Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

From Code One Magazine. The final Raptor is taking shape. Should be delivered sometime next year.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=445

F-16.net Sponsor

Cool, but depressing at the same time.

sadness

Definitely depressing (but at least the production line is being preserved, at least there's the hope of restarting it sometime in the future). Hopefully they'll get the O.B.O.G.S. problems worked out as well.

FlightDreamz wrote:

Definitely depressing (but at least the production line is being preserved, at least there's the hope of restarting it sometime in the future). Hopefully they'll get the O.B.O.G.S. problems worked out as well.

Four things need to happen before I would support the expense of restarting production, perhaps as a kind of "Superraptor" substitute to save money over a so-called 6th generation design (like the Navy did with the Superhornet to save money over the NATF).

1. IRST, the space is there, use it.

2. JDRAAM and associated SEAD avionics.

3. Tougher LO skin.

4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.

I'm a gonna venture a WAG and say the mapping problem may have had something to do with whatever LO properties the canopy transparency has. Perhaps it was messing with the JHMCS EM field such that it had trouble finding where the pilot's head was? Shrug

Except for maybe the gold Viper canopies, the transparencies on the "older" jets (is the Super Bug old?) don't have a whole lotta LO stuff AFAIK.

But I do agree: If they're smart enough to build a jet that cosmic you'd think they could figure out how to track the driver's head. Perhaps using something other than an EM field?

If they build a new F-22 variant then I would aim for a niche rather than end-all do-all design that made the F-35 program so convoluted. I'd rather see a stretch performed, add a second seat, reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler, stretch the internal bay for much larger weapons, and gear its electronic suite for a tactical strike version.

Quote:

1st503rdsgt
IRST, the space is there, use it.

Definitely agree that should be in future block F-22/possible future builds. As far as tougher LO skin, I was under the impression that Lockheed was incorporating lessons learned from the F-35 into the F-22 Raptor? Shrug

And madrat sounds like you're going for a FB-22 which I would like to see as well.

madrat wrote:

If they build a new F-22 variant then I would aim for a niche rather than end-all do-all design that made the F-35 program so convoluted. I'd rather see a stretch performed, add a second seat, reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler, stretch the internal bay for much larger weapons, and gear its electronic suite for a tactical strike version.

A strike version would be nice, but to keep costs down and increase usefulness, I'd rather see the F-22 become a dual role (SEAD and air-superiority) fighter with the simple mission of protecting other US aircraft from air and ground threats, no more, no less. This would remove the need to enlarge the airfame for heavy A2G munitions while also giving the F-22 a more valuable role in future conflicts where opponents will probably rely more on advanced SAM capability than on airpower.

The B-1 is only going to hold out so long, its time for thinking interim solution that can be used for other roles. And the FB-22 idea is what I was alluding.

madrat wrote:

The B-1 is only going to hold out so long, its time for thinking interim solution that can be used for other roles. And the FB-22 idea is what I was alluding.

It comes down to costs and psychology. At this point, it's difficult to tell if the FB-22 would be any cheaper or quicker than a whole new aircraft, but that might not matter. A new medium bomber would probably be best, but when anyone says the words "new bomber" in Congress, everyone $hits themselves and the media has a field day.

Dedicated bombers are the best way to put a payload on a target, that's why they're called... "bombers." Even the Clinton administration wanted a few more B-2s. Given the advantages of VLO and the JDAM, I'm not certain there's really a need for a long-range, supersonic strike/interdiction aircraft these days, but the FB-22 might be a way for the USAF to get what it needs without having to use the dreaded B-word.

Quote:

2. JDRAAM and associated SEAD avionics.

I thought those avionics were already there in the form of the ALR-94 and datalink.

Quote:

3. Tougher LO skin.

Why not use the F-35s?

Quote:

4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.

How about using the Scorpion HMD instead of the JHMCS.

There is no need for mapping the F-22 (as any helmet would be a problem, not just the JHMCS), just upgrade the MLD to EODAS tracking (as this is already in the works).

*sob*

I wants more Raptor. Maybe the next Pres can convince Congress to stick in funding for a hundred more as they gut the socialist welfare state... Wink

madrat wrote:

reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler

Well the F-22 was designed to fly high and fast, while the F135 wasn't. To really get the best out of the engines, they may need to rework the shape of the plane, and that will only make things more complex. I say stick with the F119.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Assembly Of Final F-22 Begins