Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

That was the plan to replace parts with them being replaced with other parts cannibalised from the retired Block 20s but that has unfortunately gone up in smoke now.
 
Also resources that were supposed to be kept in reserve for the F-22 long term were illegally diverted to propping up the F-35 a number of years back.
 
I did not know that the money that was for the F-22 was illegaly diverted to keep the F-35 propped up Grey Havoc.
 
Was it money, or was it production machinery? For some reason I want to say tooling that was supposed to be kept for the f22 went missing, and it ended up in the f35 program, but don’t quote me on that.

*EDIT*

As Josh_TN points out below, while the tooling went missing, it’s not known that anything went to the f35 program, so I was conflating my misappropriation rumors.
 
Last edited:
Tooling allegedly going missing for the F-22 ending up on the F-35? Things are getting rather strange.
 
quellish said:
What is this nonsense? The tooling is in storage at Sierra Army Depot, where it has been since 2012.
Click to expand...

There were reports/rumors that it was incomplete. Matters not at all now; my main point was that certainly nothing pertaining to F-22 production was used in F-35 (ETA: outside possibly funding; no idea there).
 
Josh_TN said:
There were reports/rumors that it was incomplete. Matters not at all now; my main point was that certainly nothing pertaining to F-22 production was used in F-35 (ETA: outside possibly funding; no idea there).
Click to expand...

I think the confusion stems from a TWZ article.

https://www.twz.com/20633/exclusive...tudy-the-usaf-has-kept-secret-for-over-a-year
The Air Force also noted that while approximately 95 percent of the F-22-related production tooling is still available, the physical productions facilities either no longer exist or are supporting other Lockheed Martin programs, such as the F-35.
Click to expand...

Note the difference between tooling and facilities. It's great to have the tooling but without a factory floor to use it on (and the people to run it), nothing is going to happen. Building a new factory (and especially finding skilled aero manufacturing folks) is a non-trivial hurdle. But people may have conflated the tooling with the facilities and concluded that the tooling was being used for the F-35.
 
TomS said:
I think the confusion stems from a TWZ article.

https://www.twz.com/20633/exclusive...tudy-the-usaf-has-kept-secret-for-over-a-year


Note the difference between tooling and facilities. It's great to have the tooling but without a factory floor to use it on (and the people to run it), nothing is going to happen. Building a new factory (and especially finding skilled aero manufacturing folks) is a non-trivial hurdle. But people may have conflated the tooling with the facilities and concluded that the tooling was being used for the F-35.
Click to expand...

This. Everybody wants to be an "influencer". Very few want to build things.
 
TomS said:
(and especially finding skilled aero manufacturing folks)
Click to expand...

Yep skilled manpower. Like toolings are not only useless without real production floor but also people to operate and work with those tools. F-22 has been out of production for like decade now.. Those workforce might not necessarily still there as they may quit, retired or work on different project that they may lost the skill.

It's maybe kinda like why something like F-1 engine can no longer be built. The welder etc who actually build the thing is no longer there.
 
TomS said:
I think the confusion stems from a TWZ article.

https://www.twz.com/20633/exclusive...tudy-the-usaf-has-kept-secret-for-over-a-year


Note the difference between tooling and facilities. It's great to have the tooling but without a factory floor to use it on (and the people to run it), nothing is going to happen. Building a new factory (and especially finding skilled aero manufacturing folks) is a non-trivial hurdle.
Click to expand...
We (well, the guy who sat across from me) ran an experiment when we tried to bring back an archived Eurofighter FCS software environment after about a year. IIRC there were major problems because of either supporting software moving on in the meantime, or stuff we hadn't thought to archive, because it wasn't obviously relevant. Now imagine doing that with stuff that's been in storage for a decade plus, and where the workforce has long since moved on, retired, or is actively pushing up daisies.

Given the increasing use of CNC machinery in the years since the F-22 line was created in the 90s, are there even enough people being trained as traditional machinists and toolmakers to successfully resurrect the tooling, never mind run it at production pace? And if you need to get into the software, can you source the Ada and/or Jovial programmers to do it?
 
indicisivedivide said:
On the other hand which language has replaced Ada?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, because the work involved in replacing an Ada programme (or Jovial) is going to be hugely costly and time consuming, and that's assuming you have adequate documentation to explain what it is, what it does, and how it does it, which is in no ways guaranteed.
 
DWG said:
Given the increasing use of CNC machinery in the years since the F-22 line was created in the 90s, are there even enough people being trained as traditional machinists and toolmakers to successfully resurrect the tooling, never mind run it at production pace? And if you need to get into the software, can you source the Ada and/or Jovial programmers to do it?
Click to expand...
Students in university had CNCs in labs years before the F-22 was designed. (I was generating G-code with APT in 1986. We had a big Okuma in the lab with a 30-tool carousel.) And taking a part from a drawing to G-code is pretty straight forward.
 
Do I am the only one to think that this last contract comes very cheap.
3M$ per engine for 5 year for the best performances engine out there is pretty much reasonable.
(look at what the French have to pay for MRO!!)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9022.png
    IMG_9022.png
    140.9 KB · Views: 160
  • IMG_9023.png
    IMG_9023.png
    181.5 KB · Views: 117
Last edited:
Is near-eye technology better than an helmet display (in term of comfort, night vision, glaring...)? How does it compare today?
 
As an interesting historical note, the initial EMD F-22 design submission in 1990, which I believe is Configuration 637/638, had nearly the same external OML and geometry as the current Configuration 645, with the notable exception of the LEX which had a slightly different and larger planform. See this CAD 3D rendering from some 1990s documentaries. Overall, much of Lockheed's work for the F-22's shape, outer geometries, and general arrangements was done by Skunk Works at Lockheed California (CALAC). For the detailed design of the internal arrangements and mission systems during EMD, that effort shifted to Georgia (GELAC) when the program moved headquarters in 1991.

The same CAD renderings also show an internal missile loadout of 4 full-span AIM-120A/B in the main weapons bay, with the placement of the launchers a bit different from the current arrangement to stagger the missiles so that they don't interfere with each other during launching.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8287.png
    IMG_8287.png
    598 KB · Views: 157
  • IMG_8286.png
    IMG_8286.png
    523.9 KB · Views: 158
  • IMG_8294.png
    IMG_8294.png
    882.4 KB · Views: 152
  • IMG_8408.png
    IMG_8408.png
    612.8 KB · Views: 115
  • IMG_8411.png
    IMG_8411.png
    668.6 KB · Views: 111
  • IMG_8410.png
    IMG_8410.png
    423.6 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
Details of F-22 engagements with Su-30/Su-35 over Syria
https://twitter.com/x/status/1903484912235319435
Full translation:
Well, yes. The "fantastic stories" section
Click to expand...
The US currently has F-22 fighters in service. They have a lot of them. Let's say so.
Click to expand...
We have no reliable data on their real capabilities at long and medium ranges.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about practice now. That is, about what we have verified during a personal encounter with this or that aircraft. But in close, maneuverable combat, we have such practice.
Click to expand...
The Su-35S and Su-30SM have met with the F-22. The battles were with blunted blades (that is, the aircraft were armed and carried out similar combat sorties, but fire could only be opened in the most fantastic development of the situation) the convergence was not fair, the aircraft were not in equal conditions, at different speeds and altitudes and with different combat loads, and the level of training of the pilots was unknown to both participants. They met one on one.
Click to expand...
That is, everything was like in a war. Everything was unfair.
Click to expand...
In all cases, the F-22 smashed our fighters. Just like that, very confidently and without strain.
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe if the weight categories were equal and if the Su-57 was there, its dick would have grown and it would have become an old man. I don’t know. For some reason, it didn’t arrive. And when it finally arrived, our Su-35s protected it.
Click to expand...
Today, the situation is like this, tomorrow it may change and we will all be saved by the MiG-31, which doesn’t really understand why this close, maneuverable combat of yours is needed.
Click to expand...
And I will remind you that so far we don’t have a single combat regiment armed with the Su-57.
Click to expand...
We have a lot of work to do, and thank God, it is being done around the clock today.
Click to expand...
 
To not take the F-47 thread further off topic, @joewee the images from 2 posts above shows a CAD model of the F-22 from a 1990s documentary, prior to its first flight. You can see that the planform shape of the LEX between the wings and inlets are different from what they are now. Otherwise, you're right that the shaping is near identical.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom