With F-35 do we need F-22 anymore?

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Dec 2019, 01:02

disconnectedradical wrote:
steve2267 wrote:So... if Tom'll fork over the moolah... and we can get John Will to stuff a pair of GE F414-EPE motors in there... Tom will have approximately 52000lb of thrust for his 27,400lb take-off weight.

Might need to change the title of the next movie to: Top Gun III: Major Tom with title sound track by David Bowie. (I think Mr. Bowie would approve.)


The gross weight difference is bigger because I think the F-18L also carries less fuel than F/A-18A. For empty weight the difference is 2,500 lbs.

Also, F-18L may not get full thrust benefit of the F414-EPE engine because the intake is not big enough for the increase airflow.


Stop it! You're ruining my meme!

Prolly gonna have to bend (or shear) some sheet metal to get the F414 to fit. Not sure it is a straight drop in for the F404. (Fan dia apparently slightly larger.) So Tom can get some guys from B4FC to hammer some sheet metal to enlarge the inlets a bit. Gotta get that 2.0 T/W ratio for braggin' rights, dontchyaknow.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 03:45

quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA?


Here ya go — http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html


This is a fantastic bit of fancy. The approach to problem solving is very out of the box. You essentially start with the supposition that you HAVE to get F-22 into Australia inventory no matter how much fiction is required and let the keyboard fly.

Regarding the tricky problem of returning to the carrier with an aircraft ill suited to the task....

"Elevating spine winglet"

I loved this one. It speaks of a kinder gentler future, when mono-wing aircraft transform into Bi-Planes by the sheer force of Ausi-willpower. I'm sure that the main strong-points of the F-22 along and just below the sheet metal of the spine is roomy enough to fit an entire additional WING with the hydraulic lift assemblies. You may note that the maritime F-22 designers were shrewd enough to sense that this engineering concept may be silly and so added the suffix "let" to the end of WING to suggest that this is not a full size wing, it is a WINGLET. Medium-to-High difficulty surely.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 13:30

Is this thread about the utility of the F-22 in spite of the more plentiful and advanced F-35 or is this thread about the hypothetical NATF concept of yester-years? I honestly dont know anymore if I only read the last 4 pages...

Getting back to the topic that this thread should be about.

disconnectedradical wrote:.

zero-one wrote:Think of the F-22 as your Navy Seals or Delta force.... yes you can afford to retire them if needed because technically, your infantry men can also do that job, but you'll need to send a lot more of them and suffer more casualties in the process.


That's a pretty poor analogy, SOCOM units have completely different mission set from conventional forces that normal infantry can't do because lack of training and equipment. F-22 and F-35 have overlapping capabilities with F-22 putting much more focus on air-to-air.


I think a better analogy is US Army Rangers and Special Operations/Forces units. The Rangers (especially the famed 75th Ranger RGT) and the smaller SOF units/teams/groups have plenty of overlap in terms of mission and operational capacity. Rangers are a highly trained and elite light infantry force that work very closely with SOF units. However in terms of special missions that require a small foot print but with high kinetic operations/raids with small sized teams, SOF is the usual and preferred go to.
IMO the same can be said with F-22 and F-35. The F-35 can do pretty much anything and everything else yet when push comes to shove against other opposing aircraft, the F-22 will be the USAFs preferred go to asset.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 14:07

charlielima223 wrote:Is this thread about the utility of the F-22 in spite of the more plentiful and advanced F-35 or is this thread about the hypothetical NATF concept of yester-years? I honestly dont know anymore if I only read the last 4 pages...

...

IMO the same can be said with F-22 and F-35. The F-35 can do pretty much anything and everything else yet when push comes to shove against other opposing aircraft, the F-22 will be the USAFs preferred go to asset.


A pity the F-22 cannot talk MADL to the F-35, nor the F-35 speak IFRL to the F-22.

With all those F-35s buzzing around... imagine the SA & targeting that would be available to the Raptor pilot if he could tap into all that fused F-35 'tron goodness. Then the relatively limited (in number) F-22 could really be put to good use.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3601
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 14:19

steve2267 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Is this thread about the utility of the F-22 in spite of the more plentiful and advanced F-35 or is this thread about the hypothetical NATF concept of yester-years? I honestly dont know anymore if I only read the last 4 pages...

...

IMO the same can be said with F-22 and F-35. The F-35 can do pretty much anything and everything else yet when push comes to shove against other opposing aircraft, the F-22 will be the USAFs preferred go to asset.


A pity the F-22 cannot talk MADL to the F-35, nor the F-35 speak IFRL to the F-22.

With all those F-35s buzzing around... imagine the SA & targeting that would be available to the Raptor pilot if he could tap into all that fused F-35 'tron goodness. Then the relatively limited (in number) F-22 could really be put to good use.

That's why this is being addressed, so both aircraft can share data discretely.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 17:05

wrightwing wrote:That's why this is being addressed, so both aircraft can share data discretely.


Are you referring to a pod on a 4th gen or a 3rd party UAV tagging along or loitering in the area?

IMO, the two platforms need to be able to talk directly to each other. But I may have missed an announcement where direct F-22 <--> F-35 stealthy datalink is being implemented?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Dec 2019, 20:16

steve2267 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:That's why this is being addressed, so both aircraft can share data discretely.


Are you referring to a pod on a 4th gen or a 3rd party UAV tagging along or loitering in the area?

IMO, the two platforms need to be able to talk directly to each other. But I may have missed an announcement where direct F-22 <--> F-35 stealthy datalink is being implemented?


I think its being implied that either the F-22 and F-35 will use a 3rd party. Though I would think the desired end goal would be direct F-22 F-35 link and communication

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/11/f-3 ... er-is-yes/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Dec 2019, 11:15

I think it's actually very complex problem to have common data link between F-22 and F-35. They use different frequencies, so they use different kinds of antennas. So you'd need to install those antennas to F-22 as it would make no sense to install IFDL antennas to F-35. This would mean replacing current antennas with new ones to preserve stealth, so the whole communications system would need to be replaced with new one. That would require a lot of software to be written, tested and certified. High-End military Data links are far more complex systems than what people usually think they are. Then these changes would need to be taken into account in the sensor fusion engine code. I bet going from IFDL to MADL would require quite a lot of changes there also.

I definitely understand why they went with gateway approach first as it's a lot easier and faster way to do so. Just install MADL and IFDL systems and antennas to some suitable platform and make a translator between the two.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post20 Dec 2019, 14:30

hornetfinn wrote:I think it's actually very complex problem to have common data link between F-22 and F-35. They use different frequencies, so they use different kinds of antennas. So you'd need to install those antennas to F-22 as it would make no sense to install IFDL antennas to F-35. This would mean replacing current antennas with new ones to preserve stealth, so the whole communications system would need to be replaced with new one. That would require a lot of software to be written, tested and certified. High-End military Data links are far more complex systems than what people usually think they are. Then these changes would need to be taken into account in the sensor fusion engine code. I bet going from IFDL to MADL would require quite a lot of changes there also.

I definitely understand why they went with gateway approach first as it's a lot easier and faster way to do so. Just install MADL and IFDL systems and antennas to some suitable platform and make a translator between the two.


HF, your post sheds a LOT of light on the sticky wicket that this IFDL <-> MADL issues is. I was under the (mistaken) impressions that both F-22 and F-35 were using SDR, the freqs were all the same, and it was "just software." OR, how hard can it be to slap some extra antennas on there and then just plug those radio transceivers into the existing SDR paradigm. I mean, it's all software, right? How hard can it be? But this is more akin to... your 3G phone can't grok 4GLTE, why not just toss a 3G antenna in your mobile phone, and Voila! problem solved. Not so easy...

Thx for your insight.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

glennwhitten

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 12 May 2017, 18:42

Unread post20 Dec 2019, 17:19

Hasn't F-22 received Link 16 ability- they should be able to talk to 4th gen and F-35 with this. Of course it would interfere with stealth.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post21 Dec 2019, 19:59

glennwhitten wrote:Hasn't F-22 received Link 16 ability- they should be able to talk to 4th gen and F-35 with this. Of course it would interfere with stealth.


The F-22 has limited Link-16 capability. The F-22 could only recieve but not transmit.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/10/1 ... rnization/
Currently, Raptors have a Link 16 receive box, but Lockheed will replace it with a multi-function information distribution system-joint (MIDS-J) radio that is standard throughout the services. In addition to providing the transmit capability, the new radio is also open architecture, compatible with a lot of commercially available parts such as 3U-format rackmount servers that will save space. Additionally, if anything becomes outdated, Merchant said he can “replace it with another single-board computer instead of having to bring a new box onto the jet and qualify that box.”


One of the end goal for the F-22 MLU is give the F-22 the ability to fully communicate via Link-16 and MADL.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post21 Dec 2019, 20:07

charlielima223 wrote:
One of the end goal for the F-22 MLU is give the F-22 the ability to fully communicate via Link-16 and MADL.


Will Raptor still retain IFDL, or will it be MADL-only at that point (for stealthy comms)?

In any event, if/when the Raptor is able to feed off of all that Lighting MADL goodness... that will be pretty awesome.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6845
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Dec 2019, 01:16

F-22’s Agile Developers to Deliver First Link 16 Capability Next Year



The F-22 Raptor is among the planet’s most advanced combat aircraft, but to ensure it stays ahead of new Russian and Chinese fifth-generation fighters, the service has had to rip up the rulebook—and get Lockheed Martin to rip up its own, too.

Two years ago, faced with mounting delays in F-22 modernization efforts that threatened the fighter’s dominance over its competitors, the Air Force decided to reform the way it rolls out updates to the Raptor. Instead of a conventional approach, in which requirements are documented in detail and the update is not delivered until every element is complete, USAF wanted to introduce new capabilities on a rolling basis using an approach known as “agile” development.

“Looking at our competitors … they have very rapid development cycles,” said Lt. Col. Christina Rusnock, materiel leader for the F-22 modernization program office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. “In order for us to maintain our competitive advantage, our air superiority, we knew that we needed to do business differently to move more quickly.”

The 2001 Agile Manifesto proposed a new methodology for software development, one that is now mainstream in the consumer world, where software updates are issued frequently and often without fanfare. Think of mobile phones and cloud-based apps, for example, which introduce new features and change interfaces without warning. Agile practitioners compare their methodology to a cultural revolution, leading organizations to embrace flatter, more flexible management structures and driving changes that extend far beyond coding and development.

Adopting such a methodology in highly structured government programs is more ambitious still, given the rigidity of government contracts and traditional defense acquisition processes. Yet the Air Force felt it was necessary. Rusnock said it would take 10 to 12 years to deliver new capabilities for the F-22 using conventional waterfall development—too long given the pace at which adversaries were updating.

Although the Air Force has used agile development before, the F-22 modernization is the first time it has been employed while developing both hardware and software, according to a DOD inspector general report last year, multiplying the challenges involved.

The Air Force told Lockheed Martin in so many words, “Change or be changed,” Michael Cawood, the company’s vice president for F-16 and F-22 product development, recalled at a technology conference earlier this year.

Lockheed Martin’s embrace of agile—for the F-35 as well as the F-22—has made the defense giant one laboratory in which the newly dominant paradigm for commercial software development will be tested in the defense environment. It will help answer the question: Can agile work in defense

The iterative nature of agile development means requirements can be “sliced and diced” according to how critical they are and how easy to deliver, Rusnock said.

“It was clear that we could get some of those capabilities much earlier than if we were to wait until every single one was complete,” Rusnock said. “Instead of fielding one big bang many years away, we can start to field them much earlier”—in two or three years instead of a decade or longer.

Agile also means program managers can be responsive to changing threats and emerging capabilities, and restructure the pipeline accordingly. “Some capabilities may never be delivered,” she said, eclipsed by more urgent requirements until they become irrelevant.

In 2017, said Rusnock, the program office restructured four of its ongoing modernization efforts into “an agile capability delivery pipeline.” The four lines of effort were:
•Tactical Link: Providing the F-22 with the capability to transmit data using NATO-standard Link 16 technology.
•Tactical Mandates: Providing enhanced “friend-or-foe” identification capabilities.
•Sensor enhancements: Providing improvements to the F-22’s advanced sensor technology and the software fusion engine that give the pilot a comprehensive overhead view.
•GPS with Military Code: Providing new jamming- and interference-proof navigation capabilities.

Link 16 transmit capability could enable the stealthy F-22 to operate in concert with coalition air operations as a quarterback, enabling the plane to share its “God’s eye view” of the battlespace with other aircraft, according to Orlando “OJ” Sanchez Jr., Lockheed’s vice president of F-22 programs. “The F-22 is the quarterback that’s what it feels like, you have all this information and you can call plays,” he said.

In February 2018, the F-22 program office used new acquisition authorities under section 804 of the Fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act to issue a task order to Lockheed Martin—the Raptor Agile Capability Release, or RACR, contract.

In fiscal 2019, RACR was funded for $140 million, out of the office’s $563 million research and development budget—part of the $2.7 billion total direct cost of modernization and sustainment for the F-22 that year, according to Rusnock.

She said RACR was structured as a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with an award fee, “an incentive based on the contractor’s transformation into an agile software development pipeline.”

Lockheed Martin has embraced the need to revolutionize the way it develops software, said Sanchez. A retired Air Force colonel and F-22 pilot, Sanchez said the company’s goal was to “deliver these new capabilities ahead of the threat and at the speed of relevance.”

To do that, Sanchez said the company didn’t just change delivery schedules. “We totally redesigned our seating arrangements and our floor spaces,” he said. “We have folks sitting in small, agile teams with no walls or low walls. Software engineers sitting with mechanical engineers based on the product they’re delivering.”

Cross-functional teams can tackle and solve problems more quickly and that means they can deliver software updates “much faster today than we have in the past,” he said.

RACR also enables program reviews to be divided into smaller, more frequent demonstrations with a wider range of participants. Holding these every six weeks helps developers quickly realize if they have to rework something. “They get much faster feedback that way,” Sanchez said of the development team. “You save time and you allow for this check and adjust.”

Still, RACR isn’t exactly rolling out updates like Apple does on your iPhone. The first RACR release will take place next year, and Lockheed and the Air Force plan annual releases thereafter, Sanchez said.

With Link 16, the new approach means F-22 pilots will be able to get some capability while waiting for more, rather than all or nothing. Link 16 capabilities consist of hundreds of potential data messages accompanying location information, from “Here I am,” to “Here’s a bad guy.”

Users will get to decide which are the most important messages, then look to incorporate them in an early release—the first minimum viable product.

That first release, supporting only a handful of messages and including new hardware to start transmitting them, will be in RACR Release 1.0. Sanchez expects it will begin flight testing at the beginning of next year.

James Chow, a senior engineer and director of the Force Modernization and Employment Program at RAND Corp.’s Project Air Force and chairman of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, argued that, if successful, the effort could serve as a model for future programs.

“These are important upgrades and the sooner we can get them out the better,” he said. “If it proves successful, it will be very helpful for future modernization efforts, not just the F-22.”



https://www.airforcemag.com/f-22s-agile ... next-year/
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 19:50

someone called me a troll for suggesting they replace the F-22's with F-35's.

not that I like national interest at all, but it does put out my thoughts ok.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -22-112201
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24620
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jan 2020, 22:04

National Interest article first posted December 2018.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests