Register here

Author Topic: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor  (Read 233560 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #885 on: May 05, 2018, 11:06:08 pm »
Quote
Working primarily with RAND's conclusions from 2011, the Air Force crafted the following cost estimates and assumptions for what it would take to restart F-22 production and produce 194 additional Raptors:
  • Total non-recurring start-up costs over a five year period totaling $9.869 billion in 2016 dollars, equal to more than $10 billion in 2018 dollars at the time of writing.
  • This included approximately $228 million to refurbish production tooling, $1.218 billion to re-qualify sources of components and raw materials, $5.768 billion to redesign four subsystems, and $1.156 billion     in other associated “restart costs,” along with $1.498 billion in “additional government costs.”
  • Two of the four subsystems needing "redesign" would be the AN/APG-77 low probability intercept (LPI) radar and the F119 engine, neither of which are still in production.
  • The other two were the aircraft’s software package and an unspecified fourth system, acting as a placeholder to hedge against the Air Force discovering that other systems needed replacement during the restart process.
  • The aircraft’s electronic warfare, communication, navigation, and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems were among those that might also need replacement or substitution with another system.
  • While the 2011 RAND study estimated an average unit cost of $266 million, this was based on a total purchase of just 75 aircraft.
  • The Air Force estimated that the initial unit cost for an order of 194 aircraft would be approximately $216 million. This would drop to around $206 million by the time the last one rolled off the production line.
  • The unit price would begin to largely level out after the service had purchased the first 100 aircraft.
  • The total procurement cost would be between $40 and $42 billion, with the entire program costing a little more than $50.3 billion.

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20633/exclusive-heres-the-f-22-production-restart-study-the-usaf-has-kept-secret-for-over-a-year
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 11:07:50 pm by Triton »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #886 on: May 08, 2018, 02:55:29 am »
^ We would be down $10-15 Billion even before we see a single F-22A (accounting for overruns). This comes to about 100-150 F-35As ( 4-6 squadrons). Also, note that NGAD funding over the FYDP minus that for the AETP is roughly $10 Billion which would have likely taken a hit if the USAF committed to the F-22 re-start. All in, from a USAFs perspective it probably makes more sense to pump that $10-15 Billion into the NGAD/PCA over the next 5-10 years and get a NG Adaptive Engine, and de-risk/mature other technologies in order to hopefully cut down on the TMRR--EMD time for the PCA. Till then, the F-35A buy along with the legacy upgrade program can keep or grow the squadron strength. The existing F-22 fleet too needs quite a bit of hardware upgrade over the next half a decade to a decade so that will eat up some of the funds as well.

Japan probably has to now decide whether it wants to spend $55 Billion to buy a fleet of modernized F-22As or go all in on a clean sheet. Interesting choice but and I'm sure they will look at other alternatives very closely. This is serious money even if spread over 10-15 years given their budget and lack of economic growth.

Quote
TOKYO -- U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin has approached Japan with plans for a next-generation fighter jet based on its elite F-22 stealth fighter, demonstrating both Washington's trust in Tokyo as a defense partner and its eagerness to balance the scales on trade with expensive equipment.

The advanced aircraft would enter service around 2030, when Japan is set to start retiring its fleet of F-2 fighters. It would combine elements of the F-22 and Lockheed's smart F-35 stealth fighter. Developing a new fighter typically takes more than 10 years.

The Japanese government has pegged the total cost of its next-generation fighter project at around 6 trillion yen ($55 billion). This includes 1.5 trillion yen for development and another 1.5 trillion yen for acquiring around 100 of the jets, in addition to costs such as maintenance and decommissioning.

Tokyo will decide as early as this year whether to accept Lockheed's offer so that the government can draw up a medium-term defense plan that would begin in fiscal 2019.

The inclusion of F-22 technology in the new jet is of particular significance to Japan. When Tokyo sought to purchase a fleet of F-22s a decade ago, U.S. lawmakers barred the Japanese government from doing so due to concerns about sending information on sensitive military technology abroad. The fighters are no longer in production.


https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/F-22-technology-offered-to-Japan-for-next-generation-fighter
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 04:58:47 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #887 on: May 08, 2018, 05:19:46 am »
Quote
Working primarily with RAND's conclusions from 2011, the Air Force crafted the following cost estimates and assumptions for what it would take to restart F-22 production and produce 194 additional Raptors:
  • Total non-recurring start-up costs over a five year period totaling $9.869 billion in 2016 dollars, equal to more than $10 billion in 2018 dollars at the time of writing.
  • This included approximately $228 million to refurbish production tooling, $1.218 billion to re-qualify sources of components and raw materials, $5.768 billion to redesign four subsystems, and $1.156 billion     in other associated “restart costs,” along with $1.498 billion in “additional government costs.”
  • Two of the four subsystems needing "redesign" would be the AN/APG-77 low probability intercept (LPI) radar and the F119 engine, neither of which are still in production.
  • The other two were the aircraft’s software package and an unspecified fourth system, acting as a placeholder to hedge against the Air Force discovering that other systems needed replacement during the restart process.
  • The aircraft’s electronic warfare, communication, navigation, and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems were among those that might also need replacement or substitution with another system.
  • While the 2011 RAND study estimated an average unit cost of $266 million, this was based on a total purchase of just 75 aircraft.
  • The Air Force estimated that the initial unit cost for an order of 194 aircraft would be approximately $216 million. This would drop to around $206 million by the time the last one rolled off the production line.
  • The unit price would begin to largely level out after the service had purchased the first 100 aircraft.
  • The total procurement cost would be between $40 and $42 billion, with the entire program costing a little more than $50.3 billion.

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20633/exclusive-heres-the-f-22-production-restart-study-the-usaf-has-kept-secret-for-over-a-year

I refuse to click on Rogeway click-bait.  And there's nothing "secret" about the study.  Everybody's known they were doing it and what the rather predictable result would be (too expensive).  This was published months ago.  Apparently it took the author that long to figure it out.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #888 on: August 06, 2018, 03:18:28 am »
I have a question concerning F-22's empty weight. It is often cited by various parties to be 19.7 tons.

But looking into the past, weight was much less. There is YF-22, weighing just under 15 tons. And while It was a demonstrator, it was still probably wise to keep it close to final configuration weight. Demonstrating something for one weight and then making another plane that weighs 33% more just doesn't seem wise.  X-35 demonstator weighed 12 tons, and final F-35A weighs 13.15 tons. An increase, but not that much of an increase.

And then there is this article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/
which states F-22 (not YF-22) weighed 13,980 kg in 1992 at preliminary design review, and its weight increased to 14,365 kg in 1995, at critical design review. Usually, after a critical design review there is very little changes to the design...

While some may say that the weight did not include various radar absorbent materials, I find that implausible, as not only are they supposed to be part of the plane's structure, but also if RAM is such a huge factor in plane's weight, it would  have been part of the calculation to begin with, as such huge differences cause major changes in performance.


So questions are:

How and why did F-22 get from 14,365 kg to 19,700 kg?

And when did that change happen?
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #889 on: August 06, 2018, 08:03:13 am »
I wonder if the empty weight for the purposes of the PDR/CDR was just for the bare fuselage (things within LM's control) so maybe not including the engines?  That's around 3.6 tons right there.  Just a wild-assed guess, though.

Offline latenlazy

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #890 on: August 06, 2018, 08:27:33 am »
I have a question concerning F-22's empty weight. It is often cited by various parties to be 19.7 tons.

But looking into the past, weight was much less. There is YF-22, weighing just under 15 tons. And while It was a demonstrator, it was still probably wise to keep it close to final configuration weight. Demonstrating something for one weight and then making another plane that weighs 33% more just doesn't seem wise.  X-35 demonstator weighed 12 tons, and final F-35A weighs 13.15 tons. An increase, but not that much of an increase.

And then there is this article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/
which states F-22 (not YF-22) weighed 13,980 kg in 1992 at preliminary design review, and its weight increased to 14,365 kg in 1995, at critical design review. Usually, after a critical design review there is very little changes to the design...

While some may say that the weight did not include various radar absorbent materials, I find that implausible, as not only are they supposed to be part of the plane's structure, but also if RAM is such a huge factor in plane's weight, it would  have been part of the calculation to begin with, as such huge differences cause major changes in performance.


So questions are:

How and why did F-22 get from 14,365 kg to 19,700 kg?

And when did that change happen?

These sources might be instructive.

https://books.google.com/books?id=J6BJD1JqDzwC&lpg=PA18&dq=f-22%20weight%20increase&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=f-22%20weight%20increase&f=false

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a440032.pdf

https://www.gao.gov/assets/240/233932.pdf

It seems from what little I could gather through these sources, the weight increases continued after critical design review because they kept having to go back to revise the structure of the plane as they were trying to ready it for mass production.


Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #891 on: August 06, 2018, 09:22:42 am »
At least one weight increase was due to live-fire results.  Several spars had to be changed from composite to titanium.  (Every 3rd spar or something like that.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #892 on: August 06, 2018, 10:16:11 am »
I have a question concerning F-22's empty weight. It is often cited by various parties to be 19.7 tons.

But looking into the past, weight was much less. There is YF-22, weighing just under 15 tons. And while It was a demonstrator, it was still probably wise to keep it close to final configuration weight. Demonstrating something for one weight and then making another plane that weighs 33% more just doesn't seem wise.  X-35 demonstator weighed 12 tons, and final F-35A weighs 13.15 tons. An increase, but not that much of an increase.

And then there is this article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/
which states F-22 (not YF-22) weighed 13,980 kg in 1992 at preliminary design review, and its weight increased to 14,365 kg in 1995, at critical design review. Usually, after a critical design review there is very little changes to the design...

While some may say that the weight did not include various radar absorbent materials, I find that implausible, as not only are they supposed to be part of the plane's structure, but also if RAM is such a huge factor in plane's weight, it would  have been part of the calculation to begin with, as such huge differences cause major changes in performance.


So questions are:

How and why did F-22 get from 14,365 kg to 19,700 kg?

And when did that change happen?

The weight increase is what is allowing the F-22 to serve until the 2050's or whenever the hell I read they were keeping it. Basically it's over engineered and what is available for public consumption says that the F-22s structure is hardly showing any signs of fatigue... That's pretty
amazing, relatively speaking, from the days of the 15 and 16. The 16 was/is so weakly engineered that the Navy had to stop flying 16s as aggressors because the brand new airframes they purchased were wearing out and cracking.

A few years ago there was some information out in the public, circulating, that the 22 pilots would have to go through a series of maneuvers before "dogfighting" in order to warm up the airframes. After reading how well the airframes are holding up, that story was likely not true.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
  • Hellcat
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #893 on: August 06, 2018, 10:29:54 am »
Guys, don't forget the FB22 story as well as the end of the Cold War:
 - case 1: communality b/w model (bomber and fighter) asked for some beefing-up
 - case 2: it became evident that the Raptor will have to survive for a very long time the end of the cold war.
 - case 3: a mix of 1&2.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #894 on: August 06, 2018, 12:02:59 pm »
Guys, don't forget the FB22 story as well as the end of the Cold War:
 - case 1: communality b/w model (bomber and fighter) asked for some beefing-up
 - case 2: it became evident that the Raptor will have to survive for a very long time the end of the cold war.
 - case 3: a mix of 1&2.

They make the 22 sound so durable that whatever exists of the 187 that does not succumb to a crash will still be available for decades to come. There are a lot of "doors" on the 22 from weapons to landing gear to flare dispensers to the gun to some that are required for startup procedures... I wonder how all those will hold up.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #895 on: August 08, 2018, 12:51:10 am »
Thanks, everyone. latenlazy, your links were especially helpful. There's a very nice graph in the second link, that matches roughly to the known weights we know. YF-22 as starting point (assuming its 14,970 kg is weight without engines) and it matches both the PDR and CDR weights mentioned in that flightglobal article. Since the graph is very explicit in the weight being contractor responsible weight, meaning without the engines, it's very, very likely in my opinion that the flightglobal weights are also without engines.

The graph then states the weight increases up  until beginning of 2001. From the PDR and CDR weights,  one can calculate that F-22's weight without engines was roughly 400 kg higher than at CDR. Meaning around 14,765 kg.

The last link also gives another increase info. Further set of reinforcements during 2001 added another 129 kg to the airframe. They're likely not in the previous graph as there is no such increase evident. Since 2001 was already pretty far into development and very little changes should have been made from 2002 onwards (preserial production was going on from then on) i find it unlikely there were further big increases in weight. Anyway, contractor's weight should include... what exactly? complete avionics? Does it exclude anything else other than engines?  Said weight should be around 14,900 kg.

We have another problem, though. F-119 engines don't really have a clear stated weight. Sometimes a figure of 1800 kg is stated, but I can't find it corroborated by actual manufacturer. Of course, two engines weighing 3600 kg is still quite a bit short of total empty aircraft weight of 19.7 tons.  At 18,500 kg, we're short over a ton. So either engines (with whatever ancillary equipment) are heavier, or there's more equipment that's not part of contractor responsible weight that acounts for that ton, or simply some of these publicated figures are wrong. Be it the ones stated for PDR and CDR or the 19.7 ton figure.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Reply #896 on: January 13, 2019, 03:10:08 pm »
Short video but all the "pre-designs" flashing in the background is cool

https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense/videos/581859548908444/
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot