Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I'll interject here with some perspectives if I may... in fairness to our collective self-pride - defended til the death - everyone obviously wants the final score (even geo) in a discussion and thus everyone is capable of massaging certain past comments and points and backtracking and covering up, etc, etc.

So it's therefore fair to point out as Madrat has that noted, that certain earlier 2007-2008 PDF claims do 'imply' PLANNED capabilities (of some means) for the future blk2. Well, on that note it could be reviewed that once upon a time a system called the blk3 Harpoon - included along side the 9x blk2 in one of these PDFs - was also 'planned'. Yet, plans sometimes change? From wiki: "After experiencing an increase in the scope of required government ship integration, test and evaluation, and a delay in development of a data-link, the Harpoon Block III program was canceled by the U.S. Navy in April 2009"! (subject to likely future incremental modifications now, sure).

So what spud is saying is partly correct imo, e.g., 'some LOAL capabilities' will be included at IOC while certain 'other' advertised capabilities should eventually achieve maturity in the future... and likewise, what madrat is saying is also partly correct - in clarifying for us that an actual blk2 IOC may not exactly include every original element as was always mentioned in previous public docs. So we'll just have to see which eventual blk2 IOC capes are disclosed in public, if that answers anything.

I will question one thing in specific being asserted (and will concede the point if mistaken), but can F-35/F-22 really 'guide' a data-linked AIM-9x using passive sensors, or only cue the LOAL as such? Would not the actual data-linked 'guidance' of the blk2 still need to come from the radar (or any equiv data-link transmitters?). E.g., it would be impressive if EO DAS could do the data-link update guidance and I would have learned something. Cheers-

F-16.net Sponsor

EODAS and EOTS are still in development, so we know now they cannot. ALR-94 probably can eventually, too, but there is no promise for it to do so now. Without a bulletproof IFF equivalent this capability may not get realized; the proverbial cart before the horse.

[quote="deadseal"]

wrightwing wrote:

A missile is either lock on after launch, or it isn't. Remember, this is an IR weapon, so it's not going to need input from the launch aircraft till it impacts the target. quote]

I don't understand this comment. Either it leaves the rail with a valid track or it needs course updates from somewhere. what am i missing?

All it needs are updates until its seeker has the target in its FOV, then the missile can execute the intercept autonomously. LOAL just means that the target need not be in the missile seeker's FOV prior to launch, as the aircraft is telling the missile where to look, after it is fired. Even for over the shoulder type shots, the missile will be in the aircraft's forward quarter, as it's making the hard turn. The EODAS/MLD will update the missile as it's turning, and its seeker can take over from there. Or....a wingman, with the target in view, can send the info via third party datalink. Now is it making more sense?

Quote:

Now is it making more sense?

Not saying yes or no on this one, ww, but I honestly didn't know that MLD/EO DAS themselves could transmit flight guidance data updates to an AIM-9X when the missile was behind the forward quarter. That would be pretty remarkable really (especially for an IOC block III F-35) and I figured a missile could likely only be cued by the passive sensors, with the radar (or equiv data link transmitter) actually establishing the data link flight updates. Are you and Spud sure about that capability?? The actual data linked guidance updates being sent to a missile, via EODAS??

And again, perhaps we can't say definitively that 3rd party datalink capability will be part of an IOC A-A variant blk2. The last publicly expected 'plan' for such capability that I can see off hand, would be early 2008, then after that the term for whatever reason isn't mentioned (although I'm sure I'll be corrected on that by spud's block IV link generator lol). But per the late 2009 press release that I've read, it simply indicates: 'some LOAL capability' linked one-way in the front quarter. That could indicate either a slightly revised design from that seen in some of the linked 2007/08 docs, or for some reason a decision to not advertise the 3rd party capability quite yet. imo.

I wasn't aware there is a definitive plan to turn F-22's missile launch detectors into either an EODAS. I know its been discussed on forums, but is there money out there for it?

I'd presume EOTS to be more valuable for launching missiles beyond the edge of visual range. If a target is in EODAS range then you're already past the merge and likely past the first shot stages. The EOTS is much longer range and forward hemisphere only. By the time you're within range for an EODAS then everyone is probably aware of each other's positions. I'd like to hope we're aiming for first shot capability with AIM-9X block II as the first priority. The other capabilities would be important eventually, but follow in a later stage.

I think there is some misconception as to the terms "cue" and "guide" as to datalinks.

Any sensor, in a properly sensor-fused airframe, can provide the target location during the "cue" and post-launch phases.

The actual transmission of the datalink signal, however, has to be handled by the appropriate transmitter (link16 in most cases). A few things that are not known are whether an AESA radar (F-22 or F-35) can serve as a transmitter or if the F-35's MADL can transmit a narrow-beam datalnk update.

Geo, the Aim-9x Blk2 has already demonstrated a LOAL launch with target data from off-board sources.

madrat wrote:

I wasn't aware there is a definitive plan to turn F-22's missile launch detectors into either an EODAS. I know its been discussed on forums, but is there money out there for it?

It's one of the ongoing upgrades to the F-22, and one of the reasons why JHMCS integration wasn't a high priority to make use of the -9X's HOBS capabilities.

Quote:

I'd presume EOTS to be more valuable for launching missiles beyond the edge of visual range. If a target is in EODAS range then you're already past the merge and likely past the first shot stages. The EOTS is much longer range and forward hemisphere only. By the time you're within range for an EODAS then everyone is probably aware of each other's positions.

If the target is in the forward hemisphere, you don't need HOBS in the first place. The point of LOAL is for shots where the target is to the side/rear(or if you don't want to have to lower the weapon into the airstream to look for targets prior to launch. As for the EODAS range/usefulness, it's not a given that the foe will be aware by the time the EODAS can detect them, especially depending on the relative attitudes of the 2 aircraft.

Quote:

I'd like to hope we're aiming for first shot capability with AIM-9X block II as the first priority. The other capabilities would be important eventually, but follow in a later stage.

That's what the -120C7/D is for, but.....should you get in close, the lofted profile, and low drag of the -9X should give good range in the forward sector.

Spud, thnx for reply.. yeah, I'm going by what can be found in public sources - which is probably the only credible source to post anyway. For that reason, I was going with Raytheon's latest claims of the 9x blk2 being a 'forward-quarter' data linked missile. Moreover, the most recent company press releases at least have no mention of a 3rd party hand-off guidance capability for an Air-air launched blk2 9x. If you can link a public doc on that air-air launch related matter, it would settle the issue. Thanks for the insights and discussions always.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... grade.html

DATE:02/02/11
SOURCE:Flight International
USAF invites rivals to break Lockheed’s grip on F-22 upgrade work
By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force could spend up to $16 billion over the next several years on further upgrades for the Lockheed Martin F-22.
It could also award some of the business to the manufacturer's competitors.
The dollar value was disclosed in a 26 January acquisition notice calling for bidders to compete for the follow-on Raptor enhancement, development and integration (FREDI) contract.

Lockheed was awarded the original multi-year REDI deal in 2004, but now the USAF is inviting its competitors to bid for the work too.

The last of 187 F-22s will be delivered to the USAF in early 2012, but the service plans to spend about $500 million annually for the next several years on planned upgrades. It is upgrading the F-22's radar and computer, adding more capable missiles and making the stealth aircraft easier to maintain.
At the same time, the USAF also plans to transition the F-22's sustainment programme "to a more organic support concept", the acquisition notice says.
Lockheed has been managing the F-22's maintenance system under a performance-based logistics (PBL) deal, which is designed to generate cost savings over time but locks the government into a long-term support deal.
But the USAF and other government agencies have decided to scale back the use of such PBL contracts. Instead, more maintenance work is being assigned in government depots, while other upgrade and sustainment tasks are split among several contractors.

flateric wrote:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/02/352677/usaf-invites-rivals-to-break-lockheeds-grip-on-f-22-upgrade.html

DATE:02/02/11
SOURCE:Flight International
USAF invites rivals to break Lockheed’s grip on F-22 upgrade work
By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force could spend up to $16 billion over the next several years on further upgrades for the Lockheed Martin F-22.
It could also award some of the business to the manufacturer's competitors.
The dollar value was disclosed in a 26 January acquisition notice calling for bidders to compete for the follow-on Raptor enhancement, development and integration (FREDI) contract.

Lockheed was awarded the original multi-year REDI deal in 2004, but now the USAF is inviting its competitors to bid for the work too.

The last of 187 F-22s will be delivered to the USAF in early 2012, but the service plans to spend about $500 million annually for the next several years on planned upgrades. It is upgrading the F-22's radar and computer, adding more capable missiles and making the stealth aircraft easier to maintain.
At the same time, the USAF also plans to transition the F-22's sustainment programme "to a more organic support concept", the acquisition notice says.
Lockheed has been managing the F-22's maintenance system under a performance-based logistics (PBL) deal, which is designed to generate cost savings over time but locks the government into a long-term support deal.
But the USAF and other government agencies have decided to scale back the use of such PBL contracts. Instead, more maintenance work is being assigned in government depots, while other upgrade and sustainment tasks are split among several contractors.

They could buy a few dozens more new raptors with 16 billions.
What the Raptor needs now is quantity, not quality

batu731 wrote:

They could buy a few dozens more new raptors with 16 billions.
What the Raptor needs now is quantity, not quality

So true.

Except not really, since operating costs are going to be significant and then you just have more airplanes to upgrade when they're hopelessly obsolete.

Upgrades are expensive when they only apply to 187 copies. We'll rue the day we decided to build so few.

The total (what you actually pay) will still be greater. A couple dozen will not generate worthwhile economies of scale.

The F-22 was never designed or intended to be killed with 84x block 35 jets in operation. End of debate.

The reason why another 60-100 additional block 35+ capable jets should have been procured, is simply that many of the early lot F-22s will be retired before most of us (and Congress) realize it. Thus, it would have been far cheaper and more potent to have the 140x combat coded jets actually expected to still be flying by the late 2020s and beyond, to be the more advanced, common-upgradeable and more mistake-free block.

Being forced now by default, to upgrade initial-build airframes (e.g. equivalent to a block 2.0 F-35A) to a modern spec for the future (e.g. equivalent to say a block VI F-35A), will be very expensive and still fall short of requirements.

Very poor and incompetent planning unfortunately - i.e., the whole Tacair recapitalization policy. imho.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F/A-22 Raptor Future Upgrades