Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

As for the thread title. Don't look at me I want the Raptor!! I mean I'm a YF-23 guy, but that being said, I'll take all 750 Raptors!!

F-16.net Sponsor

bruant328 wrote:

As for the thread title. Don't look at me I want the Raptor!! I mean I'm a YF-23 guy, but that being said, I'll take all 750 Raptors!!

Yeah the YF-23 was a really banging fighter. I'm not sure how things would have changed if that were chosen over the Raptor, as each had their own advantages.

The F-22 was considered the best option for the naval variant (which never came into fruition), and I think it demanded fewer surfaces for RAM application. Thrust vectoring and the other fighter-like attributes were probably negligible to performance, but also weighed in its favor.

The YF-23 was about the same in terms of performance, but I recall it had a more expansive weapon bay selection(at least in the 2,000 Ibs class range), even better stealth shape, and a greater fuel capacity. I might be wrong about the last point, though. I think it was the heavy RAM application that was the breaking point with the fighter.

bruant328 wrote:

chrisrt wrote:

Just where the hell is everyone getting off saying the Raptor's combat systems is out dated? It is anything but. It has the computer power to perform its task without issue. Any add-ons should use their own processors and the Raptor does have bus link-ins. I simply don't understand.

I think we are referring to what the Raptor has as to the current state of the art.
I understand the Raptor performs its tasks and I agree with that. It's about whether or not it has the best(i.e. size, speed, energy efficiency, memory,) systems to perform those tasks. Connectivity is I think a relatively new concept so maybe we can't fault the avionics designers back then. That being said inefficient is not the same as ineffective.

Like I said isn't the DoD looking to return to MILSPECS as opposed to cpurely COTS hard/software?

I'm going to go off again...

DoD did go too far down the garden path on COTS in some areas. Too much was milspec'd. This cost us too much, but the bean counters didn't realize that in some cases, the things the military had to do and where they had to do them simply were much harsher compared to what hardware in the civilian world had to do. So, the pendulum swung too far, and now it's starting to swing back in some areas.

In the case of software, though, it's how powerful and versatile the language is and how well and secure you write the code (physical access to the system is also a significant issue), not so much what the language itself is. The world has changed a lot since the ATF competition and the US military is not the driving force in this field as it used to be. Businesses just aren't as interested as they once were in this market because of the comparatively low volume and hassle of complying with all the Fed. rules. So, they charge a lot more to support this or sometimes they just say, "Not interested". Similar thing for some of the processors. In planes like the F-22 it's not just plug 'n play. An F-23A would have had the same problems; this was completely unexpected when ATF was started. By the time of JSF, reality was faced and in some areas the requirement was relaxed, but was allowed to be met in ways that didn't hurt effectiveness but were more compatible with the way things now were.

The F-22's computer power is sufficient to perform its tasks. It's more advanced than what's in previous fighters, and it may be unique but probably isn't cutting edge by today's standards. That doesn't mean it's ineffective. Here's a perspective: By the mid-late '90s you could buy a desktop PC that had more computing power than all the computers (combined)in the Saturn/Apollo ships that went to the moon. I have heard it said that such a PC was actually more powerful than all the computers at Ground Control as well. None of us probably have the clearance to know the answer for sure, but I would wager that some of us may be using PCs that are more powerful than all the processors in the Raptor. Surely ILM is (although they don't all fit on a desktop!).

None of this should be taken to mean that the Raptor itself is "outdated", as long as it can get the job done and get support for a reasonable price.

FWIW

I think there was some information released on the type of processors used in the Raptor's CIPs. I also watch a documentary stating it had far more power then a Cray supercomputer. I do not know what specific unit it was referring to. My cellular phone has more power then the first ones.
I'm willing to bet that my multiple 4 core computers would fold when compared to it's CIPs. (I take that back. 700 MIPs peak at low setting) They are also running code that is specific to them, unlike your common PC. I wonder the MIPS per CIP...

Supposedly, based off this site that seems decent, the CIPs aren’t even maxed out.

"The Hughes-built Common Integrated Processor (CIP) is the 'brain' of the avionics system. The CIP, which is quite literally the size of a oversized bread box, supports all signal and data processing for all sensors and mission avionics.There are two CIPs in each F/A-22, with 66 module slots per CIP. They have identical backplanes, and all of the F/A-22's processing requirements can be handled by only seven different types of processors.

Currently, 19 of 66 slots in CIP 1 and 22 of 66 slots in CIP 2 are not in use and can be used for future growth.Each module is limited by design to only 75 percent of its capability, so the F/A-22 has thirty percent growth capability with no change to the existing equipment.

There is space, power, and cooling provisions in the aircraft now for a third CIP, so the requirement for a 200 percent avionics growth capability in the F/A-22 can be met easily."

http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_avionics.php

Wasn't most of the Raptor code done in Ada? Not exactly a common language.
fisk

My understanding was that Ada was chosen because it is "safer" than most other languages when it comes to life-critical situations. Not having dealt with the language at any depth I can only speculate that things like hangups and software crashes are less common or less crippling in Ada than say, an application or operating system written in C/C++. From my understanding also, writing software with Ada is more difficult than with other, more common languages.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Couldn't they have replaced the electronics in the F-22 to make it more capable of future upgrades? It would have seemed a much less demanding task to take the majority of the F-22 airframe and redesign the avionics/computer systems to replace what they already have. The F-35 packs more computing/avionics/tactical systems into a smaller airframe... it would seem you could go a lot further with the Raptor. Certainly it would have been a tremendous task and would have cost billions in R&D, but how much more was it to design a whole new aircraft completely?

That's what the Block 30/35 are, and the future upgrades where cross polinization between the F-35's technologies will be incorporated.

Quote:

As far as we were concerned, the F-22 was bought and paid for before the choice was made to go for the F-35. I just think it would have made much more sense to go back and upgrade the F-22 to fulfill the JSF's 'fighter for the future threat' and invested for one last batch of generation 4.5 fighters with networking capabilities to get through the next 10-15 years.

There's no way to upgrade the F-22, to take over the F-35's role. Even with identical avionics fits, you're still limited by the weapons bays/engines, which aren't optimized for that sort of role.

Quote:

Then I would have taken proven technologies that are now being fitted for the JSF and set the fighter introduction for something like 2020-2025 range. Because as of today and at least the next decade, our fighter force with the F-22 and older F-16's/F-18's is still dominant. The longer you wait to implement the next generation fighter, the more technology will have evolved.

You can keep waiting for the next best thing, but meanwhile your opponents are moving forward. It still takes a long time to get new planes from paper to squadrons, especially considering by the 2025 timeframe, we'll likely see 6th Gen prototypes.

Quote:

Unfortunately the F-22 was too far ahead of its time, but is now almost a technological dinosaur compared to less capable aircraft built in only the last decade. It had its flaws, but the airframe itself was definitely worthy of a suitable electronics upgrade to expand its capabilities well into the next century.

Dinosaur compared to what? What competitor is even close to Increments 3.1, 3.2, etc...? The only F-22s not easily upgradeable are the early Block 20s.

wrightwing wrote:

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Couldn't they have replaced the electronics in the F-22 to make it more capable of future upgrades? It would have seemed a much less demanding task to take the majority of the F-22 airframe and redesign the avionics/computer systems to replace what they already have. The F-35 packs more computing/avionics/tactical systems into a smaller airframe... it would seem you could go a lot further with the Raptor. Certainly it would have been a tremendous task and would have cost billions in R&D, but how much more was it to design a whole new aircraft completely?

That's what the Block 30/35 are, and the future upgrades where cross polinization between the F-35's technologies will be incorporated.

Quote:

As far as we were concerned, the F-22 was bought and paid for before the choice was made to go for the F-35. I just think it would have made much more sense to go back and upgrade the F-22 to fulfill the JSF's 'fighter for the future threat' and invested for one last batch of generation 4.5 fighters with networking capabilities to get through the next 10-15 years.

There's no way to upgrade the F-22, to take over the F-35's role. Even with identical avionics fits, you're still limited by the weapons bays/engines, which aren't optimized for that sort of role.

Quote:

Then I would have taken proven technologies that are now being fitted for the JSF and set the fighter introduction for something like 2020-2025 range. Because as of today and at least the next decade, our fighter force with the F-22 and older F-16's/F-18's is still dominant. The longer you wait to implement the next generation fighter, the more technology will have evolved.

You can keep waiting for the next best thing, but meanwhile your opponents are moving forward. It still takes a long time to get new planes from paper to squadrons, especially considering by the 2025 timeframe, we'll likely see 6th Gen prototypes.

Quote:

Unfortunately the F-22 was too far ahead of its time, but is now almost a technological dinosaur compared to less capable aircraft built in only the last decade. It had its flaws, but the airframe itself was definitely worthy of a suitable electronics upgrade to expand its capabilities well into the next century.

Dinosaur compared to what? What competitor is even close to Increments 3.1, 3.2, etc...? The only F-22s not easily upgradeable are the early Block 20s.

Yep, spot on. The F-22 could never accomplish the F-35’s missions. First off, it’s not carrier suitable for the USN folks. The -22 could never be a close air support machine. You may as well roll out some mothballed F-4’s. It’s not optimized for low level “low speed” bulls eye accuracy that we have with the A-10s.

What the F-22 is, is an aerial denial system: it can deny an enemy of the use of its aerial assets. PERIOD. Need it do anymore to justify more than 183 airframes???

What it can also do is act penetration strike fighter, like a light F-111, and take out key assets along the lines of mobile radar units/sams. It could also be one hell of an AWACS platform, not only with the ability to spot bogies and relay that info back to the legacy’s and -35’s, but target at least 4 to 6 of them as well. It’s a crying shame that its effectively dead now. As I said, 300 optimized/modernized Raptors would be one hell of a force to contend with, even with a multi-theater war effort.

P.S. I didn't even mention cruise missile defense! Taking 'em out while they're still in enemy airspace.

Tinito_16 wrote:

My understanding was that Ada was chosen because it is "safer" than most other languages when it comes to life-critical situations. Not having dealt with the language at any depth I can only speculate that things like hangups and software crashes are less common or less crippling in Ada than say, an application or operating system written in C/C++. From my understanding also, writing software with Ada is more difficult than with other, more common languages.

Tiniti_16, I know some Ada 2005 and by definition, a lot of the predating versions. I also know C++. The best way to describe Ada is that it is a HIGHLY restrictive language, with a large set of features. Implicitly, this makes it difficult to learn. C++ was quite hard to learn at my first exposure to it. Both languages are large, powerful, "can get low" programming languages, but Ada's compiler does FAR greater checks/enforcements than C++ does (generally-speaking). My guess for C++ being more popular would be its very strong roots to C, its predecessor. I find C++ more "natural", though that could be that I was introduced to C++ first, then C and Ada at times can vary widely from those two languages. The combination of having a very restrictive type system and a large set of features, probably has made it a relatively unattractive language to employ outside defense contexts. And, we are not even talking about its "standard" library. There would of course be user defined libraries and other extensions to learn by the "system programmer", which of course, may mean several things. In theory, well programmed Ada, should result in code that will not cause a CPU to encounter bad instructions, system host violations etc...

Highly restrictive -> many rules, many contexts; i.e., can't do this, can't do that, can do this here, but not there etc... The compiler can help you along if you have a manual and can read its output, so, in a sense, it can teach you the language on the fly.

Cos the f-22 aint worth it, and soon f-35 will follow suit. DOD and lockheed martin embarked on this journey on pretext of wishful thinking.

$150million worth of equipment can be susceptible and vulnerable to rain, isnt it ironic?

America doesnt need multi million dollar jets to fight so-called enemies in the third world countries.mere sanctions will keep them at bay.both the f-22 and jsf programs were a showcase of what can be done with technology in this day and age, that said they were seen as potential replacements for f-16s and a-10s, and f-18s, but this bubble has finally burst, no matter how pressing needs may be to induct these jets, in reality it is not viable to sustain the overall impact.

more time and money should be spent on research and developments of new upgrades for f-16s, A-10s,f-15s and f/A-18s existing fleet and re-opening of f-16,
f-15 and f/a production lines.

Yea, right. Spoken by an expert....

From AvWeek July 20, 2009:

Under Attack

BYLINE: Graham Warwick

SECTION: Defense; Pg. 40 Vol. 171 No. 3

LENGTH: 927 words

Graham Warwick/Washington

Memories of hours lost to software crashes during flight testing of the F-22 are pushing the Joint Strike Fighter team to unusual lengths to establish system maturity ahead of flight testing on the F-35. These include plunging a developmental radar into the melee of a major military exercise to test its ability to counter electronic attacks.

The stakes are high. Delays in flying test aircraft mean development F-35s will each have to average almost 13 productive sorties a month to complete testing on schedule. Any repeat of the software instability that plagued the F-22 could wreck the program.

Participation of the F-35’s APG-81 radar in exercise Northern Edge 09, mounted on Northrop Grumman’s BAC One-Eleven testbed, proved several of the active electronically scanned array’s electronic protection capabilities «years ahead of normal development timelines,» says Teri Marconi, vice president for combat avionics for Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems.

«We are three to five years ahead in maturity compared with previous programs,» says Eric Branyan, Lockheed Martin vice president and F-35 deputy program manager. «Legacy programs did not fly the radar in an operational scenario five years before development was complete.»

The One-Eleven operated out of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, for about a week during Northern Edge, and was «treated as if it was an F-35» in a joint electronic-warfare exercise involving hundreds of aircraft, says Marconi. Some engagements were scripted specifically to test the APG-81’s electronic protection capabilities. In others the radar was a passive participant.

The flights were intended to validate laboratory tests conducted during the past year, she says. Since F-35 development began in 2001, the APG-81 has completed 20,000 hr. of ground tests in labs at Northrop Grumman in Baltimore and Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, says Branyan. It has also logged 330 hr. of airborne tests in the One-Eleven since 2005 and since 2008 in the CATBird, a heavily modified Boeing 737-300 equipped as a flying testbed for the F-35 mission system.

The initial release of mission-system software, Block 0.5, is now running in the laboratory, on the CATBird and on the first mission-system test F-35, aircraft BF-4, which is on the flight line at Fort Worth being readied to fly by the end of the summer, says Branyan. Block 0.5 is the software release planned for the first two low-rate initial production batches of F-35s.

Block 0.5 was tested in flight during a two-week deployment of the CATBird to Edwards AFB, Calif., in April. The 39 hr. of flight time included 22 hr. of radar operation, demonstrating its performance at «tactically significant ranges» against different types and sizes of target. «In 22 hr. of operation there were no crashes,» he says.

Formal measurement of reliability will start once 1,000 hr. of development flying, expected around April next year, is reached, but Lockheed Martin is tracking performance informally. In aggregate, F-35 test aircraft AA-1, BF-1 and BF-2 have logged some 115 hr. «and we have never had an aircraft return to base for a software failure yet,» says Branyan. These early flight-sciences aircraft are equipped with only the backbone of the mission system, but they already have more software than in an operational F-22, he says.

After the software instability problems of the F-22, a different avionics architecture was adopted for the F-35. The F-22 uses queue-based processing, operations stacking up to be processed asynchronously on a single integrated processor. «It’s very fast, but not very deterministic,» says Branyan. Software faults are hard to reproduce. «The F-22 has become stable, but it was a challenge to get there.»

The F-35 uses «rate-monotonic» scheduling—every processing operation has a time slice in which to run and computing is federated across multiple core processors. «It’s very deterministic and it’s easier to troubleshoot, as an operation always runs in the same slice,» he says. «There are more rigid architecture rules, but it’s easier to develop and debug [the software].»

In additional to improving software stability, this architecture allows systems to be tested individually by suppliers before being shipped to Lockheed Martin for integration. «We can mature the systems first, then integrate them,» says Branyan.

Development of the radar is running about 18 months ahead of the mission avionics, to allow more time to mature the system in the laboratory, he says. Northrop Grumman is already running the Block 2 radar software and Block 3 is planned for year-end.

In late July, the CATBird will deploy to Eglin AFB, Fla. for 60 days to vet a follow-on flight-test update to the Block 0.5 software, which adds in electronic warfare. For the Eglin flights, the CATBird will be equipped with the radar, communication/navigation/identification and EW systems and new panoramic cockpit display that will fly in BF-4.

The next software release, Block 1, integrates the electro-optical distributed aperture system—six infrared sensors that provide a 360-deg. view around the aircraft on the pilot’s helmet-mounted display—and the electro-optical targeting system. Block 1 is expected to be integrated on CATBird in first-quarter 2010.

All the mission-system test F-35s are in final assembly or on the flight line at Fort Worth. All will fly initially with Block 0.5 and be upgraded later. Most of the upgrade will involve software, but Blocks 2 and 3 will introduce more powerful core processors with higher throughput and more memory.

This may be a slight tangent, but may help some understand the justification for the termination of the -22 line.

With the -35's massive internal fuel load, could it light burners and (cruise is the wrong word, but I'll use it anyway) cruise at something between M1.3 & M1.5 for just as long as the -22 can supercruise at M1.6?

If the -35 can do this, then all its missing fromt the -22 spec sheet (practically speaking of course!!) is the aam loadout, and longer ranged radar. But then again, as I think through this, the -22 can out-turn the -35, and probably has better transonic through supersonic maneuverability as well given twin thrust vectoring nozzels, and larger surfaces such as the verticles stabs....

sewerrat wrote:

This may be a slight tangent, but may help some understand the justification for the termination of the -22 line.

With the -35's massive internal fuel load, could it light burners and (cruise is the wrong word, but I'll use it anyway) cruise at something between M1.3 & M1.5 for just as long as the -22 can supercruise at M1.6?

If the -35 can do this, then all its missing fromt the -22 spec sheet (practically speaking of course!!) is the aam loadout, and longer ranged radar. But then again, as I think through this, the -22 can out-turn the -35, and probably has better transonic through supersonic maneuverability as well given twin thrust vectoring nozzels, and larger surfaces such as the verticles stabs....

Probably not. A descent specific range guestimate (based on previous examples such as the F100) for a F135 in blower is around 0.015lb/nm. It may be a bit better or worse than this depending on the altitude and Mach number but I’d wager this is good enough. Now based on what little we know about the F-22’s SC performance I’d estimate it’s SR of around 0.04 to 0.05 lb/nm. The F-35A and the F-22A both hold almost identical internal fuel and using the 2/3rds rule of thumb you can an average mission fuel of around 12,500lbs (I’m grossly simplifying things here). That gives the F-35 a rough range of 200nm (rounding up) and the F-22 of around 560nm. Almost three times as much.

I know its blasphemy here but I think too much is capability is often afforded on the F-35. It’s going to be a great jet no doubt but in the air dominance field where the F-22 specializes in I don’t think the two are all that close. This appears to be largely validated by the TACBRAWLER results released by LM and the USAF in ’09.

Tinito_16 wrote:

My understanding was that Ada was chosen because it is "safer" than most other languages when it comes to life-critical situations. Not having dealt with the language at any depth I can only speculate that things like hangups and software crashes are less common or less crippling in Ada than say, an application or operating system written in C/C++. From my understanding also, writing software with Ada is more difficult than with other, more common languages.

Not qualified to comment on how "safe" Ada was relative to other languages, but it wasn't "chosen" in the sense that the Lockheed team decided it was the best choice rather than other languages. What happened was that DoD started mandating use of Ada for all software projects where new code was more than 30% of the total. ATF sure qualified here. They were hoping to cut down the number of languages in use in DoD and also that the programming world, seeing the big DoD use, would widely adopt it as well. Although it did its job, it never caught on as well as DoD hoped. The commercial programming world had expanded so dramatically since Ada was first conceived and DoD found they could do what they needed in most cases with COTS.

The Ada mandate was essentially lifted in 1997. From the dates you can see that the F-22 (or the F-23 or even the Super Tomcat 21, had they been built) was right in the middle of that time period.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Why is F-22 unwanted?