• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,638
Reaction score
50
bring_it_on said:
What I did say ,however, was that a modified F-35 could be looked at as an affordable and less risky alternative to an F-22 production/re-design or a clean sheet design as far as Japan is concerned. At the end of the day the trade space involves a combination of schedule, cost, risk, and technology development so no two solutions will be the same. There are things you can do to make the F-35 better such as expanded A2A missile carriage (from 4 to 6), introducing new weapons, perhaps a new adaptive engine, and improved sensors. From a cost perspective that will likely be cheaper to do than to develop a highly upgraded F-22, and then manufacturer it. Overall the difference could be significant when one looks at how many aircraft they can field within a finite budget.
Yes, based on Japan's own studies for the F-3, where they found the ability to loiter more important than supersonic persistence, I was thinking a land based version of the F-35C may be ideal for them. Install the adaptive engine, modify the weapons bays for primarily A2A weaponry, and replace the naval landing gear and tail hook with those from the A model, and remove the wing folds.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
Sundog said:
bring_it_on said:
What I did say ,however, was that a modified F-35 could be looked at as an affordable and less risky alternative to an F-22 production/re-design or a clean sheet design as far as Japan is concerned. At the end of the day the trade space involves a combination of schedule, cost, risk, and technology development so no two solutions will be the same. There are things you can do to make the F-35 better such as expanded A2A missile carriage (from 4 to 6), introducing new weapons, perhaps a new adaptive engine, and improved sensors. From a cost perspective that will likely be cheaper to do than to develop a highly upgraded F-22, and then manufacturer it. Overall the difference could be significant when one looks at how many aircraft they can field within a finite budget.
Yes, based on Japan's own studies for the F-3, where they found the ability to loiter more important than supersonic persistence, I was thinking a land based version of the F-35C may be ideal for them. Install the adaptive engine, modify the weapons bays for primarily A2A weaponry, and replace the naval landing gear and tail hook with those from the A model, and remove the wing folds.
The 35 is not suitable for the air superiority role which is why the Japanese were pursuing an indigenous 22 clone. Furthermore, supercruise and loiter time are not polar opposites, one or the other. Both require more fuel than 4th gen and teen series aircraft.

There is a reason why some people in the usaf still want to restart 22 production and it isn't for its airshow maneuvers.

The 35C is an even bigger slushdog than the A and B. It will remain so until a yet to be built 50k lb thrust engine is fitted to it. Keep in mind you're talking about and aircraft that weighs on par with a beagle and has less thrust. I don't know this, but I suspect in ACM that stubby pilots have to light burners often.

The weapons bays have serious heat issues and altitude and speed restrictions.... An aardvark could outrun it in the weeds when stubby is carrying mud movers internally. So yeah, great idea: lets put more rocket fuel and warheads in those shake and bake ovens. Stubby pilots DO train for down in the weeds strike missions. That should say something about stubby because raptor pilots DO NOT need to train for that mission profile on strike ops.

The 35, in any form, is wholly unsuitable for air superiority going forward 10 and 20 years out. That's why there is a PCA or NGAD or whatever its called and why Lockheed isn't ramping up 35 production on orders from the DoD to replace ever fighter in inventory.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,638
Reaction score
50
Airplane said:
The 35 is not suitable for the air superiority role which is why the Japanese were pursuing an indigenous 22 clone. Furthermore, supercruise and loiter time are not polar opposites, one or the other. Both require more fuel than 4th gen and teen series aircraft.

There is a reason why some people in the usaf still want to restart 22 production and it isn't for its airshow maneuvers.

The 35C is an even bigger slushdog than the A and B. It will remain so until a yet to be built 50k lb thrust engine is fitted to it. Keep in mind you're talking about and aircraft that weighs on par with a beagle and has less thrust. I don't know this, but I suspect in ACM that stubby pilots have to light burners often.

The weapons bays have serious heat issues and altitude and speed restrictions.... An aardvark could outrun it in the weeds when stubby is carrying mud movers internally. So yeah, great idea: lets put more rocket fuel and warheads in those shake and bake ovens. Stubby pilots DO train for down in the weeds strike missions. That should say something about stubby because raptor pilots DO NOT need to train for that mission profile on strike ops.

The 35, in any form, is wholly unsuitable for air superiority going forward 10 and 20 years out. That's why there is a PCA or NGAD or whatever its called and why Lockheed isn't ramping up 35 production on orders from the DoD to replace ever fighter in inventory.
The Japanese originally wanted the F-22, they don't now. As an Aeronautical Engineer, I'm quite familiar with the differences between supercruise, which the Japanese don't want, and loiter, which they do want. You shouldn't confuse the mission the USAF flies versus the mission the JASDF needs fulfilled. The mission profile defines the aircraft, not the other way around. It doesn't matter how sh!t hot the F-22 is, if it doesn't meet the JASDF mission requirements. The USAF wants a fast reacting aircraft that can dominate the skies over enemy territory. The JASDF wants a stealthy missileer that can loiter along a defensive line and pick off targets as they show up with very long range AAMs.

Since the JASDF doesn't have a need for supercruise, the wing and the powerplants in the F-22 are the completely wrong design for what they are seeking. I was trying to offer them the lower cost solution for their requirements, but LM could offer an F-22 with higher aspect ratio wings and powerplants optimized more for loiter. However, I think that would cost substantially more than a modified F-35C.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
The Japanese are paying a premium for every Japanese-assembled F-35 none of which have any meaningful
Japanese content; under the JSF partnering scheme, the probability of Japanese manufacturers winning any substantial
workshare on a "best-value" basis is remote.

That would extend to any F-35 derivative. But a F-22 derivative (even with some F-35 subsystems) would be an entirely different matter.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Sundog said:
[he JASDF wants a stealthy missileer that can loiter along a defensive line and pick off targets as they show up with very long range AAMs.

Since the JASDF doesn't have a need for supercruise, the wing and the powerplants in the F-22 are the completely wrong design for what they are seeking.
That doesn't seem to be what's being described here:

The Defense Ministry has compiled a design concept of new fighter jets that will replace the Air Self-Defense Forces’ F-2 fighter jets, planning for
the succeeding jets to be able to carry and launch drones to detect distant enemy planes and also to share radar information with the drones,
The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The new planes will be large stealth fighters, exceeding the capability of the cutting-edge F-35A fighter jets introduced by the ASDF.
The Defense Ministry will examine how to develop the new jets, such as joint development with the United States, in a bid to deal with China’s
modernizing air force.

In March, the ministry notified the governments of the United States and Britain of part of the design concept of the F-2 successor, such as its
performance requirements. Other than carrying small drones, the ministry considers that the new jets will have the capacity to internally carry
eight air-to-air missiles, doubling the load of the F-35A. Its maximum speed will be Mach 2, almost equal to that of the F-2, and key features
will be designed to be similar or superior to the F-35A, such as its radars’ detection range, stealth technology and cruising distance. Regarding
carrying air-to-ship missiles, the ministry assumes they will be carried externally depending on their missions.

As Japan’s neighboring countries have been enhancing their level of stealth technology, which guards against radar detection, the ministry has
recognized the need to handle the situation by having the new jets carry drones.

China announced deployment of its domestically developed cutting-edge Chengdu J-20 stealth fighters in February. High stealth technology
used by other countries’ aircraft means an overwhelming disadvantage in combat for Japanese aircraft as it will become difficult to detect other
planes until they approach very close to the Japanese planes. For this reason, the ministry came up with the idea of carrying drones to detect
enemy planes from a long distance. The ministry plans to develop the drones along with the new fighter jets.

Doubling the number of air-to-air missiles the plane can carry compared to the F-35A is also a part of the idea to counter China’s moves.

F-35A jets are state-of-the-art aircraft, jointly developed by nine countries, including the United States and Britain. Their deployment to
Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture started in January. While the F-35A is highly capable, it is said to be able to internally carry only
four air-to-air missile because it is somewhat smaller than other jets.

The F-2 fighter jet was jointly developed by Japan and the United States based on U.S. F-16 jets, and they have been manufactured by
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The jets have high offensive capability against ships to suit Japan’s security environment as a nation surrounded by the sea.
The ASDF introduced F-2 jets in 2000 and the fighters are expected to retire from around 2030. The ASDF currently deploys about 90 F-2 jets.

In total, Japan has about 300 fighters, excluding the aging F-4 jets, while China has about 800 jets with similar capabilities.

To avoid being overwhelmed by the number of Chinese fighter jets, the ministry decided to fill the gap by strengthening the fighting
capability of each fighter jet, such as making the F-2 successor larger and increasing its missile load.

The ministry has examined three options regarding the method of developing an F-2 successor — domestic development, joint development with
other countries, or improving existing foreign-made fighter jets.

The government is likely to abandon the idea of domestic development due to the estimated cost of ¥1 trillion to ¥2 trillion.

Lockheed Martin Corp. of the United States has unofficially approached the ministry about joint development of the F-2 successor based
on the high-performance F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter jets.

The government plans to compile the next Medium Term Defense Program that covers fiscal 2019 to 2023 at the end of this year,
and is likely to decide how to develop the new fighter jets during these years under the new program
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
220
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
40
^ 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.

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
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
430
Triton said:
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.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Website
www.youtube.com
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?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
160
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.
 

latenlazy

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
totoro said:
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
430
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.)
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
totoro said:
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.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
65
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.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
TomcatViP said:
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.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Website
www.youtube.com
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,139
Reaction score
233
Short video but all the "pre-designs" flashing in the background is cool

https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense/videos/581859548908444/
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,638
Reaction score
50
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAP

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,335
Reaction score
430
F-22 flight envelope sans AB.
There was an article a while back wherein an F-22 pilot mentioned being able to supercruise at sea-level. (Obviously probably not as fast, or as efficiently, as at altitude,)
 

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
101
Reaction score
7
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
Who were the original developers of some of the key avionics?

APG-77 - Westinghouse/Texas Instruments
ALR-94 - Sanders/General Electric
CIP - Hughes

Who originally developed the AAR-56?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,032
Reaction score
205
Not sure where I heard it, sorry (late 1980s edition of Flight perhaps?). I am pretty sure though that Lockheed Martin is the design authority/manufacturer in the present day (old PDF on their site which unfortunately is no longer available).
 
Last edited:

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
101
Reaction score
7
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I understand that Lockheed Martin is currently owning the AAR-56, but I was asking who the original designer was, as the Lockheed merger with Martin Marietta occurred in 1995, well after Dem/Val and into EMD.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,032
Reaction score
205
It is a pretty safe bet though that LM inherited the AN/AAR-56 via the merger. Also, that II-VI Optical Systems page is probably primarily referring to the pre-merger Martin Marietta element of Lockheed Martin there.
 
Last edited:

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
101
Reaction score
7
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
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?
I’m of the opinion that this is the weight of the aircraft without the engines and perhaps some other equipment. Even during Dem/Val, the estimated takeoff gross weight estimate as 60,000 lbs (an increase from the initial 50,000 lb) and the current one for the F-22A is 64,840 lbs.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,164
Reaction score
154
I have read in a few sources that Block 40 F-22As would have an "advanced helmet mounted display"
On this episode, the retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Terry “Stretch” Scott describes the Raptor’s amazing features, weapons, performance, and more.
He also helps answer a question on why the F-22A does not have an advanced helmet mounted display (HMD). One reason other than budget just for the insertion of the HMD is that under the slim canopy of a F-22A the pilot has less room to move his head with an HMD safely around. IMHO, when I see the pictures of a F-22, I can't really believe it.
If the USAF really wanted a HMD for the F-22A or for a "F-22C", a new canopy would have been to be designed and tested before, which would have driven up the costs more. So the USAF gave the HMD to the teen-fighters, which really needed them.

Source/Link: https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/061-f-22-raptor/

YouTube:
Code:
https://youtu.be/AguVV7SH9eY?t=3540
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
40
The HMDCS (now Pilot Systems) was supposed to select an HMD solution in FY19 and take it through a systems level PDR. FY20 would mark the EMD phase of the program with the HMDCS being added to the Block 30/35 Raptor fleet.
 

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
101
Reaction score
7
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
The F-22's canopy is considerably more tapered than most other fighter canopies for stealth purposes, and I think the polycarbonate material is also thicker as well since it doesn't have a frame and has to endure sustained supersonic flight. Furthermore, the first generation of JHMCS visors did protrude forward from the helmet a fair bit. Maybe the JHMCS II is a bit less bulky and can fit better.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
99
F-22 display at Dubai Air Show. Left hand flat spin reversing to right hand flat spin at 3:50 mark. Good camera view of tight back flip at 5:40 mark. Extended vertical pause and back slide at 7:22.

 
Top