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

a reply to: nwtrucker

There are advantages to sixth gen, if it's done right, as opposed to restarting. If they stick to something similar to the B-21, and F-117, and use proven technologies, COTS, and spread initial costs over years instead of all at once, then it will keep costs reasonable, while allowing for other programs. If they try to do things the way they've always been done, then yes, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Personally, I still say get rid of the generational system completely, and just build what's needed, instead of trying to pigeonhole it into an existing way of thinking. That will save you a lot more money in the long run.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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. [/quote

Not "according to me" as you say. Comparing a '70s platform and the gamesmanship then and now is pretty inaccurate. Bragging about climb rates and speed records was the norm. Now? They won't even try to break old records for fear of exposing too much information. When side comments like the Raptor on dry thrust outperforms every aspect of the envelope of the F-15 on afterburner...well You'll forgive me for assuming the reality is they aren't 'similar'.

Maybe 'near' Mach 3 is more accurate, but I will bet the house that it's faster than is being admitted and the 2.4-2.5 is what's being admitted...

a reply to: nwtrucker

The faster you go, the more heat your aircraft generates. The more heat your aircraft generates, the more your skin and materials are affected, and the harder it is to hide the IR signature. The only time the F-22 would be able to get anywhere near Mach 2.5, is well before it gets to any target area. They're going to have to slow down before they get there to allow the heat to dissipate and reduce their IR signature. It's also going to use a lot more fuel.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

The F-15 can do mach 2.5 clean for a limited time, the F-22 has fixed geometry engine intakes for stealth which limit the top speed so it is slower than the F-15. But it can supercruise at about mach 1.6 with no reheat.

a reply to: JimTSpock

I know, which is why I said if. The airframe and structures don't allow for high mach numbers.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes I know you know lol. Was agreeing that the F-22 doesn't do mach 3 and airframe design is optimized for stealth and agility not absolute top speed. Mach 2.2 to 2.4
Gen 6 fighter will take 20+ years the F-22s will have to last until then, they won't build more IMO just too expensive too much work. The F-35 will do.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Understood. No argument from me. The same applies to anyone's aircraft. Likely only worthwhile as you say before and perhaps departure from a combat area.

The only reason I raise 'speed' was in context of the overall understating of the F-22's-and F-35's, for that matter- capabilities. Even then, from the framework of the dominance the F-22 still provides. Much like the F-15 did in it's day.

Be it merely upgrading the avionics to, or perhaps even better, than the F-35 OR a full on 5.5 Gen upgrade. It IS a potential alternative to a 6th Gen. at this juncture.

originally posted by: JimTSpock

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

The F-15 can do mach 2.5 clean for a limited time, the F-22 has fixed geometry engine intakes for stealth which limit the top speed so it is slower than the F-15. But it can supercruise at about mach 1.6 with no reheat.

Fixed geometry intakes is only one factor. Thrust is another and the thrust IS the measurement of ALL factors of the engine's advantages and disadvantages in total. Up to 1/3 more thrust out of the F-119s...

T/W ratio, aerodynamics....

a reply to: nwtrucker

And that thrust doesn't do you any good if the air going into the engines isn't usable.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

And that thrust doesn't do you any good if the air going into the engines isn't usable.

Are you saying that all the rave bragging at the beginning of the F-22's tenure that It would beat all the F-15's records was wrong? The F-22 cannot best the F-15's envelope completely? Remember, even the IR reduction reduces performance somewhat.

Yet at the early F-22 displays, the announcers gave the thrust at 40,000 then 'dropped to 35K...announced. The only guy who I talked to, many years back from Edwards...during the 'YF years', said the PW people told them 37,600.

That's still over 20% higher. Fixed geometry intakes don't eat much of that. Not to mention the fixed positioning is optimized. (I have no idea beyond radar returns from the blades, what altitude or throttle position is optimum for the F-22.)

It raises a question you might have a thought on...Seeing the IR signature goes out the roof at high speeds due to skin temperature, Is there any reason a variable intake couldn't be incorporated in a 'C' model for high speed? Especially on egress when there's no radar return from the engine blades?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Most of those F-15 records were set with an aircraft that had everything from radar to paint stripped from it. They even removed the extra radios.

Fixed geometry has nothing to do with engine thrust rating. The thrust rating is set at the factory during ground test runs with the intake wide open.

A variable geometry inlet works to move the shockwave, slow and smooth the air going into the engine. Supersonic air is so turbulent that it disrupts the engine, so you have to move the shockwave to its optional point for the engine. A fixed geometry inlet does that to a degree, but only to a certain point. Once you exceed what it's designed for, then you're getting at best a fraction of the airflow that you need for the engine to operate.

If you tried to incorporate it on a new aircraft, you'd have to add a lot of weight, potential issues with stealth features, and a lot of testing and cost.

The F-22 line will never re-start, the USAF have a new card in mind with the futur PCA and it is surely the better thing to do for sure.

F-16.net is just a forum, which people of all sorts use. The F-22 section is even somewhat dead, while the F-35 section is very much active, so some of the newest threads in the F-22 section are often very low quality and aren't worth paying much attention to. With this in mind I took a look at the F-22 section to see what you're talking about, the "F-22 Is 30 year old tech?" thread actually came from a quote by General Carlisle a United States Air Force four-star general and the current commander of Air Combat Command (ACC). Now you're here protraying this as a fight between Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force, when the evidence you're using is actually from the US Air Force itself. And the user who posted that has a habit of playing devils advocate, against the F-35 too.

I'm not sure you can really call the F-22 a 30 year old aeroplane, I would expect most of the technology to be mid-1990s. Note that complex system like a fighter jet is typically designed using functional decomposition (top-down). It's pretty common in industry that lower level components must be more mature than higher level modules which are made up of these components. So even though the F-22 has many modern capabilities - it is 5th generation after all - much of the base components are very old and obsolete. This sort of things can become worse due to the low numbers of aircraft built, the complexity of the systems (many layers to the design), and the highly integrated nature of the avionics itself.

All of this will make it harder to restart production, some components simply won't be being made anymore, and it will be harder to add capabilities to an old design. iirc, it was not until recently the F-22 could talk with other aircraft with Link 16, and it needs a special relay aircraft to do so. It was also one of the last aircraft to receive JHMCS. There has also been much innovation since the F-22 or other functions that might be required in the future. To name a few from both of these categories: DAS, IRST, HMD, datalinks, EHA's, Autonomous Logistics... etc..Therefore if production is restarted, expect some significant technology upgrades to the avionics, communications, and sensors.

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.

The USAF never received the number of F-22s that it required. Of course they want more. With that in mind it was Congress who ordered them to look into restarting the production line and it was the USAF Head of Air Combat Command who called the F-22 30 year old technology.

Rep. Paul Cook, R-Calif., asked Carlisle about a proposal to restart Lockheed Martin's F-22 production line, which was cut drastically short of the planned buy due to budget concerns. Congress has asked the Air Force to look at the cost of doing so, and whether it's a good option to fill the shortfall in fighter aircraft.

Carlisle said it's possible, but not likely in the same form the airplane took in the past.

"The F-22 is a fantastic airplane," he said. "I don't think it's a crazy idea to restart it. I do think that we probably would not bring an F-22 back in the form it is today, I think that's technology that's 30 years old, frankly."

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

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.

Nonsense. Lockheed Martin would have loved to keep producing them. The F-22 production was cut due to other funding priorities, short-termism, during the war-on-terror. It was a stupid mistake and honestly it seems like it was done to prove a point. Restarting F-22 production at the expense of 6th generation may be yet again an example of short-termism.

Here are things you have to consider:
- How much would restarting the F-22 production line cost. This includes upgrades to keep the aircraft relevant for decades longer than originally imagined (otherwise you have to replace them early and at great cost). How capable would it be? What is the value? When could they be operational?
- How much would a 6th generation aircraft cost? How capable would it be? What is the value? When could they be operational?

... and then compare the two.

Lastly, what does the Air Force actually need, considering all factors.

I can't make any judgement before I see this analysis.

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.

Do you know what a vested interest is?

Honestly it's a bit like the A-10. It has a cult following because the benefits are repeatedly overstated while the big picture is lost. Or, sometimes they flatly say things that are factually incorrect. You stated the F-22 is a Mach 3 aircraft (it isn't), you stated the benefits of the aircraft cannot be over-stated (they can), you stated that Australia wanted the F-22 (we don't). There was someone else whose name I am not going to mention who disagreed with the published performance information of the F-22, and proceeded to draw over performance charts to where he thought it was. Some of the critics of the F-35 now suddenly love the F-22, even though the difficulties of the F-35 were shared by the F-22.

Yes, a cult following is a good way to describe it.

Yes, I do have a vested interest. I have a vested interest in keeping my country and allies safe, now and in the future.

Speaking of General Carlisle, here is what he also said regarding reviving the F-22:

Carlisle also joined Secretary James in expressing skepticism about restarting production of the F-22. The general, considered one of the Raptor’s biggest supporters in the US military, said that “money is better spent” keeping production rates high for the F-35 — and, consequently, keeping costs down — instead of restarting the F-22 line. While noting this is “very much a personal opinion,” it would appear to put the kibosh on the idea. If Carlisle doesn’t support it, only direct action could lead to an F-22 restart,

breakingdefense.com...

... maybe that will change when the report on restarting F-22 production is released by early 2017.

a reply to: C0bzz


I think your comment of the F-22 Forum on F-16.net is merely your opinion.

I find it far more interesting than the F-35 forum, by far. In fact I find your whole post a twist right from the start. The Mach 3 point, I stand corrected on from mistake that sea level Mach is much faster than at altitude and 2K MPH is closer to 2.5 than three. Although I'd bet there's more legs available than admitted. Perhaps 2.6 or 2.7. A guess.

If you have ANY explanation why Congress banned exports of the F-22 other than Corporate interests, I'd love to hear it...as long as it isn't the secret technology gambit on that 'no longer needed, cold-war era'
Raptor was concerned when almost over-night it was OK to sell much newer technology in the F-35.

Of course, Lock Mart would love to have kept the F-22 production going, as you say they knew the money wasn't there for both the F-22 and the F-35. Yes? Which one was going to sell more units? The F-22 or the three variant F-35? Gee that's a hard one to figure out. (oh yes, don't try to tell me Australia didn't have interest in the F-22 at one point. They did. You know it and I know it.)

I can't say one way or the other which way you guys would have gone if the had been a choice between the two. It IS pretty obvious that Japan, who's building their own version, would have gone with the Raptor as would Israel, perhaps even Canada would have with also a large land mass to cover as two engines are better than one. Despite pork-barrel contracts to various countries as incentive to purchase the F-35 interest was iffy, also Australia where the noise was almost deafening from the 'pundits' against the purchase.

Add in the F-22 option to purchase and the F-35 sales drop, there goes the unit cost of the F-35 up and more countries get cold feet. Plenty or reason to ensure the Raptor ended up not only finished as a run but apparently, unlike any other current F model, too expensive to resume....

If there was a second run, no matter what the upgrades or lack thereof, there would be interest in purchasing them outside the U.S. if that export ban was lifted. Or are you going to argue that point as well?

So we go from an unneeded, cold-war era platform that is banned from export to only one of two current planes that can match or beat S-400s and we are 'short' of them. Official air force magazine....

Any bets against that four star already has his retirement job lined up??

Last point, yes, I know very well what a vested interest is.....cough, cough....even if it's only loyalty based. My 'cult' is the U.S. of A.. Period. Not any Corporation or aircraft. Enjoy your 35s....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think your comment of the F-22 Forum on F-16.net is merely your opinion.

Nothing supports your premise that MIC is trying to stop the F-22 production line from being restarted by posting on forums. One of the threads which portrayed the F-22 in a negative light was one which I considered extremely low quality, by the way, it was literally just a link to another (low-quality) forum, which was then torn-apart by other members. And the thread you mentioned about the F-22 using technology that is 30 years old was quoting a US Air Force general.

I find it far more interesting than the F-35 forum, by far. In fact I find your whole post a twist right from the start. The Mach 3 point, I stand corrected on from mistake that sea level Mach is much faster than at altitude and 2K MPH is closer to 2.5 than three. Although I'd bet there's more legs available than admitted. Perhaps 2.6 or 2.7. A guess.

For an aircraft the size of the F-22, the fuel capacity is very average. The thing with high-top speeds is it takes time to get there and it burns large amounts of fuel. As an example, the F-16 is a Mach 2 aircraft but to get there requires a clean aircraft (no external stores) and essentially all fuel is used. High speeds also require more complicated air inlets (i.e F-15 versus F-16) and increases skin temperature. So it doesn't seem like such a high top speed would be particularly useful - it has limited combat effectiveness, requires complicated intakes, and it makes the aircraft heat up more possibly requiring different materials.

Honestly I would expect the F-22 maximum mach to be around 2.4. The real advantage of the F-22 is that it's designed to super cruise and it carries stores internally. That's the real advantage, in a combat configuration it will be much better than any other aircraft, by far.

If you have ANY explanation why Congress banned exports of the F-22 other than Corporate interests

Congress ordered the Air Force to look into restarting F-22 production.

In 2010 Congress also ordered DoD to look into a export F-22 variant.

Recently, Congress has hardly been the enemy of the F-22, they are the reason this thread exists and they are the reason the USAF is looking into restarting F-22 production, even though the US Air Force itself is luke-warm to the idea. You were stating the opposite - that the USAF wanted to restart F-22 production and that Lockheed and Congress were blocking it. This is factually incorrect.

When the F-22 was still in production the US Air Force definitely wanted more. But now production has ended, the F-35 is closer to IOC, and there are other funding priorities like tankers and LRS-B. Now the USAF is luke-warm to the idea.

The F-35 from inception was designed for export, the F-22 wasn't. The F-22 is also a much more high-end fighter than the F-35. I'm sure the US would ban exporting the SSN submarines and the LRS-B too. I suppose it's also possible that a factor in banning the F-22 from export was the F-35.

(oh yes, don't try to tell me Australia didn't have interest in the F-22 at one point. They did. You know it and I know it.)

If by Australia you mean DoD, then not really. They did look into it and decided it did not provide the capabilities required. Obviously they were interested in what a 5th generation aircraft provides and in parliamentary hearings they have used the F-22 as an example of why the F-35 was chosen. Stealth. Avionics. (This was when the F-35 was early in testing).

Despite pork-barrel contracts to various countries as incentive to purchase the F-35 interest was iffy, also Australia where the noise was almost deafening from the 'pundits' against the purchase.

It's pretty common for aircraft to have industrial offsets and this is certainly not unique to the F-35. The F-16, F/A-18 (Classic), and F-15 had similarities.

I can't say one way or the other which way you guys would have gone if the had been a choice between the two. It IS pretty obvious that Japan, who's building their own version, would have gone with the Raptor as would Israel, perhaps even Canada would have with also a large land mass to cover as two engines are better than one. Despite pork-barrel contracts to various countries as incentive to purchase the F-35 interest was iffy, also Australia where the noise was almost deafening from the 'pundits' against the purchase.

I will concede maybe Japan would have gone with the F-22. Israel may have, although the majority of their purchases are for strike aircraft (Advanced F-16 and F-15 Strike Eagle) which is exactly what the F-35 is. As far as Canada goes, their government is trying to reverse the decision on the F-35 partly because they think it's too expensive (the F-22 is even more-so) and I'm betting they want a multirole fighter. So I doubt they would have ever gone with the F-22, it was always a battle between the Super Hornet and the F-35.

Any bets against that four star already has his retirement job lined up??

So, because the head of Air Combat Command disagrees with you he's getting a job at Lockheed?

You have things backwards:
- US Air Force is at best luke-warm to restarting F-22 production as proven by General Carlisle and others. You are conflating loving the F-22, which the US Air Force does, with wanting to restart F-22 production. The US Air Force seems absolutely against buying more F-22's if it means cuts to the F-35.
- Congress is ordering the USAF to look into restarting F-22 production.

Was the F-22 cut because of other funding priorities? Yes. And no it wasn't just the F-35, it was the war on terror and lack of adversaries. Short-termism. I suppose it's possible that in the 2000's the US was pushing for allies to buy the F-35 and this was one factor into the F-22 export ban, but I'm not convinced. Either way, it's not the 2000s anymore.

a reply to: Zaphod58


I can see that. It makes sense.

a reply to: C0bzz


Well, that clarifies a lot. Thank you.

The only point that remains for me and my swinish suspicion is the fact that Congress banned the export of the F-22. You can say the F-35 was 'intended' for export and the F-22 wasn't... as well may be, but if fits both sides of the question. Mine AND yours. Who's intention not to export the F-22 and what motive...probably a mixture..

I am a 'fan' of the F-22 and hold no doubt the F-35 will come to be viewed with far more respect as time goes on. That fandom (?) is based on years of picking up little snippets here and there about it and is based on that understanding-as limited as it is- add in seeing close up an air show demonstration of some of it's capabilities.

I am struck by a comment by a senior poster on that F-22 forum replying to the 'question' "What would an F-22 be like with F-35 Avionix"? The response was an "unimaginable nightmare for anyone going up against it." I believe that to be an accurate assessment. Be it direct upgrade with the current fleet....is that even possible?...or with a new run.

It is, IMO,a good thing that it is at least being looked at as a possible option.

I'll wai t for F35 vs F22.repo ts!

a reply to: C0bzz

Both F-15 and F-16 are exported.

Why the F-22 not, even to Japan or Germany? There must be some extra special technology on it.