing the PLA-AF, it has a lot more to do with how many aircraft it can stage and support in theater than how many it has, and an extra thousand F-22s wouldn't probably dramatically change that situation.
 
Josh_TN said:
If I were them I'd start by re-engining the existing ones so they had a kinetic advantage over a F-35.
Click to expand...
Current understanding is they already have both the kinetic and missile advantage, though?
 
Ainen said:
Current understanding is they already have both the kinetic and missile advantage, though?
Click to expand...

I’ve never seen figures on speed but I thought it was assumed they were non super cruise without the new engine, in which case it seems they are both in the same ball park kinematicly. Weapons wise, they have two short range missiles that F-35 does not.
 
Certainly would not like to be at the back of the F-22s engines when it was in full afterburner that is for sure. Ear defenders would be needed. :eek:
 
That would mean that the NGAD would have far more thrust than the F-22 or the F-35 for that matter, if my maths is correct.
 

How The U.S. Air Force Wants To Change Its Deployments | Aviation Week Network

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall announced this plan during a speech earlier this month at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Essentially, the Air Force deployment model aims to be somewhat like a Marine Corps MEU, where the squadron along with its supporting attachments will be composited under one command and perform a work-up before deploying, vice the squadron simply using whatever existing supporting units at its deployment location. In theory this would enable the squadron to be more self-sufficient and deploy from less prepared locations, which should improve dispersion and survivability. It's an interesting shift, although I do wonder what implications it has for Air Force manpower which may require adjustments to move to this new deployment method.

In other news, AN/ALR-94 sustainment.
www.flightglobal.com

BAE Systems lands five-year deal for F-22 electronic warfare support

Under the contract, BAE Systems will continue to manage the air superiority fighter's AN/ALR-94 electronic-warfare system, providing repairs, upgrades, logistics, test equipment maintenance, depot-level spares and engineering support.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
bobbymike said:
Looking forward to 90k-100k out the back of NGAD.
Click to expand...
combined response.
FighterJock said:
That would mean that the NGAD would have far more thrust than the F-22 or the F-35 for that matter, if my maths is correct.
Click to expand...
Yup.

And if the USN NGAD is using the same engines, it will be able to stand on its tail at MTOW and accelerate vertically! (Expecting some 85klbs for the USN NGAD due to catapult limits)
 
Looks like the NGAD/FA-XX is going to be a mighty powerfull fighter once built and put into service, I certainly would not like to come up against one in combat in the future that is for sure.
 
This is an incredibly cheeky and flamebait statement, but what do you think about the opinion that the F-22 is not a very good aircraft?
And I don't mean to base it on some sort of hidden internet rumors or 'analysis' articles of sketchy military news websites, but on the fact of how the US has employed (or didn't employ) the plane.
It's bragging rights are based on the statement that the mere presence of its fearsome capabilities have prevented its opponents from acting, which is an unfalsifiable statement.
Despite the fact that the US has been at constant war against a variety of opponents during the plane's entire existence, its only air to air kill have been a slow moving high altitude balloon. For every other theather, opponent, from low tech to high, from small to big, the US has elected to use a different platform. That signals to me, that there's nothing that the F-22 does the best or in the most cost effective manner.
The fact that the US has procured and used a billion planes of various types, including heavily upgraded F-15s, its direct predecessor, and Congress has decided to cancel the project quite early signal to me, that military experts didn't see enough potential in the plane to justify its pricetag.

Yeah, it's basically a cliche to describe Congress as a bunch of bumbling morons, but I'm pretty sure the people who are literally in charge of spending untold billions of dollars of money, and determine the future of the aerospace industry of the US have much deeper reasoning and expert opinion on their side, in contrast to internet commenters who'd like to see more of their cool plane.
 
That is true Forest Green, it was a bad thing to do to stop the production of the F-22 when the USAF could have so easily went ahead and built the full 750 Raptors. Let's see what happens to the NGAD order once it enters production, I think that they should not repeat the same mistake again.
 
Arguments for 750 Raptors are unconnected to any plausible reality remotely related to how events actually played out.
Even 350 or 500 Raptors would have meant no F-35 and US forces having to, into the future, make do with “warmed up” later variants of F-16s, Super Hornets and Harriers II’s. Leaving their combat aircraft fleets looking significantly more outdated and vulnerable than they currently do.

I’m a fan of the F-22, and in my own rather potentially unrealistic scenario it’s a pity that another 40 - 60 were not built so to increase the numbers of the fleet that were more readily sustainable over the longer term, to give a bit more critical mass and reduce the significance of the early blocks.

But hundreds more F-22s (more than 600 more?) would have left you with a very resource intensive fleet of relatively inflexible airframes re: different roles they could undertake, and not at all well matched to the tasks and combat that the US airforce has actually found itself undertaking since the real-world decisions were made to curtail the F-22 production run. And as mentioned above the cost of that fleet would have a very significant negative impact on the quality of the rest of the US combat aircraft fleets (airforce, Navy and Marines).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom