It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-22's biggest problem.....

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
www.airforcemag.com...

A very interesting article which obviously has the 'unofficial' backing of USAF otherwise wouldn't be appearing in their mag. It seems clear that the USAF is setting the ground-work for a new F-22 run with upgrades rather than 'waiting' for a sixth Gen. fighter.

As this becomes clearer, the counter-attack has begun even on F-16.net. A number of threads and Links 'exposing' the 'weaknesses' of the F-22 as 30 year old technology...on and on. One can only conclude that the fight between the USAF and the MIC is on...fast and furious....LOL.

Obviously the future contracts for both the majors as well as the collateral corporations lies with a sixth gen development process. A much more restricted cost and therefore opportunity for business for the MIC if the F-22 run is given the go ahead which would delay the sixth Gen's development.

The result is a 'war' if you will, on the direction the U.S. will go. It IS nothing but a PR war, yet, it does affect the future development of our Air Force.Look to an increased PR on the threat of the Chinese and Russian fifth Gen development as a motive to push our sixth gen campaign.

If the USAF holds the line on more Raptors, look for more data about the Raptor and it's capabilities from the Air Force that has been previously withheld, rather than really 'secret', increased top speed numbers, operational ceilings especially pressure suited? So on....

While the Raptor still isn't 'for sale'-and that could change as well- The Raptor will have to be 'sold' all over again both to the public and Congress as the route to go.

The fight's on....
edit on 15-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Hmmm, maybe they should turn it over to Tesla to convert it to a Drone.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


Hmm, I suspect there's more corporate support on this forum than I thought...



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I am by no means an expert but if the shape and performance is good, it should be much more economical to upgrade the ram coatin, benefit 30 years of carbon manufacture, and with what I would imagine are smaller, more powerful but less power hungry, the avionics could be improved.

Of course the problem we see time and time again, is that you can't just build F-22 again, there will be masses of obsolescence and a whole army (sorry airforce) of specialists wanting the latest and greatest turning on what looks good on paper is. The relatively simple rebuild of an F-22 into a massive, costly and time consuming complete redesign and airworthiness testing programme.

Not unlike building a new jet which is designed from the start with these systems in easily accessible maintenance locations.

i love the idea but don't agree the economics are as cut and dry as is being made out, probably cheaper and easier extensively modifying a F-35 into an F-36 ATF with a shape similar to the 22.

What is the most costly part of aircraft design? If you laid out all the F-35 innards and told an aerodynamics expert, take that and build me a Mach 2 heighly manourverable stealth aircraft....it might be better and cheaper than re opening the 22 line!


edit on 15 7 2016 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I'm not expert either. Yet the F-22 is already around a Mach 3 airframe-even though it can't maintain that speed-so why try to turn an SUV into a corvette...as Zaph said. There are downsides to a new 22 run, but certainly less barriers than an outright sixth gen of two variations.

The new run, if restricted to 'avionics' wouldn't be that expensive and seems to be the plan.

Bottom line is we don't have enough of them and we need more....



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The F-22 is certainly NOT a mach 3 aircraft. It is an aircraft which has a cult following however.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Forensick

I'm not expert either. Yet the F-22 is already around a Mach 3 airframe-even though it can't maintain that speed-so why try to turn an SUV into a corvette...as Zaph said. There are downsides to a new 22 run, but certainly less barriers than an outright sixth gen of two variations.

The new run, if restricted to 'avionics' wouldn't be that expensive and seems to be the plan.

Bottom line is we don't have enough of them and we need more....



I realize that this question is going to sound cheeky, but I'm actually quite sincere, and I'd like to know what those more knowledgeable about aircraft development, procurement, and production think: What are the odds that a new F-22 production run would really be limited to new avionics? Given the feature creep apparent in military equipment across all branches of the US military in recent years, wouldn't a new-run F-22 likely suffer the same fate and become more expensive?



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: PhloydPhan

1. As other shave said, the F-22 restart would require enormous amounts of retraining people. Yes, its been documented above and beyond any previous shutdown. OTOH, having worked in aerospace, documenting a thing and watching it is far, far from doing a thing.

2. Lockheed even went as far as to sell the buildings associated with the F-22 to a university.

3. Even restarting the current F-22 would make a headache simply because suppliers will no longer carry many components. OR even make them. Nor are there comparable ones. An F-22 restart would require[/] new avionics. And ...

4. There's no way any USAF folks would NOT tinker with the design past just the avionics. And the avionics alone cannot be copy and pasted from the F-35 into the F-22.

5. Finally, the time it would take to get the F-22C(*) going would end up taking almost as long as getting a 6th gen working from getting the assembly line working to getting the new avionics functional. You MIGHT buy 5 years. tops. OTOH, with a B-21 style procurement for a 6th gen, we might even tie that race.

I think shutting down the F-22 production line was an utter mistake. I just think restarting it is just as big of one at this point. She's a great bird, but she's already becoming a spinster relative to technology.



*. the F-22B was to be the two seater.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
The F-22 is certainly NOT a mach 3 aircraft. It is an aircraft which has a cult following however.


Depends what you call a 'Mach 3 aircraft'. Is the F-22 capable of reaching M3 at the right altitude? Yes. It would be spending a lot of time in the shop afterwards.

With a lot of reading between the lines over the years, the capability of the F-22 is UNDERSTATED. From thrust to speed, altitude no to mention EW.

This goes back to 2004 and yes, it's only a 'reporter', yet where did she get her info from....


video.foxnews.com...=show-clips



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: PhloydPhan

Your not asking me, obviously, yet the very people your asking have vested interests. Work for, have investments in, loyalties to, various Corporations.


Keep that in mind....



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The F-22 can get nowhere near Mach 3. It's a Mach 2 aircraft, and unless you're willing to go straight down from 60,000 feet, you're not getting a Mach 2 aircraft to Mach 3.
edit on 7/16/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh yes, we all have vested interests in these companies, because we don't agree with you. I have exactly zero ties to any aviation related company, and yet, I'm dead set against this idea, because it's going to screw everything else that is badly needed for years to come.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Just curious. What company do you think we are loyal to?

Lockheed? The F-35 is made by the same company. For them, its six of one and half a dozen of another.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha


Look, there is much I don't know. Having said that, the very fact, as you say, that Lock Mart sold the buildings....right away, even though traditionally runs continue for decades...to wit, f-15, f-16, f-18, why would they cut that potentiality off??

The only answer I can come up with is the F-35 and it's sales! Then there's this current scenario, restarting vs a 6th gen. two variant alternative. My B.S. meter is pinging in the red. Make the F-22 too 'expensive' to restart thereby ensuring even more money is spent on a sixth gen development that would suffer all the barriers, problems, materials issues that the Raptor would. Assuming the technology even exists!! (Which, I surely don't know.)

If this was deliberate by Lock Mart, then they should eat the cost of restoring those 'buildings' and stupidly trying to manipulate the game. Period.

All of a sudden a 5.5 Gen F-22 is not a good idea? Go straight from 5th to 6th? Despite the horrific cost?

It is why I smell a rat. All the 'logical arguments' why not an upgraded F-22 and not a SINGLE comment from anyone about the barriers and costs, logistics, runway to two variant 6th gens.

It seems the biggest barrier to that expenditure is the F-22! One poster calls it a 'cult' following. (No vested interest there...
) When the more that the F-22 is seen and becomes general knowledge the more obvious that it stands alone.

The only omitted information is what technologies are already extant for the sixth Gen that we/I don't know about. Posters have implied that it doesn't even exist yet. Yet even that can't be trusted for security reasons.

I in my simple, base mind that's the key. If that massive game-changing technology doesn't exist already, then a 5.5 Gen makes sense in the interim. If it does exist then my opinion on the subject is less than useless.

Bah...what do I know...NADA.





edit on 16-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh yes, we all have vested interests in these companies, because we don't agree with you. I have exactly zero ties to any aviation related company, and yet, I'm dead set against this idea, because it's going to screw everything else that is badly needed for years to come.


I'm didn't say 'everybody'. Certainly not you. I'm aware of your valid issues regarding tankers and the like.

Yet the USAF disagrees with you as far as enough Raptors go. The cut of the F-22's production wasn't the Air Force's doing. Congress via politics from Lock Mart and Co.

You've vent plenty about the condition of the USAF. Look to who's really responsible for it. It's surely not the Air Force. Or me....



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

The F-22 can get nowhere near Mach 3. It's a Mach 2 aircraft, and unless you're willing to go straight down from 60,000 feet, you're not getting a Mach 2 aircraft to Mach 3.


As the 2004 Vid of Greta in an F-16 chasing a Raptor clearly stated the F-22 could top 2000 MPH and obviously she got that from the Air Force, when has anything to do with the Raptor's actually performance ever been given? 2K is flirting with Mach 3 and assuming there's more unsaid, tell me again it can't do it??



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

And if you look at the Air Force comments, they're largely lukewarm at best on restarting the production line.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

If you have a manufacturing business, and part of it is shut down, regardless of why, and there's no sign that it's going to start up again, do you keep the buildings and tooling sitting there doing nothing? Do you keep the buildings and keep paying taxes, utilities, etc on them in the hopes that some day they'll be needed again? It was made clear that there was little chance of the line starting up again when it was cancelled.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

If it were true, then it would top out at just over Mach 2.5. That's similar to what the F-15 can do, so according to you, the F-15 should be able to reach Mach 3 as well.



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

If you have a manufacturing business, and part of it is shut down, regardless of why, and there's no sign that it's going to start up again, do you keep the buildings and tooling sitting there doing nothing? Do you keep the buildings and keep paying taxes, utilities, etc on them in the hopes that some day they'll be needed again? It was made clear that there was little chance of the line starting up again when it was cancelled.


Ok. Then it's an either or proposition. Restart or start anew. For the Raptor or the sixth gen. Either way a barrier. Yes?

Then the argument is a wash as it's applicable to both.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join