Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

We won't lament the aircraft when we actually may need it. We have to be prepared to fight wars, and the F-22 is a big part of being properly prepared.

How many should we have? I say at least 500. Building more would help to bring costs per plane down, and I honestly think another 100 will probably be built by the time 2020 rolls around, to bring the numbers up to 300, and of course those newer planes will be more advanced variants. If she honestly knew how underwhelming the F-35 is, especially in comparison to the F-22, and actually took the time to check what she thinks, she would probably be surprised. The F-15 is a "Cold War Relic" but that doesn't mean it's ineffective at being a deterrent or useless as a strike aircraft, something that the F-22 can do well, especially with SEAD related tasks.

I also tend to think believe that people play up the Flanker threat more that it should be, but it is a massively upgradeable platform with it's large airframe and very large radome. I think more media focus needs to be on the T-50/PAK-FA, as it's aimed squarely at the F-22.

I think the JSF has developed some useful capabilities like EODAS that would make an excellent addition to the F-22, but the actual JSF program I think is a bit of a joke. The Navy could've gotten their own F-22N or equivalent (I really hope that they do get their FX-XX), the USAF could've received many more F-22s while relying on the older aircraft for strike duties as they are doing already until they developed UCAVs or just developed the F-35 on their own. The Marines would be left in the cold, but with the vast amounts of research already done on VTOL fighters, a suitable Harrier replacement could've been developed. I really think all the three services would've been better off developing their own planes to a degree instead of trying to get a somewhat mediocre common design to satisfy everyones requirements which is eating up taxpayer money. I do feel a bit stupid considering the JSF "mediocre" as it's electronic capabilities and engine are quite amazing, but as an aircraft itself, it's very "meh" to me. Both aspects could'be been put to better use in better airframes. While two F135s would not be able to supercruise (not sure if this is an engine limitation or just due to the JSF design+intake), possible engine thrust of 90,000+ total is a very interesting prospect in the lower speed and acceleration regimes. Of course F119 and F135 discussion is for another topic.

F-16.net Sponsor

nusna_moebius wrote:

While two F135s would not be able to supercruise (not sure if this is an engine limitation or just due to the JSF design+intake), possible engine thrust of 90,000+ total is a very interesting prospect in the lower speed and acceleration regimes. Of course F119 and F135 discussion is for another topic.

F-135's wouldn't fit in a Raptor... the engine is significantly larger in diameter (sts) than the F-119. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they can tune up the thrust for war if they wanted to.

Yes, I understand that. F135 uses the F119 core, but has a much larger bypass, which is probably why it can't supercruise like the F-22 can, but has much higher max theoretical thrust potential. I'm sure the F-35s aerodynamics mar this to good degree as well. I bet 40,000 lbs could be reached with the F119, but would probably not be too good for the engine. Anyone have any graphs/etc comparing thrust regimes for the F119 and F135?

t3h_pr3t3nd3r wrote:

This lady sounds like she has a personal grudge towards the F-22. Interesting video to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90g ... re=related

You sure that wasn't Sprey or Riccioni? Laughing

nusna_moebius wrote:

Yes, I understand that. F135 uses the F119 core, but has a much larger bypass, which is probably why it can't supercruise like the F-22 can, but has much higher max theoretical thrust potential. I'm sure the F-35s aerodynamics mar this to good degree as well. I bet 40,000 lbs could be reached with the F119, but would probably not be too good for the engine. Anyone have any graphs/etc comparing thrust regimes for the F119 and F135?

The 2009 F-22 demo pilot, Paul “Max” Moga stated on the Military Channel’s show “Showdown: Air Combat” that the F119s produce 37,000lbs static thrust. Sweetman puts it at 39,000lbs so either way it’s close to 40,000lbs currently. The F135 is not a good choice for the Raptor as not only does it have the wrong design point it’s also a bigger and heavier engine. I have little doubt that the Pratt has an upgrade path designed in; the F100, F110 et al have demonstrated substantial growth paths of 20%. So it’s entirely conceivable that an upgraded F119 could produce between 42,000 and 47,000lbs.

A pertinent question then becomes, can existing motors be upgraded or would new build motors be required? Can Pratt restart the F119 line or is the line being kept warm for F-22/F119 sustainment? It’s up to the USAF’s JROC to determine what the key capabilities are required going forward. I personally hope the F-22 is kept at the very top of the sustainment/upgrade ladder. I’d like to see a common fleet configuration, preferably leveraging F-35 technologies as LM is proposing. Upgraded Lo materials, radar (with cheek arrays), CIPs, data busses and a multi-color IRST. Finally upgraded motors; I’d trade some potential thrust for better fuel burn. Say a 10% increase in thrust if you can squeeze another 8-10% better SFC (a big “if” I know).

nusna_moebius wrote:

I really think all the three services would've been better off developing their own planes to a degree instead of trying to get a somewhat mediocre common design to satisfy everyones requirements which is eating up taxpayer money. I do feel a bit stupid considering the JSF "mediocre" as it's electronic capabilities and engine are quite amazing, but as an aircraft itself, it's very "meh" to me. Both aspects could'be been put to better use in better airframes. While two F135s would not be able to supercruise (not sure if this is an engine limitation or just due to the JSF design+intake), possible engine thrust of 90,000+ total is a very interesting prospect in the lower speed and acceleration regimes. Of course F119 and F135 discussion is for another topic.

I agree that we should acquire more F-22s, but what exactly are you basing the F-35 is mediocre, on? In terms of raw performance, it should turn better than F-16s, point its nose better than F-18s, accelerate better than either, fly further, fly faster with a warload, enjoy VLO characteristics, AND have more capable avionics/better situational awareness than competitors/foes. When we fight, we fight at a systems level, not a platform level, and I'm just not seeing a competitor that outclasses the F-35 at that level. Flying a bit faster, or turning a few degrees per second faster, isn't going to overcome all of the capabilities that the F-35 brings to bear(unless you have a comparable RCS and avionics suite). You still have to factor in training, skill, and tactics.

nusna_moebius wrote:

Yes, I understand that. F135 uses the F119 core, but has a much larger bypass, which is probably why it can't supercruise like the F-22 can, but has much higher max theoretical thrust potential. I'm sure the F-35s aerodynamics mar this to good degree as well. I bet 40,000 lbs could be reached with the F119, but would probably not be too good for the engine. Anyone have any graphs/etc comparing thrust regimes for the F119 and F135?

The key to remember here, with regards to supercruising, is that they're using M1.5 as the baseline, not M1. So.....the takeaway is that if a competitor can fly at M1-1.4 in dry thrust, they're still not meeting the standard that LM/USAF is using. This also means that in saying that the F-35 doesn't supercruise, merely means that it can't fly at M1.5 or faster, in dry thrust. They've never said that it can't exceed M1 in dry thrust. I suspect that it can in fact do this, seeing as how I've read that it can reach M.95 at 40 percent power(dry).

wrightwing wrote:

nusna_moebius wrote:

Yes, I understand that. F135 uses the F119 core, but has a much larger bypass, which is probably why it can't supercruise like the F-22 can, but has much higher max theoretical thrust potential. I'm sure the F-35s aerodynamics mar this to good degree as well. I bet 40,000 lbs could be reached with the F119, but would probably not be too good for the engine. Anyone have any graphs/etc comparing thrust regimes for the F119 and F135?

The key to remember here, with regards to supercruising, is that they're using M1.5 as the baseline, not M1. So.....the takeaway is that if a competitor can fly at M1-1.4 in dry thrust, they're still not meeting the standard that LM/USAF is using. This also means that in saying that the F-35 doesn't supercruise, merely means that it can't fly at M1.5 or faster, in dry thrust. They've never said that it can't exceed M1 in dry thrust. I suspect that it can in fact do this, seeing as how I've read that it can reach M.95 at 40 percent power(dry).

I would use M1.3 as my own personal baseline for "decent" super cruise.

As for thrust growth, I think the F119 pretty much is limited to just under 40,000 lbs, as you would need to increase the mass flow in order to go higher a la F135. However, you never know what PW could pull off. Just look at how far GE has gone with the F404 and it's derivatives: F404 was around 18,000 lbs max, F414 is at 22,000 lbs, and the F414-EDE could possibly be pushed as far as 26,000 lbs. The Rafale tested with the F404 early on, (going with SNECMA M88s), but the F414 EDE would fit just like the F404, imagine the thrust to weight ratio (~1:1.7 for air combat load + max fuel!)!

Ok I'm pipe dreaming there lol.

I'll admit that the F-35 will have some pretty damn impressive electronics in it, but as an actual airplane I'm still not that impressed, when it is supposed to replace so many other aircraft. Yeah, I may be setting my expectations high, but so far the program has cost ALOT of money, taken the better part of two decades to get anywhere, and compromises have been made that I don't think the services should have to deal with just because "Congress said so". I especially feel sorry for any Navy pilot having to fly the F-35C. A single engined naval fighter is ridiculous in this day and age, and there is still a huge gap in capability with the retirement of the F-14 and nothing to take the place of the Pheonix.

nusna_moebius wrote:

I would use M1.3 as my own personal baseline for "decent" super cruise.

As for thrust growth, I think the F119 pretty much is limited to just under 40,000 lbs, as you would need to increase the mass flow in order to go higher a la F135.

The F-119 is already in the 37-39k thrust range, as is. I see no reason why this would be the hard limit, as the F-100/F-110/F-400/414 have all demonstrated robust increases over their initial spec.

Quote:

I'll admit that the F-35 will have some pretty damn impressive electronics in it, but as an actual airplane I'm still not that impressed, when it is supposed to replace so many other aircraft.

This is what I was getting at- what about the airplane isn't impressive? It exceeds the performance of the planes it's replacing, had VLO, and NCW/SA capabilities unlike any competitor/foe. You can't build an airframe that beats an F-22 in A2A, an F-111 in A2G, and an A-10 at CAS(protection from AAA). The areas of performance where a competitor/foe might exceed its capabilites, are in the least used parts of the envelope, and these won't overcome the situational awareness advantage that the F-35 enjoys.

Quote:

Yeah, I may be setting my expectations high, but so far the program has cost ALOT of money, taken the better part of two decades to get anywhere, and compromises have been made that I don't think the services should have to deal with just because "Congress said so". I especially feel sorry for any Navy pilot having to fly the F-35C. A single engined naval fighter is ridiculous in this day and age, and there is still a huge gap in capability with the retirement of the F-14 and nothing to take the place of the Pheonix.

Well at one point in time, long range airliners were required to have 3/4 engines, but due to the improvements in reliability of modern engines, this is no longer an issue. 2 engines is nice, but you have to look at the tradeoffs. Greater weight, higher costs of ownership, higher costs of operation, more maintenance, etc... F-16s have demonstrated that single engine aircraft can be as safe as anything else out there. As for capability gaps, the AIM-120D and subsequently, the JDRADM will be far more effective weapons, against a wide variety of targets(be it fighters, bombers, or cruise missiles(and SAM sites in the case of the JDRADM).

I was thinking the other day (well, daydreaming of sorts..lol) wouldn't it be neat to stick 2 F-135's into an inlarged F-22 or F-23 (again, idea only) as a longer range supersonic bomber?

God Bless
Jer

slicktry wrote:

I was thinking the other day (well, daydreaming of sorts..lol) wouldn't it be neat to stick 2 F-135's into an inlarged F-22 or F-23 (again, idea only) as a longer range supersonic bomber?

God Bless
Jer

The F135 is the wrong engine for a supercruiser. The F119 only gives up 10 to 15% static uninstalled thrust and having a lower BPR (among other things) it’s very likely that the F119 has a lower thrust lapse with increase in Mach and would therefore more dry thrust in its current configuration than a F135 under supersonic conditions (It’s also lighter than the F135). There’s no reason that the F119 doesn’t have any growth potential; almost all US military turbofans since at least the F100 have demonstrated a thrust growth of up to 20% in later iterations. I have a hard time believing that the F-22 PO and Pratt didn’t plan for F119 growth during the F119’s lifespan. It’s more a question of if we’ll see it come to fruition or not.

Quote:

A single engined naval fighter is ridiculous in this day and age, and there is still a huge gap in capability with the retirement of the F-14 and nothing to take the place of the Pheonix.

As a missile, the Pheonix wasn't that great. Some would consider the AIM-120D a better overall weapon. The APG-79 is probably a better radar than the APG-71, even in the air to air mode. The dual engined F-14 had a pretty high attrition rate, and I wouldn't say it was stellar even after getting F110s put in. Significantly safer than the TF30s though. Would still like to bitch slap Cheney for axing the program. Was a great aircraft in its day and had great potential for growth. As it stands now, I think the Super Hornet is a better aircraft. There is minor gaps in capability as the F-14 had longer range, higher speed and better bring-back abilities among a few other things. Overall, the Navy decided to deal with that and chose the Super Hornet. Engine technology has progressed leaps and bounds since even the F-14D entered service. I think the F-35C will be okay.

The F-14 and A-6 were retired early in favor of the SH because the SH is far cheaper to operate. That said the SH is not a better long range interceptor than the F-14, leaving aside an upgraded F-14, and it's not half an A-6. It is however a cost effective strike fighter the USN could afford to operate. The major problem as has been said is lack of range and this is not something really correctable.

It's actually quite shocking the USN retired all it's long carrier aircraft in the F-14, A-6, S-3, E-3, and KA-6. Moreover, the F-18's also have to do tanking. The utility of range and loiter capability is a large part of why the USN is focused on getting a fighter class UCAS operational quickly. This program will actually field an aircraft to do some of what the A-12 and A-6 could do and some things even better. The longer range of the F-35C will also be quite useful.

That said one thing to keep on eye on is the range of the NGAD (F/A-XX) which is going to have a primary air to air mission. The USN might actually get a proper replacement, in terms of range, for the F-14 as well. For the USN the F-35 is far less important than the USAF or USMC. The USN is fielding another two aircraft, continues to buy the SH, and has not bet the farm on the F-35.

In the 1980's the USN experimented with various carrier wings. The famous Grumman wing of all F-14's and A-6's (no light attack sqdn's of A-7 or F/A-1 Cool

showed significant advantages in an all long range carrier wing. A wing of F-14D+ and A-6F (or A-12) would have been extremely capable and probably not something the USN could actually afford to operate.

It's actually quite instructive how USN force structure has diminished over the years with carriers carrying around 2/3rds the aircraft they used to all in the name of being able to afford to operate the remaining wings with more cost effective strike fighters. The all weather medium attack, asw patrol, and ELINT units are all gone. The USMC is planning on getting rid of it's medium attack and ew sqdn's as well when the F-35B/C comes online. It's not clear the USAF is actually planning for it's future force structure to be sustainable.

Quote:

It's actually quite shocking the USN retired all it's long carrier aircraft in the F-14, A-6, S-3, E-3, and KA-6. Moreover, the F-18's also have to do tanking. The utility of range and loiter capability is a large part of why the USN is focused on getting a fighter class UCAS operational quickly. This program will actually field an aircraft to do some of what the A-12 and A-6 could do and some things even better. The longer range of the F-35C will also be quite useful.

Having an F-18E/F as a tanker just rubs me the wrong way. It blows me away why they have modified a cargo plane like the C-2A Greyhound to do that job. Can a Super Hornet actually haul and offload more fuel? C-2As could fly slow enough to refuel helicopters as well. Just because something is "newer" doesn't mean it's better.

Guys, let's get this back on topic.

This isn't about naval aviation or the F-35, both which I can give a sh*t less.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Why the Raptor was cancelled [Video]