Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Depends on the Rafale variant and operator. The Scorpion HMIT was originally developed and made by Gentex and Raytheon, before the Gentex helmet-mounted display and motion tracking system was acquired by Thales USA in 2012. Belgian F-16AM/BM and Air National Guard F-16C Block 40/42 are also users of the Scorpion. It was also tested on the F-22 in 2013, but fell victim to sequestration and was never fielded.
 
Is this actual imagery from the F-22's MLD? First video is apparently a sensor on ground, second one is different and mounted on a helicopter...

While the MLD might in theory offer such capabilities, if it's turned into a SAIRST, is there any confirmation that it ever evolved that way?

And who says that the AIM-9X Blk II is not already integrated with LOAL capability on the F-22?
 
Scorpion82 said:
Is this actual imagery from the F-22's MLD? First video is apparently a sensor on ground, second one is different and mounted on a helicopter...

While the MLD might in theory offer such capabilities, if it's turned into a SAIRST, is there any confirmation that it ever evolved that way?

And who says that the AIM-9X Blk II is not already integrated with LOAL capability on the F-22?
Click to expand...

MAWS system is also being upgraded
 
It's something but realistically airbases, airports, or just about anything important will need more than that to disable drones bad actors or any psychopath with too much time on their hands might try to fly into something important.
 
Scorpion82 said:
Sure, but too what extend has it been upgraded?
Click to expand...

You may recall that back in 2022 there were a number of.... I can't call them new stories with a straight face, sorry..... things written? about the Air Force looking for an IRST solution for the F-22. These were based on a set of requests published by the F-22 program office. The document with these requests was "F-22 Program Office Focus Topics for AFVentures SBIR 22.1 Direct to Phase II Open Topic". The relevant portion of that document is:

Long Range Infrared Sensing and Object Detection
Solution/Opportunity: The F-22 Program Office is seeking novel hardware and software solutions that provide long range infrared sensing and object detection capabilities.
Evaluation Goals: Product will be evaluated on ability to provide accurate long range infrared sensing and object detection.
Click to expand...

The "things written" assumed this was for an IRST. It was not. It was for the threat warning system. The IRST pod program is a completely separate, non-SBIR program that is unrelated to this.
 
quellish said:
The "things written" assumed this was for an IRST. It was not. It was for the threat warning system. The IRST pod program is a completely separate, non-SBIR program that is unrelated to this.
Click to expand...
The threat warning receiver has also been associated with "Project Keystone", was in TMRR (technological maturation & risk reduction) until recently, now in studies and prototyping and planned for EMD down select in FY25. This item has been mentioned for a few years in budget documents already, I believe.
 
VTOLicious said:
Hmm, also wonder where that would be...
View attachment 742315
Click to expand...
I wonder if there is something wrong with the information provided on this sheet. It says:

NOTE:
All quantities in US gallons and litres
Total fuel: 5450 gallons, 23043 litres

That gives a conversion factor of ~4.23 which is far off the standard ~3.79 (US). But it also doesn't match imperial gallon ~4.55.

Did I miss something?
 
Capacity (values in gallons are specified in technical order 00-105E-9)

F-1A: 380.8 gallons (2551.4 lb; 1157.3 kg)
F-1B: 323.6 gallons (1558.4 lb; 706.9 kg)
F-2: 710.8 gallons (4762.4 lb; 2160.2 kg)
A-1: 380.8 gallons (2551.4 lb; 1157.3 kg) x2
A-2: 375.3 gallons (2514.5 lb; 1140.6 kg) x2
A-3: 77.3 gallons (517.9 lb; 234.9 kg) x2

Approximately = 3082 gallons (20,649.4 pounds; 9366.5 kg)

external tanks: 2 x 592.0 gallons (2 x 1799.09 kg)

At normal weight, the following tanks remain filled:
Two wings A-2R|L – 1140.6 kg x 2,
Sizes: A-3R/L - 234.9 kg / 2 and F-2 - 2160.2 kg

Total: 2281.2 + 469,8 + 2160,2 = 4911.2 kg (52.4%)
 
Scorpion82 said:
Can be calculated based on the weight & fuel data.
Click to expand...
I make it about 32% for the Raptor and ~37% for the F-35A/C. Then again the densities used for the fuel in the above calcs seem low wrt following link, which suggest the F-35 uses Jet A-1 fuel for lower freezing point:

en.wikipedia.org

Jet fuel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
0.804 kg/L (6.71 lb/US gal)
Click to expand...

Applying the same density for the F-22 and 2978.25L would work out to 2394.5kg not 2140.7kg. Taking 20,649.4lb and multiplying by 2394.5/2140.7 gives:

23097.5lbs total and a fuel fraction of 36% for the F-22.
 
paralay said:
The Raptor cannot carry four external tanks, only two
Click to expand...
It was built with hard points and plumbing for 4 tanks. Don’t know if it was ever cleared for this configuration, have only ever seen it flying with 2 tanks.
 
Interesting to see if there has been any non-flight testing with four fuel tanks for the F-22? Certainly I have never seen any F-22s flying with more that two tanks as well in YouTube videos F-119Doctor. Surely they would use four tanks only for long-range ferry flights only in that case and not for combat.
 
paralay said:
according to Flaterick, changes in the wing design led to the abandonment of four tanks
Click to expand...
That is quite possible. There were configuration changes between the flight test aircraft, the four PRTV aircraft, and the serial production that followed. They may have truncated the wing plumbing so only the two inboard hard points can feed fuel. It appears that the outer two hard points are being used for the new IRST pods.
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting to see if there has been any non-flight testing with four fuel tanks for the F-22? Certainly I have never seen any F-22s flying with more that two tanks as well in YouTube videos F-119Doctor. Surely they would use four tanks only for long-range ferry flights only in that case and not for combat.
Click to expand...
Yes, this would have been a ferry only configuration.
 
So the four tank configuration was never use because of a wing redesign paralay, I wonder why the wing design was needed in the first place? It is a pit that they could not have redesigned the hardpoints as well to keep the four tanks.
 
Forest Green said:
I make it about 32% for the Raptor and ~37% for the F-35A/C. Then again the densities used for the fuel in the above calcs seem low wrt following link, which suggest the F-35 uses Jet A-1 fuel for lower freezing point:

en.wikipedia.org

Jet fuel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


Applying the same density for the F-22 and 2978.25L would work out to 2394.5kg not 2140.7kg. Taking 20,649.4lb and multiplying by 2394.5/2140.7 gives:

23097.5lbs total and a fuel fraction of 36% for the F-22.
Click to expand...
The primary fuel specification for the F-22 was JP-8. Several years ago, the USAF converted to commercial Jet A with a specific USAF additive package. Alternate approved fuels for the F-22 include Jet A-1 and TS-1, among others.
 
F119Doctor said:
The primary fuel specification for the F-22 was JP-8. Several years ago, the USAF converted to commercial Jet A with a specific USAF additive package. Alternate approved fuels for the F-22 include Jet A-1 and TS-1, among others.
Click to expand...
www.repsol.com

Kerosene JP-8 - fuel for military aircraft| Repsol

JP-8 (which stands for “jet propulsion”) is a fuel derived from kerosene with additives for military use.
www.repsol.com www.repsol.com
en.wikipedia.org

Jet fuel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

JP-8 - 0.775-0.84kg/L
Jet A - 0.804kg/L
Jet A-1 - 0.82kg/L

So for 13,030.92L in F-22:
JP-8 - 10,098.96 - 10,945.97kg (22264.40 - 24131.73lb) - 34.36 - 37.24% fuel fraction (FF)
Jet A - 10,476.86kg (23097.52lb) - 35.64% fuel fraction (FF)
Jet A-1 - 10685.35kg (23557.16lb)- 36.35% fuel fraction (FF)
 
F119Doctor said:
That is quite possible. There were configuration changes between the flight test aircraft, the four PRTV aircraft, and the serial production that followed. They may have truncated the wing plumbing so only the two inboard hard points can feed fuel. It appears that the outer two hard points are being used for the new IRST pods.
Click to expand...

IRST pods are being fed fuel for cooling, so maybe some of the plumbing is still there.
 
It's also possible that the PAO cooling circuit may be modified as well, as those lines do run to the wingtips to cool some ESM/CNI antennas. On the F-22, the heat from the PAO loops is transferred to the fuel which acts as a heat sink. At low fuel quantities especially on the ground, a ram air turbine or the APGS can provide additional cooling.
 
paralay said:
according to Flaterick, changes in the wing design led to the abandonment of four tanks
Click to expand...
The wing design was changed to be stronger though, replaced some spars from composites to titanium because of live fire testing.

But the problem wasn’t really strength, but was potential fatigue, I think the concern is that 4 tanks might age the airframe more quickly. Some kind of laser shock peening was developed to treat the structure for fatigue but USAF has enough tankers that they didn’t bother with 4 tanks anyways.
 
The revised wing structure indeed substituted some of the composite spars for titanium alloy, and that was one of the causes of weight growth. Another one was the tail fin buffet occurring at certain air speeds and angles of attack that was resolved by changing the rear vertical fin spar from composite to titanium alloy. The F-22 is structurally quite heavy, partly because it can maneuver at 9 g at 64,000 lb gross weight with full internal fuel, essentially the takeoff gross weight. As far as fuel capacity in the T.O. is concerned, some of it is unusable fuel, but the T.O. may also include tanks that were deactivated during EMD to save costs ("saddle" tanks).

The Air Force has a broad Airframe Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), including one for the F-22, and indeed one technology application was glass bead peening (GSP) and laser shock peening (LSP). GSP and LSP are applied to stressed areas such as the tailboom and the wing attach lugs to mitigate crack initiation and growth.

Both GSP and LSP are part of the Structural Retrofit/Repair Program (SRP) which concluded in 2021. Early production lot aircraft with certain areas that were improperly heat treated did have to be inducted into SRP multiple times to resolve potential fatigue issues.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
It's also possible that the PAO cooling circuit may be modified as well, as those lines do run to the wingtips to cool some ESM/CNI antennas. On the F-22, the heat from the PAO loops is transferred to the fuel which acts as a heat sink. At low fuel quantities especially on the ground, a ram air turbine or the APGS can provide additional cooling.
Click to expand...

Thanks that makes more sense to me. Fuel gets hot and isn't suitable for electronics cooling, for equipment/parts where the fuel is still cooler it's ofcourse a different story.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
The wing design was changed to be stronger though, replaced some spars from composites to titanium because of live fire testing.

But the problem wasn’t really strength, but was potential fatigue, I think the concern is that 4 tanks might age the airframe more quickly. Some kind of laser shock peening was developed to treat the structure for fatigue but USAF has enough tankers that they didn’t bother with 4 tanks anyways.
Click to expand...

Fatigue is strength related. A 4 tank config would have likely been used for ferry flights only anyway (low structural loads).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom