Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Triton said:
Sundog said:
Outstanding F-22 photos here.
Click to expand...

Never know if I should post these things in "The Bar" or "Aerospace" sections:

"F-22 at Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) 2010" from August 12, 2010
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10715.0.html
Click to expand...

Dang, I double posted. I rarely check the bar, as I consider it more for off the wall non-airplane stuff, though I know some of it ends up there. They're still great pictures, though! ;)
 
F-22 drops four SDB's:

http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/photo-f-22-ripple-release-of-4-small-diameter-bombs-sdb-military/
 
I was inspired to post this after seeing the round nozzles on the new Chinese stealth fighter (J-20??). The accepted wisdom is that round 3D nozzles aren't as good as 2D nozzles for IR signature suppression but from watching the below video 2D nozzles don't seam to be much cop either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

It was taken by Flightglobal in association with FLIR Systems at the 2010 Farnborough airshow. At the time I thought it was a bit of a 'blown it' for those trying to preserve the F-22's image as invisible to enemy sensors.

I would be interested in other members thoughts on this. Is the F-22's IR shielding a myth?

Cheers, Woody
 
I think it's all relative...it would be telling if we had the same shot of the same engine at the same thrust setting but with the axisymmetric nozzle. As is we can't really compare the two.
 
Woody said:
I was inspired to post this after seeing the round nozzles on the new Chinese stealth fighter (J-20??). The accepted wisdom is that round 3D nozzles aren't as good as 2D nozzles for IR signature suppression but from watching the below video 2D nozzles don't seam to be much cop either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

It was taken by Flightglobal in association with FLIR Systems at the 2010 Farnborough airshow. At the time I thought it was a bit of a 'blown it' for those trying to preserve the F-22's image as invisible to enemy sensors.

I would be interested in other members thoughts on this. Is the F-22's IR shielding a myth?

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...

I suspect this video has about as much relevance as if one were to set up a radar at the airshow, detect the F-22, and shout "Ah-HA! We detected it." I'm reminded of BAE (or whoever) bragging that their Rapier IIR trackers (at the airshow) could see a B-2 (at the same airshow). Completely pointless.
 
sferrin said:
I suspect this video has about as much relevance as if one were to set up a radar at the airshow, detect the F-22, and shout "Ah-HA! We detected it." I'm reminded of BAE (or whoever) bragging that their Rapier IIR trackers (at the airshow) could see a B-2 (at the same airshow). Completely pointless.
Click to expand...

So that massive glare, once the rear quarter becomes visible is of no significance? (did you watch the full clip?) Whether or not it was filmed at an airshow, the plume was just as bright if not brighter than other aircraft at the same show.

Cheers, Woody
 
well, it's a low bypass engine for a supersonic fighter, at low speed and high thrust setting. Of course it's going to glow hot. The measure of success of the IR treatment is how much less than the equivalent untreated nozzle it shows up. Sticking an IR camera a few hundred feet from the aircraft and tracking it is not really a fair test. I'll be impressed when the same camera is used to pick up an F-22 at realistic ranges, head-on, and in cruise thrust.
 
How much shielding are we expecting? F-22 has the very powerfull engines, so they must be visible in any IR spectrum. The point is, that they are less visible than unoptimized engines in the same thrust category.
 
Woody said:
sferrin said:
I suspect this video has about as much relevance as if one were to set up a radar at the airshow, detect the F-22, and shout "Ah-HA! We detected it." I'm reminded of BAE (or whoever) bragging that their Rapier IIR trackers (at the airshow) could see a B-2 (at the same airshow). Completely pointless.
Click to expand...

So that massive glare, once the rear quarter becomes visible is of no significance? (did you watch the full clip?) Whether or not it was filmed at an airshow, the plume was just as bright if not brighter than other aircraft at the same show.

Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...

In afterburner (as it was at that point) of course. Fortunately it can supercruise without them. ;)
 
sferrin said:
In afterburner (as it was at that point) of course. Fortunately it can supercruise without them. ;)
Click to expand...

Very good point from the point of view for long range detection but at shorter range (where you'd use IR homing missiles) wouldn't you want to be able to uses reheat? From what you read I'm surprised we could see it at all. Even without considering the exhaust the skin seams amazingly visible compared to the French offering below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh32xqKd2dM&feature=related

Again, not a fair comparison as I have no idea what FLIR was used, the weather, time of day/night but the lack of contrast between the skin and background is just spooky.

Cheers, Woody

Rafale: worst marketing ever :D
 
Steve, we have discussed it before with humble results - search forum for Senior Sky. Senior Sky was ATF program (or at least part of the program) name, but not F-22As one. AFAIR code name exists but we didn't found out any trace.
 
Here's my latest F-22 production list. -SP
 

Attachments

  • F-22 Production and Deliveries.doc
    67 KB · Views: 61
What are the purposes of the bump right in front and under the front edge of the canopy? It appears to have a small aperture on it. Also, there is another bump right behind the canopy and a third one just behind the nose wheel well. What are they for? Is the aperture on the bump under the front of the canopy for some sort of missile approach warning camera?
 
Woody said:
sferrin said:
I suspect this video has about as much relevance as if one were to set up a radar at the airshow, detect the F-22, and shout "Ah-HA! We detected it." I'm reminded of BAE (or whoever) bragging that their Rapier IIR trackers (at the airshow) could see a B-2 (at the same airshow). Completely pointless.
Click to expand...

So that massive glare, once the rear quarter becomes visible is of no significance? (did you watch the full clip?) Whether or not it was filmed at an airshow, the plume was just as bright if not brighter than other aircraft at the same show.
Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...


It looked like a Saturn V rocket taking off, with so much heat.

Maybe that is the Achilles heel to this plane?
 
Interesting photo I came across on airliners.net:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1878009/L/

Is it just me or is the canopy coating on this one peeling quite badly ???
 
Trident said:
Interesting photo I came across on airliners.net:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1878009/L/

Is it just me or is the canopy coating on this one peeling quite badly ???
Click to expand...

Looks like it's been following a dump truck on the freeway. ???
 
kcran567 said:
Woody said:
sferrin said:
I suspect this video has about as much relevance as if one were to set up a radar at the airshow, detect the F-22, and shout "Ah-HA! We detected it." I'm reminded of BAE (or whoever) bragging that their Rapier IIR trackers (at the airshow) could see a B-2 (at the same airshow). Completely pointless.
Click to expand...

So that massive glare, once the rear quarter becomes visible is of no significance? (did you watch the full clip?) Whether or not it was filmed at an airshow, the plume was just as bright if not brighter than other aircraft at the same show.
Cheers, Woody
Click to expand...


It looked like a Saturn V rocket taking off, with so much heat.

Maybe that is the Achilles heel to this plane?
Click to expand...

Probably of all fighter aircraft. If optics keep improving an airplane like the PAK-FA may only need to deny a radar lock until it passes into the 40km range and then the a completely different set of factors could come into play... in theory at least. I suspect that we will see an increasing interest in higher-energy/medium range terminal IR homing missiles.
 
So long as the target aircraft can see the IR missile coming and track its direction quickly, it seems to me a IR laser could be directed to dazzle or blind the IR sensor on the missile. It will be easier then overwhelming the sensor on the radar guided missile. I suspect any future missile will need to have multiband sensors to overwhelm active countermeasures that should be possible in the near future.
 
I was amused by the comment at the end of the video: "It looks pretty clear Rafale is the best". Who are they trying to deceive here? 9-year-olds?
 
Here's the latest F-22 Mission Brief. -SP
 

Attachments

  • f22_mission_brief_feb_2011.pdf
    415.3 KB · Views: 85
JSF Radar Absorbent Coatings Applied to Raptor
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 6 Apr 2011 20:29

The newest F-22 stealth fighters produced for the U.S. Air Force at Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., factory have improved radar absorbent coatings derived from the company's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. "Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president and general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. The new materials do not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, but do improve on the durability of those coatings. The benefit for the Air Force is a reduced maintenance burden, Babione said. "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable and we were able to pull those back on to the F-22," he said. "So our system is better, and the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced." Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., agreed that retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35's coatings will save the Air Force a significant amount of time and money when it comes to maintenance. "It's not going to transform the airplane, but what it's going to really do is make it much cheaper to operate the F-22 fleet, which is terribly important given its small size," he said. Despite Lockheed Martin's statement that the F-35-derived coatings would not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, Goure said he suspects the new materials are likely to improve upon the Raptor's already impressive signature. "I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics," he said.

Lockheed Martin only had to make minor tweaks to the F-35's radar absorbent materials in order to adapt the technology to the F-22. Though the radar cross-section requirements for the Raptor and the F-35 are slightly different, fundamentally the physics and chemistry of the coatings are the same, Babione said. For installation into the Raptor, the F-35 coatings likely needed to be modified to deal with the high supersonic cruise-speeds and extreme altitudes at which the F-22 routinely operates, Goure said. "It's operating at a higher altitude typically and [at] faster speeds, and that would put different stresses on the material," he said. The Raptor can cruise at speeds around Mach 1.8 above 50 000 feet without afterburners. At the moment, the latest Lot 9 production F-22s only have some of the new stealth coatings installed. Other improved stealth materials "are still in final qualification testing and will enter the field next year," he said. Once testing is complete, plans are in place to retrofit the entire F-22 fleet with the coatings.
 
ATG compatibility for F-22 - was it promised by LM or demanded by USAF?
When? I see that JDAM Phase One for 1000 pound MK83 kit for F-22 surfaced just in May 1993

Some here claim that Lockheed was standing on knees before Congress in 1992 promising to integrate ATG and SEAD mode into F-22 - otherwise they would cut numbers even more. I'm not agree as it's clear that Custumer should understand that Raptor was no pound for air-to-ground from the beginning with appropriately sized weapon bay, and LM kinda made a favor to USAF integrating JDAMs and later SDBs. And even if they were not, it would not cause cancelling program per se or sufficient decrease in numbers.
Did USAF ever issued any add-ons to RFP demanding ATG and SEAD role (for exapmle, HARM carriage)? My Aronstein/Piccirilo is in basement now.
 
Supercruise range info:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-061020-148.wmv

Stumbled across some days ago.

The interesting bit is when the commentator says that the raptor burns up to 3/4 less fuel at supersonic speeds than teen series; This translates into a Specific Range 4 times those of the legacy fighters.

Where it becomes interesting it is that i then remembered a topic on F16.net where someone did put calculations following the famous stevenson's slide where he shows the SR for F-22 in subsonic;

The original poster on F16.net comes to the conclusion that the SR of the raptor is also 4 times the one of the F-15C.

Now, i you translate that into a mission profile with combined subsonic and supersonic you surprisingly fall back onto the values found on the official site.
 
Last F-22 Fuselage Mid-section Shipped: :'(

The incremental shutdown of the F-22 production hit another milestone last week as workers at Lockheed Martin's aircraft plant at Fort Worth, Tex., completed the final F-22 fuselage mid-section. They marked the occasion with a special send-off, draping the mid-section in the Texas flag before sealing it in its shipping container for the journey to Lockheed's F-22 final assembly facility in Marietta, Ga. Fort Worth workers constructed a total of 195 mid-sections for F-22 development and production aircraft, reported the Fort Worth Star Telegram. With the mid-section production run complete as of May 12, the workers began dismantling the line. The Air Force's final F-22—the last of 187 production airframes ordered—is due to roll off the Marietta assembly line this summer. Its delivery to the Air Force is scheduled for February 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw8xKzZx1ls
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvonraesfeld/2890845032/in/set-72157626651191170

;D

PS: Some nice pics:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/YGMJ3FJ8/F-22_27FS_Exercise_Iron_Eagle.html
 
Ogami musashi said:
Where it becomes interesting it is that i then remembered a topic on F16.net where someone did put calculations following the famous stevenson's slide where he shows the SR for F-22 in subsonic;
Click to expand...

I see that Stevenson is still hung up on the phrase "invisible to radar". While some of his books have been well researched, his conclusions often carry a heavy bias - which he readily admits to. If you search the skunk-works mailing list archives you can read quite a bit of back and forth with him from when he was researching his A-12 book.
The first 20 slides from this F-22 presentation also show some of his bias. Take what you read with a grain of salt.
 
Whoopsie....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/defense-toxins-in-cockpit-grounded-f22s-072511/
 
Anybody read or heard anything about whether the F-22's ALR-94 ESM can detect another F-22's APG-77 LPI radar at long ranges?[/size]

If an ESM that can defeat the APG-77's LPI feature already exists, what would be tactical implications in a scenario where four non-stealthy fighters with such a capable ESM are pitted against two F-22s?
 
the four would detect one raptor which is using its radar (but would not know its exact location and distance). at one point they would get attacked by the missiles launched by the silent raptor, which the radiating raptor was feeding data required for attack. some of the four would get shot down or not, depending on offensive qualities of amraam and defensive qualities of the four planes. not knowing where exactly is the radiating raptor would probably result in another attack by the radiating's raptor's amraams. if some of the four survive that too, and raptors for some reason keep insisting on attack - a wvr merge would happen where raptors might or might not get to fire first their wvr missiles, depending on the direction of the attack and quality of equipment/weapons on the (once there were) four.


all this, of course, doesn't take into account any possible (probable, really) outside detection and/or tracking info.
 
20 years ago in Feb 1991, Armed Forces Journal International had a story about stealth vs. counter-stealth. Below is part of that story.

-----

Although IRSTs do not provide precise range data, it is possible to get range estimates from them. In a process similar to obtaining a range estimate with passive sonar, an aircraft with a modern IRST can maneuver to create a baseline from which a range estimate can be made. In tests, this estimate is within 10-15% of actual range, often close enough to allow missile launch. In close combat, moreover, this signature-size comparison process often proves more accurate than radar. While the thought of having to maneuver to get a range estimate would worry some pilots, the ability to detect targets accurately - up to a range of 150 nautical miles - must be attractive.

By maneuvering to create a baseline for triangulation as shown above or simply datalinking, wouldn't a flight of non-stealthy fighters with a capable ESM and IRST be able to obtain a range estimate?
 

Attachments

  • g0111118.jpg
    g0111118.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 286
has anyone thought of mounting two IRST's, one on each wingtip, and using parallax to find range?
 
i am sure they have. i guess the reason why we're not seeing that is because it was decided the precision gained by that is not sufficient to justify the performance cost of usage.


but i do believe that is exactly how alr-94 (and other new esm systems) works, in order to provide at least some range information, especially at closer ranges where the angle difference is greater.
 
Where do I get a text book for this course, be a nice thing to add to my p. much blank resume: Can repair & maintain a Combat-ready Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. ;D ;D ;D
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom