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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 07:19
by rowbeartoe
HI everyone!

Ok, I've had to ask the question. The F-22 is the better air to air fighter. I'm sure the F-35 has some advantages with it's updated avionics but overall, I'm confident the opinion is the F-22 is better. The bigger question is, do we even need it now that we have the F-35? That is, once we get the right number of F-35s, we can stop supporting it all together? Is this not the same as saying we don't need the F-15 so long as we have F-16's for our 4th gen fighters?

I would prefer to have the F-22 simply because it's better. For our 4th gen fighters, I would prefer to have the F-15 since it too is better in some ways than the F-16. But can it not be argued that the F-16 and F-35 are more than enough (with the right number) to perform the role of air superiority and air to ground?

Thank you.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 07:32
by spazsinbad
Makes no sense to me. QUANTITY has a QUALITY all of its own. No? I guess I have to ask - are you suggesting that in your opinion a smaller number of F-22s is better than a much larger number of F-35s (then add a worldwide number of F-35s).

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 08:21
by disconnectedradical
So question is, do we need dedicated air superiority fighter? As long as other countries are developing stealth fighters, then yes we need dedicated air superiority fighter, which is the F-22. We should have gotten 381 of them when the production line was hot instead of right now when it's not economical to build any more. So right now we are putting efforts into PCA which should take most of F-22 capabilities but add much more range, better broadband stealth, and also bigger payload.

F-35's biggest strength is in numbers since sensor fusion gets much more powerful when you have the numbers. F-35 can do many things, but as pure air-to-air it won't match an F-22 especially when the sensor enhancements from MLU happens. It's still a strike aircraft at its core with competent air-to-air.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 08:56
by Corsair1963
We need every Stealth Fighter we can get. Regardless, if that is an F-22 or F-35...



S

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 09:55
by hornetfinn
rowbeartoe wrote:HI everyone!

Ok, I've had to ask the question. The F-22 is the better air to air fighter. I'm sure the F-35 has some advantages with it's updated avionics but overall, I'm confident the opinion is the F-22 is better. The bigger question is, do we even need it now that we have the F-35? That is, once we get the right number of F-35s, we can stop supporting it all together? Is this not the same as saying we don't need the F-15 so long as we have F-16's for our 4th gen fighters?

I would prefer to have the F-22 simply because it's better. For our 4th gen fighters, I would prefer to have the F-15 since it too is better in some ways than the F-16. But can it not be argued that the F-16 and F-35 are more than enough (with the right number) to perform the role of air superiority and air to ground?

Thank you.


I'm sure USAF will use F-22 for a long time even if it was not really needed because of large number of F-35s. They are still extremely capable aircraft, they are mature and have the pilots and support and maintenance systems in place. I doubt any USAF general would give them up without fighting tooth and nail to keep them. They are also kind of prestige system, basically the biggest and baddest of them all.

But I think F-35 and F-22 are not really directly analogous to F-16 and F-15. In many ways they are like F-22/F-15 being a lot bigger, faster, twin-engined and with better high-altitude capabilties. However there are some major differences between F-35 and F-16. First, the avionics system in F-35 is comparatively much better than in F-16. There is rather small difference in radar size and likely also performance between F-35 and F-22 (about 10-20% or so). F-15 on the other hand has a lot bigger and longer ranged radar than F-16 (like twice the range). F-35 has EOTS and EODAS while F-22 only has MLD/MAWS functionality in IR spectrum. F-35 has more advanced sensor fusion according to designers and also more advanced networking. This means it can ID targets better and more reliably and have better SA than any other fighter, including F-22.

Also weapons carriage is not that different in F-35 and F-22 as it was in F-16 and F-15, especially in the Sparrow era. Then F-15 could carry about twice as many missiles as F-16. Of course early F-16s could not even use AIM-7 even though not much hardware was needed for that. Now F-22 can also carry about twice as many missiles internally as F-35, but pretty soon F-35 can carry the same number of AMRAAMs internally and also carrying two IR missiles externally (with some loss of VLO capability).

Another thing is that comparatively a lot more F-35s will be built compared to F-22 than how many F-16s and F-15s were built. With F-16 and F-15 the ratio was something like 5:1 while with F-35 and F-22 the ratio will be something like 20:1.

So I could see reasons to give up F-22s and let F-35 do everything. I think F-35 would do very well in the role. That's likely not gonna happen though as F-22 definitely has some things going for it in air-to-air domain.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 10:17
by marsavian
I think of the F-22 as the very sharp tip of the USAF spear. For sheer high altitude high speed hunting it is much better suited than the F-35 and is worthy of keeping as long as possible. In fact all the earlier blocks should eventually be brought up to the future MLU standard to maximize the fleet efficiency. F-35 can do air superiority too but not with as much kinematic brute force relying more on stealth for positioning.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 14:13
by vilters
F-22 and F-35 are completely different animals.

Remember the initial F-15? ? => Not a pound for Air to Ground?

F-22 concept started as a pure A2A vehicle.
F-35 concept started as an attack vehicle.

Some finally woke up and got the idea right that wars are won or lost on the ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Russians and Chinese? Let me tell you guys one simple thing here;

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese will come to fight the USA on its homeland.

And for North Korea?
We can level the place with cruise missiles in a matter of hrs.
And do that each and every week if required. (And twice on Sundays)

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 15:05
by notkent
They are more like siblings than completely different animals.

Its kinda like having kids, you put all your lessons learned from mistakes with the first one into raising the second one.

The F-35 has built in stealth that requires much less maintenance, its software is not a dead language (Ada), has EOTS, 360 degrees situational awareness and a host of other improvements that the F-22 does not have.

Design goals called for the JSF to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040, second only to the F-22 Raptor in air supremacy.

That is a pretty high bar for its performance in air to air combat.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 02:33
by Corsair1963
notkent wrote:They are more like siblings than completely different animals.

Its kinda like having kids, you put all your lessons learned from mistakes with the first one into raising the second one.

The F-35 has built in stealth that requires much less maintenance, its software is not a dead language (Ada), has EOTS, 360 degrees situational awareness and a host of other improvements that the F-22 does not have.

Design goals called for the JSF to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040, second only to the F-22 Raptor in air supremacy.

That is a pretty high bar for its performance in air to air combat.


Like having both P-47 Thunderbolts and P-51 Mustangs in 1944-45. Either could do the mission but each complement the other. In short stronger together than apart....

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 12:50
by charlielima223
Former USAF ACC commander Gen. Hostage
https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... n-4444053/

These airplanes complement each other and we’re trying to learn how to take that from a design perspective into a tactical arena and be the most effective combat team we can be working with the F-22s
***
In February, Air Combat Command chief general Michael Hostage was quoted by Air Force Times as saying that F-22s will undergo service life extension and modernisation, as they are required to support F-35 fighter.

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant.

"The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22."


https://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/acc ... and-syria/
Question: One of the concepts we’ve played with is what we called the S Cubed, which is the tradeoffs between sensors, stealth, and speed. And how you played them off against one another. Does that make sense?

Hostage: It does. I think an excellent portrayal of the value of looking at the interaction of those parameters is to examine Raptor versus the Lightning. A Raptor at 50-plus thousand feet at Mach 2 with its RCS has a different level of invulnerability than a Lightning at 35,000 at Mach .9 and it’s RCS.

The altitude, speed, and stealth combined in the two platforms, they give the airplanes two completely different levels of capability. The plan is to normalize the Lightning’s capability relative to the Raptor by marrying it up with six, or seven or eight other Lightnings.

The advanced fusion of the F-35 versus the F-22 means those airplanes have an equal level or better level of invulnerability than the Raptors have, but it takes multiple airplanes to do it because of the synergistic fused attacks of their weapon systems.

That’s the magic of the fifth-gen F-35, but it takes numbers of F-35s to get that effect. That’s why I’ve been so strident on getting the full buy. Because if they whittle it down to a little tiny fleet like the Raptor, it’s not going to be compelling.


He stated in another Breaking Defense article that it take 8 Lightnings to do what would take 2 Raptors.
Granted all this was said back in 2014 but I think it holds relevance today.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 15:45
by ricnunes
charlielima223 wrote:He stated in another Breaking Defense article that it take 8 Lightnings to do what would take 2 Raptors.
Granted all this was said back in 2014 but I think it holds relevance today.


Of course he (and other USAF officials) will say that and other similar stuff, afterall USAF wants to keep their F-22 so "they" will say anything that justifies keeping the F-22, even going to the point of "exaggeration" like saying that "it takes 8 F-35s to do the same as 2 F-22s".

In the end, it's a matter of national pride to keep the F-22 since they are probably the best fighter aircraft when it comes to absolute/sheer performance (combination of speed, acceleration and agility).
IMO, it's a bit like the Russians keeping their Mig-31. Despite the Su-35 doing more and in most cases better than the Mig-31 (like the F-35 does compared to the F-22) the Russians still want to keep and modernize their Mig-31s because in terms of absolute/sheer speed performance nothing beats it.

My 2 cents, of course...

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 16:03
by quicksilver
“In the end, it's a matter of national pride to keep the F-22...”

No, actually, it’s a matter of fulfilling the service’s role in meeting the ends of the National Security and Defense strategies.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 16:26
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:it’s a matter of fulfilling the service’s role in meeting the ends of the National Security and Defense strategies.


Which can also be fulfilled by the F-35 (and in the vast majority of the cases/situations better than the F-22) but here I digress...

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 16:32
by quicksilver
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:it’s a matter of fulfilling the service’s role in meeting the ends of the National Security and Defense strategies.


Which can also be fulfilled by the F-35 (and in the vast majority of the cases/situations better than the F-22) but here I digress...


So, you’re sticking with the ‘national pride‘ idea, eh?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 16:53
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:it’s a matter of fulfilling the service’s role in meeting the ends of the National Security and Defense strategies.


Which can also be fulfilled by the F-35 (and in the vast majority of the cases/situations better than the F-22) but here I digress...


I guess you missed this:

"Air Combat Command chief general Michael Hostage was quoted by Air Force Times as saying that F-22s will undergo service life extension and modernisation, as they are required to support F-35 fighter.

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 16:56
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:So, you’re sticking with the ‘national pride‘ idea, eh?


Well, I'm not saying it's 100% national pride if that's what you mean?
Sure that the F-22 has its merits over any other aircraft (including the F-35) which BTW I already mentioned and admitted in my previous post but yes, I would say (or stick with the idea as you say) that 'national pride' or perhaps a better terms would be 'service/USAF pride' has a great weight/percentage on the decision to keep, maintain and update the F-22 in the foreseeable future. Of course that the value of such weight/percentage is open to debate :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 17:20
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:So, you’re sticking with the ‘national pride‘ idea, eh?


Well, I'm not saying it's 100% national pride if that's what you mean?
Sure that the F-22 has its merits over any other aircraft (including the F-35) which BTW I already mentioned and admitted in my previous post but yes, I would say (or stick with the idea as you say) that 'national pride' or perhaps a better terms would be 'service/USAF pride' has a great weight/percentage on the decision to keep, maintain and update the F-22 in the foreseeable future. Of course that the value of such weight/percentage is open to debate :wink:


"Air Combat Command chief general Michael Hostage was quoted by Air Force Times as saying that F-22s will undergo service life extension and modernisation, as they are required to support F-35 fighter.

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 17:37
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."


Which again (and in my humble opinion) that's an exaggeration, this just not to call it a blatant lie!

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 18:02
by disconnectedradical
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:So, you’re sticking with the ‘national pride‘ idea, eh?


Well, I'm not saying it's 100% national pride if that's what you mean?
Sure that the F-22 has its merits over any other aircraft (including the F-35) which BTW I already mentioned and admitted in my previous post but yes, I would say (or stick with the idea as you say) that 'national pride' or perhaps a better terms would be 'service/USAF pride' has a great weight/percentage on the decision to keep, maintain and update the F-22 in the foreseeable future. Of course that the value of such weight/percentage is open to debate :wink:


So in your opinion, what capabilities are we giving up without F-22? You think it's somehow negligible or is covered by F-35??

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 19:19
by steve2267
charlielima223 wrote:
He (Gen Hostage, sic) stated in another Breaking Defense article that it take 8 Lightnings to do what would take 2 Raptors.
Granted all this was said back in 2014 but I think it holds relevance today.


If four-to-one Lightnings to Raptors is accurate, then 187 Raptors produced is equivalent to 748 Lightnings. If there are only about 120 combat coded Raptors, that is still 480 Lightnings. If the balloon goes up with China, 480 - 748 Lightning-equivalents dedicated to air-to-air makes for a pretty good kick-down-the-door air-to-air wise so that F-35s can do their air-to-ground thing.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 19:33
by ricnunes
disconnectedradical wrote:So in your opinion, what capabilities are we giving up without F-22? You think it's somehow negligible or is covered by F-35??


Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 20:09
by quicksilver
The reality is that we’re keeping them because their capability is still vital and worth the cost; roughly half their service life remains ; and, they will receive further upgrades necessary to keep them relevant for the foreseeable future.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 20:27
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:The reality is that we’re keeping them because their capability is still vital and worth the cost; roughly half their service life remains ; and, they will receive further upgrades necessary to keep them relevant for the foreseeable future.


Back while the line was still open there was a USAF proposal to give up 500 F-35s for a hundred more F-22s. (Tried finding the original article but no luck.)

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 21:22
by blindpilot
ricnunes wrote:...
Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.


That's akin to saying that since we have Virginia Class subs, we can give up the SeaWolf Class subs. Although you may not know what those three subs do ... the very expensive advantages they bring have not been negligible, nor would/will the F-22. Even if they weren't "cost effective" in the end. Doesn't mean they aren't effective.

I have a hard time keeping track of folks background. Were/are you a pilot/fighter pilot ric?

MHO,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 21:46
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."


Which again (and in my humble opinion) that's an exaggeration, this just not to call it a blatant lie!


Couldn't the same thing have been said about the F-15C? What could it do that the F-16 couldn't?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 21:47
by marsavian
ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:So in your opinion, what capabilities are we giving up without F-22? You think it's somehow negligible or is covered by F-35??


Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.


So you believe supercruising, Mach 2 capability or the ability to fight and fire missiles from 60kft is negligible. I would disagree as I would disagree for similar reasons that the Mig-31 is superfluous too WRT Su-35. The ability to kinematically control an aerial encounter is an important part of the requirement to shoot first, the ability to be a proactive aggressor rather than a reactive defender changes the parameters of the fight. No Tu-160 Blackjack is going to run from a F-22 supersonically to give a recent topical example. Raptor is an aggressive hunter, Lightning/Panther is a stalker ninja to put it in its simplest terms.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 00:28
by wrightwing
quicksilver wrote:The reality is that we’re keeping them because their capability is still vital and worth the cost; roughly half their service life remains ; and, they will receive further upgrades necessary to keep them relevant for the foreseeable future.

Well more than half their service life remains. Their airframes are good to go, till ~2060 without a SLEP.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 01:03
by lbk000
Seems like different but complimentary strengths is a difficult concept to grasp.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 02:56
by boilermaker
THe lack of kinematics of the F35 vs assets like the Mig 31 or Blackjack make the F22 even MORE relevant than less at this point. We have already seen how Iraqi ate F18s for lunch with their Mig 25 despite having a degraded ground radar picture, relying on the sensors of the F35 only to win is ludicrous.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 03:01
by boilermaker
marsavian wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:So in your opinion, what capabilities are we giving up without F-22? You think it's somehow negligible or is covered by F-35??


Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.


So you believe supercruising, Mach 2 capability or the ability to fight and fire missiles from 60kft is negligible. I would disagree as I would disagree for similar reasons that the Mig-31 is superfluous too WRT Su-35. The ability to kinematically control an aerial encounter is an important part of the requirement to shoot first, the ability to be a proactive aggressor rather than a reactive defender changes the parameters of the fight. No Tu-160 Blackjack is going to run from a F-22 supersonically to give a recent topical example. Raptor is an aggressive hunter, Lightning/Panther is a stalker ninja to put it in its simplest terms.



Yep, a few high and fast Mig31 can do shoot and scoot around tactics at F35s below, their larger radar cross section being less of a disadvantage through sheer kinematics since it allows them a form of untouchability that is not peered against by the F35

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 03:35
by lbk000
I really don't think that's how it works.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 03:36
by boogieman
boilermaker wrote:THe lack of kinematics of the F35 vs assets like the Mig 31 or Blackjack make the F22 even MORE relevant than less at this point. We have already seen how Iraqi ate F18s for lunch with their Mig 25 despite having a degraded ground radar picture, relying on the sensors of the F35 only to win is ludicrous.


This is silly. They downed a single Hornet. Hardly "eating F/A18s for lunch".

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 03:40
by aw2007
Shouldn’t the much higher cruising altitude give the Raptor’s ESM the advantage to geolocate ground emitters ? Also, launching AAM at high altitudes and super cruise speeds increases missile range by >30%(forgot where I read that) while significantly increases the missile kinematics for a higher hit probability.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 08:57
by disconnectedradical
ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:So in your opinion, what capabilities are we giving up without F-22? You think it's somehow negligible or is covered by F-35??


Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.


F-22's greater speed and kinematics shouldn't be discounted, and also more internal missiles. Also, even if that's not being considered, we already have F-22 airframe that's stealthy and enough life left, so it's available. Buying 200 more F-35s will probably be more expensive than F-22 MLU to bring sensors up to F-35 standards, so I don't know why you think it's just "national pride" to upgrade F-22.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 10:35
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:
boilermaker wrote:THe lack of kinematics of the F35 vs assets like the Mig 31 or Blackjack make the F22 even MORE relevant than less at this point. We have already seen how Iraqi ate F18s for lunch with their Mig 25 despite having a degraded ground radar picture, relying on the sensors of the F35 only to win is ludicrous.


This is silly. They downed a single Hornet. Hardly "eating F/A18s for lunch".


Exactly. Besides F-14, F-15 and F-16 have all been shot down by SAMs and AAA while no F/A-18s has ever been shot down by those systems (well, except one by Patriot system).

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 10:56
by kimjongnumbaun
There's a podcast where an F-22 pilot talks about going mach 1.6 in super cruise at 50k elevation. That is some serious kinematic advantage in being able to deal with multiple threats at the same time and also being able to reach out and touch the enemy. The F-22 can do things the F-35 cannot, and vice versa. In the example above, the F-22 offers some pretty unique capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by the F-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 13:19
by sferrin
kimjongnumbaun wrote:There's a podcast where an F-22 pilot talks about going mach 1.6 in super cruise at 50k elevation. That is some serious kinematic advantage in being able to deal with multiple threats at the same time and also being able to reach out and touch the enemy. The F-22 can do things the F-35 cannot, and vice versa. In the example above, the F-22 offers some pretty unique capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by the F-35.


There was an interview with an F-22 pilot where he mentions Mach 1.9 at 60k.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 13:41
by ricnunes
blindpilot wrote:
ricnunes wrote:...
Yes, that's exactly what I think. I think that any capability that the USAF would be "giving up" without the F-22 would be negligible and covered by the F-35.


That's akin to saying that since we have Virginia Class subs, we can give up the SeaWolf Class subs. Although you may not know what those three subs do ... the very expensive advantages they bring have not been negligible, nor would/will the F-22. Even if they weren't "cost effective" in the end. Doesn't mean they aren't effective.


First, I urge you to re-read my previous posts since I never "proposed" (who am I to propose anything, this to start with?) that the USAF should retire their F-22s.

What I meant was:
1- The "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant." comment by Gen Hostage is an exaggeration. IMO a much bigger exaggeration compared to saying that the F-22 advantages over the F-35 are negligible.
Resuming, saying that the mission wouldn't be done and done well without the F-22 is odd (and wrong) thing to say since and afterall there are and will be a bunch of countries that will operate the F-35 and of course won't have (and neither need) the F-22.
How would you look at for example the Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, etc, etc, etc... Air Forces if you say something like:
"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."
So yes, I admit that using the word "negligible" was an exaggeration but so it is the comment above. Again, that's the core of my previous comments.

2- I never said that the F-22 cannot do some things better than the F-35, of course it can. But the point is that the F-35 do everything that the F-22 does, although it may not do a few of these things better while at the same time there are things that the F-22 cannot really do while the F-35 can.

Regarding the F-22 and the Seawolf example of yours, I believe that the best reply argument that it was replied to me that the following from quicksilver:

quicksilver wrote:The reality is that we’re keeping them because their capability is still vital and worth the cost; roughly half their service life remains ; and, they will receive further upgrades necessary to keep them relevant for the foreseeable future.


I specially agree with the part that there still a lot of life remaining for those platforms. This also applies to the Seawolf as well.


blindpilot wrote:I have a hard time keeping track of folks background. Were/are you a pilot/fighter pilot ric?

MHO,
BP


I didn't know that being a pilot was a requirement to comment about these subjects. Speaking of which were/are you a submariner? :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 13:47
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."


Which again (and in my humble opinion) that's an exaggeration, this just not to call it a blatant lie!


Couldn't the same thing have been said about the F-15C? What could it do that the F-16 couldn't?


That's actually a very good question, sferrin.

IMO at the time where both aircraft were developed and entered in service the answer would be a clear NO, since and for example the F-16 wasn't capable of BVR air-to-air combat as opposed to the F-15A/C.
At time passed by and technology evolved and the F-16 evolved (including getting an excellent BVR air-to-air capability) the answer for the same question changed. Nowadays, if I had to choose between both aircraft, the F-15C and a modern F-16 then I wouldn't have any doubts which one I would choose (F-16, of course).

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 14:42
by quicksilver
How about a ‘modern’ F-15 and a ‘modern’ F-16? We know the service’s answer.

There was a reason we had to listen to all the hoo-yah about reopening the F-22 line...

Speed and sustained high altitude performance (above 40K) confer advantages that the F-35 (as absolutely stellar as it is) will never achieve absent major modifications.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 16:51
by blindpilot
ricnunes wrote:..
blindpilot wrote:I h ave a hard time keeping track of folks background. Were/are you a pilot/fighter pilot ric? MHO,
BP

I didn't know that being a pilot was a requirement to comment about these subjects. Speaking of which were/are you a submariner? :wink:


I know such questions can sound snotty, but that is not why I ask them. I just like to keep my answers focused on the person I reply to. For example I don't want to discourage a young teen aircraft fan from pursuing those dreams by responding as if he was an old codger like me.

As to the submariner question. I try to keep my references first hand personal experience (probably better than half of my comments), and at worse second hand (ex: even though a former USAF pilot and technically I have a few hours in an F-4, my fighter input is mostly from my brother, an F-15/A-10 etc. pilot) . In this case I chose the example because last month I set around drinking beers with a guy who had served on the JC. He was a submariner, and I bring his witness which is a referenced primary source to me.

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 17:15
by mikemag
quicksilver wrote:Speed and sustained high altitude performance (above 40K) confer advantages that the F-35 (as absolutely stellar as it is) will never achieve absent major modifications.


If the F-35 were to get an adaptive engine that can feed more air through the core when at higher speed and altitude, does that sustained high altitude performance become possible?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 17:58
by notkent
quicksilver wrote:Speed and sustained high altitude performance (above 40K) confer advantages that the F-35 (as absolutely stellar as it is) will never achieve absent major modifications.


The F-35 has many advantages that the F-22 lacks and will not achieve absent major modifications.

Design is a trade off that allows completion of he mission without making a system so gold plated you can only buy one of them.

This is such an "American" problem fighting over which of our 2 super duper stealth fighters is essential. There are a lot of other countries buying the F-35 that do not have the F-22 so it must be able to stand on its own without it big brother.

And actually if you think about it the F-35 has the greater SA so it will probably be helping the F-22 more than the other way around.

Don't really care like both of them and know that the F-35 is extremely relevant on its own.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 20:24
by quicksilver
mikemag wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Speed and sustained high altitude performance (above 40K) confer advantages that the F-35 (as absolutely stellar as it is) will never achieve absent major modifications.


If the F-35 were to get an adaptive engine that can feed more air through the core when at higher speed and altitude, does that sustained high altitude performance become possible?


Certainly wouldn’t hurt, but F-35 is a smaller jet w some fineness issues and a small wing (the C wing excepted). New smaller missiles help a bit w magazine size, but those help the Raptor as well. Doesn’t mean F-35 can’t play up high, it just means it has some limitations there that Raptor does not.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 05:19
by usnvo
disconnectedradical wrote:F-22's greater speed and kinematics shouldn't be discounted, and also more internal missiles. Also, even if that's not being considered, we already have F-22 airframe that's stealthy and enough life left, so it's available. Buying 200 more F-35s will probably be more expensive than F-22 MLU to bring sensors up to F-35 standards, so I don't know why you think it's just "national pride" to upgrade F-22.


Not to enter this argument in any meaningful way, but there is virtually no way that an F-22 MLU would be cheaper than buying 200 new F-35s. Sure, the work itself might, and it is a big might, be cheaper, but the fixed cost for design and integration for 185 F-22s is going to dwarf the same cost for a F-35 ($0). You would need to:
- Upgrade the radar ($ - this should actually be pretty cheap)
- Add and integrate something like DAS ($$$$)
- Add and integrate something like EOTS ($$$$)
- Add and integrate the really cool F-35 helmet ($$$$)
- Add and integrate MADL ($$$$)
- Change the plane's software (so you can take advantage of new capabilities for the F-35 so you stay relevant)
It would be basically a total gut job.

Just for example, to purchase and integrate the 170 IR sensors for the F-18E/F was roughly $2B (the majority of that was fixed costs) and that was for a sensor in an EFT. Integrating systems into the aircraft is much harder as real estate is limited, weights and balance are critical, cooling is an issue, and something else important is probably where you want to put your new systems. And it all has to maintain the stealth capability of the aircraft.

It may make sense to do something like that but cost is not a reason why.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 06:13
by zero-one
What exactly do we constitute as "need".

Technically the USAF can survive with just the F-15E or F-16. It doesn't really" need" all other types.
In every conflict since desert storm either multi role fighters would have accomplished the mission in one way or the other.

Yes they would have lost more aircraft, coalition kill/loss rario would have not been as spectacular as it is now but does anyone really believe that Iraq, Serbia, Afganistan or Syria would totally defeat a USAF composed of hundreds of F-16s?

Its the same with the F-22. You don't really need it. The F-35 can dominate any other 4th gen fighter.
But instead of a 144:0 kill ratio, you're left with a 20:1 ratio. Inpressive but not as much.

P.S. yes I know the adversaries on the 2 excercises were different but I just needed something to illustrate the point.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 06:24
by spazsinbad
WHY does the USN have to suffer? UPgrade the MoFo for USN use like it says in this brochure extraction. Youse'll have to wait for the four page PDF because I'm uploading a big video to me page meaning GoogleOVERlord takes over t'internet.

https://www.docdroid.net/NBA2E4E/lockhe ... ochure.pdf (6.2Mb)
NAVY F-22 Carrier Suitable
CATAPULT LAUNCH AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS

• Materials suitable for marine environment
• Deck level avionics access
NEW WING
• Increased aspect ratio planform
• High lift flaps
• Reduced spot factor
FORWARD, MID AND AFT FUSELAGE MODS
• Full length keelson to support carrier landing stress
• Increased internal fuel capacity
ADDED WEAPONS CAPABILITY
• Sparrow
• Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM)
• Harpoon
• High speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)
• Advanced Interdiction Weapon System (AIWS)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 07:41
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:WHY does the USN have to suffer?


I'll byte:

  1. Not Invented here... Navy'll be damned before they take an Air Farce plane and adopt it to carrier (!) use
  2. Not MacDac (LM who?)
  3. Cost & Risk -- yeah, on paper a navalized F-22 might seem to make sense. But I think QS has previously written about the fallaciousness of simply assuming you can slap some beefier landing gear on a combat aircraft and, Voila!, you have the Super Tomcat replacement. As you start modifying things, there is very likely an engineering analysis --> design change --> engineering analysis --> design change --> analysis ... cycle that cascades through the entire aircraft. It may very well be cheaper, or incur far less risk, to design a carrier aircraft from scratch.

What were those things again? Whajued call them? Requirements?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 08:05
by spazsinbad
OH dear - what can the matter be - sure we have discussed this 'land to sea' aircraft difficulty before - I'm just messenger.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 11:42
by disconnectedradical
Because Navy version of F-22 would be completely different airframe from existing F-22, it would have swinging wings like F-14 and also different tail control surfaces. So the NATF is really just a different airplane from ATF but uses most of the same mission systems and avionics. But to be fair, nowadays the most expensive part of fighters is the avionics instead of airframe especially in development, but a Navy F-22 won’t be cheap because the airframe is pretty much totally different.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 15:31
by spazsinbad
Perhaps you did not read/view the brochure referenced? Pages 1&4 graphics & excerpt from 4 pages has this to say also:
"NAVY F-22 [1990]
AIR FORCE AND NAVY COMMONALITY IS MORE THAN SKIN DEEP
AVIONICS/ARMAMENT - 80% COMMON

• Common integrated processors
• Common modules
• Radar modules
• Apertures
• INEWS
• Comm/Nav/lD
• Software
• Cockpit controls and displays
• AIM-120/ AIM-9/gun
AIRCRAFT SUBSYSTEMS - 80% COMMON
• Materials
• Hydraulics/fuel
• On-Board Oxygen Generation System
• On-Board Inert Gas Generation System
• Observables
• Environmental Control System
• Engines and nozzles
• Vehicle management system
• Auxiliary Power Unit"
https://www.docdroid.net/NBA2E4E/lockhe ... ochure.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 16:26
by ricnunes
blindpilot wrote:In this case I chose the example because last month I set around drinking beers with a guy who had served on the JC. He was a submariner, and I bring his witness which is a referenced primary source to me.

BP


Well, what I can say about the above is that I wish I could have been with you guys!
For me there's very few things better than a few (well alot :mrgreen: ) of beers and talking about these subjects :D

Actually, my favorite subjects regarding military equipment are in first place combat aircraft and second place submarines.

Not wanting to derail this topic too much but isn't the JC (SSN-23 Jimmy Carter, I gather) a different and somehow heavily modified version of the Seawolf-Class Submarine (and thus quite different from the SSN-21 and SSN-22) which was modified to carry larger and more equipment, this for "special missions"?

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 16:34
by ricnunes
notkent wrote:There are a lot of other countries buying the F-35 that do not have the F-22 so it must be able to stand on its own without it big brother.


That's actually the core/main point regarding my previous posts.
By the way, thanks for reinforcing it and for resumed it so well.

notkent wrote:And actually if you think about it the F-35 has the greater SA so it will probably be helping the F-22 more than the other way around.


I fully agree with the above.

Of course that in theory the F-22 could be equipped with the same/similar avionic capabilities as the F-35 but that IMO would come at a prohibitive cost, afterall there's a reason why the number of manufactured F-22 was cut much shorter compared to the number of planned F-22s.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 16:35
by spazsinbad
From same source above a PDF/GIF amalgamation of 4 pages - fiercely edited - but relevant - YF-22 & NF-22.

https://www.docdroid.net/NBA2E4E/lockhe ... ochure.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 17:22
by blindpilot
ricnunes wrote:....
Not wanting to derail this topic too much but isn't the JC (SSN-23 Jimmy Carter, I gather) a different and somehow heavily modified version of the Seawolf-Class Submarine (and thus quite different from the SSN-21 and SSN-22) which was modified to carry larger and more equipment, this for "special missions"?

Yes but all three are now in Washington as part of "Dev Sq Five". :roll: ... whatever that is ... :wink:
Not wanting to derail this topic too much

Back to F-22's.

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 18:10
by madrat
I could see a 70-ish foot in length design A/F-X being more realistic than NATF. But it really isn't probably practical until ACE engine technology came into development. You would need it to carry substantially larger payloads at significantly longer distances than F-35C. Just making a bigger F-35C would be a waste.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 19:17
by wrightwing
boilermaker wrote:



Yep, a few high and fast Mig31 can do shoot and scoot around tactics at F35s below, their larger radar cross section being less of a disadvantage through sheer kinematics since it allows them a form of untouchability that is not peered against by the F35

The Migs couldn't use shoot and scoot tactics vs F-35s, as that requires a situational awareness advantage, which they don't possess. Flying fast and blind, isn't a tactic.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 19:45
by quicksilver
“Flying fast and blind, isn't a tactic.“

:lmao:

Indeed. Reminds me of a line a friend once spoke many years ago — “I may be lost...but I’m makin’ record time”

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 20:12
by usnimitz
rowbeartoe wrote:HI everyone! Ok, I've had to ask the question. The F-22 is the better air to air fighter. I'm sure the F-35 has some advantages with it's updated avionics but overall, I'm confident the opinion is the F-22 is better. The bigger question is, do we even need it now that we have the F-35? That is, once we get the right number of F-35s, we can stop supporting it all together? Is this not the same as saying we don't need the F-15 so long as we have F-16's for our 4th gen fighters?
Thank you.


Japan is buying 100 F-35 fighter jets from USA. In all Japan will have 142 F-35 stealth fighter jets. 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 21:06
by disconnectedradical
spazsinbad wrote:From same source above a PDF/GIF amalgamation of 4 pages - fiercely edited - but relevant - YF-22 & NF-22.

https://www.docdroid.net/NBA2E4E/lockhe ... ochure.pdf


That brochure is sanitized for public release, you’ll see the art image of NF-22 is literally a YF-22 image mirrored and with Navy written on the wing. Every reputable source, including definitive ATF book below will point to NATF being swing wing for Lockheed’s design and canard delta for Northrop’s design.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.867910

And then there’s Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X which is also swing wing.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 21:16
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the heads up. I'm more interested in the claims in the text for converting the aircraft for Naval use. Apparently a free edition PDF is available here but I probably won't register to download it - site looks dodgy to me:

https://anyelist.com/lib4/advanced-tact ... ev.rann.no

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 03:33
by usnvo
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the heads up. I'm more interested in the claims in the text for converting the aircraft for Naval use. Apparently a free edition PDF is available here but I probably won't register to download it - site looks dodgy to me:

https://anyelist.com/lib4/advanced-tact ... ev.rann.no


A quick look at the empty weight of a F-22 (43,340lbs)

versus the maximum recovery weight of the Navy's Arresting Gear (50,000lbs)

Adding the difference in weight between a F-35A and F-35C (5,500lbs) as a good starting point for added weight

And you end up with the inescapable conclusion that while a Naval F-22 could take off (Catapults can handle up to 100,000lbs) it could never recover (bring back on the order of maybe 100lbs or so depending on pilot weight and equipment).

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 03:38
by spazsinbad
Yes it is a terrible thought what might have to be drastically done to the airframe/engines to reduce carrier approach Optimum Angle of Attack airspeed/change max. arrested landing weight to be compatible with current & future CVNs.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 05:07
by spazsinbad
A QUICK Graphic for some of the changes needed for the F-35 to become the F-35C. There is heaps of info on this forum.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnd8zdodztb27 ... .pptx?dl=0

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 10:08
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote:
  1. Not Invented here... Navy'll be damned before they take an Air Farce plane and adopt it to carrier (!) use
  2. Not MacDac (LM who?)
  3. Cost & Risk -- yeah, on paper a navalized F-22 might seem to make sense. But I think QS has previously written about the fallaciousness of simply assuming you can slap some beefier landing gear on a combat aircraft and, Voila!, you have the Super Tomcat replacement. As you start modifying things, there is very likely an engineering analysis --> design change --> engineering analysis --> design change --> analysis ... cycle that cascades through the entire aircraft. It may very well be cheaper, or incur far less risk, to design a carrier aircraft from scratch.


But doesn't the F-35C fit all of the above?
Everyone considers the A model as the "base model"
It doesn't have a any trace of McDonalds and its more or less just an F-35A with bigger wings, bigger H-Stabs and beefy wheels,

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 10:30
by spazsinbad
So all the text on the graphic of the F-35C means nothing to you? "...just an F-35A with bigger wings, bigger H-Stabs and beefy wheels..." OH PLEASE.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 10:37
by zero-one
spazsinbad wrote:So all the text on the graphic of the F-35C means nothing to you? "...just an F-35A with bigger wings, bigger H-Stabs and beefy wheels..." OH PLEASE.


I simply summarized it

Under the "Bigger wing" category we have:
-Larger wing
-wing fold
-Durable structure
-heavy weather tie down points
-Ailrons for slow speed

Under the "Bigger H stabs" category we have:
-Larger Horizontal tails

Under the beefier wheels category we have:
-Catapult launch gear
-arrestor hook
-Stronger gear

Do I really need to write them all 1 by 1, besides I wouldn't be surprised if there are more differences between the A and the C than whats on that photo.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 11:04
by spazsinbad
Just perusing some of the recent LM papers at the Georgia AIAA AVIATION Forum 2018 I was surprised at the 'lot of little things different' A to C models. Yes I'm not going to summarise them & flog the dead horse - plenty of info on this forum.

AND... just because it is so precise there is always the 1Mb PDF about the F-35C conforming to all CVN requirements (not forgetting the F-35B but we are talking about the F-35C). http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1.1Mb)

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 13:07
by sunstersun
F-22 should be retired early.

Not enough planes to justify modernization and refit when that money could buy like 300 more F-35's.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 13:56
by zero-one
sunstersun wrote:F-22 should be retired early.

Not enough planes to justify modernization and refit when that money could buy like 300 more F-35's.


The USAF only operates 89 F-15Cs
Read here:
https://secure.afa.org/joinafa/login.as ... igures.pdf

212 if you include ANG units.

Like I said, retiring the F-22 will be like retiring the F-15C because technically the F-16C and F-15E can also fulfill the air-superiority role to a degree.

Yes it can, but not to the same effect. We went down the F-22 vs F-35 in A-A role countless times . So I'll just summarize it in Gen. Hostage's words.

The F-22 is to the F-35, what the F-15 is to the F-16. The former are the Kings of air to air combat, while the latter forms the mainstay of our fleet.....


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.

I know I may trigger a lot of people with the above statement but that basically what Gen Hostage said
You need to send 8 F-35s to go after a target where I only need 2 Raptors

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 15:03
by madrat
The navy gets so little funding relative to their role, they are lucky to have any post-Super Hornet designs.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 19:51
by sferrin
sunstersun wrote:F-22 should be retired early.

Not enough planes to justify modernization and refit when that money could buy like 300 more F-35's.


You should work on your troll skills. Too obvious.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 21:17
by f119doctor
A-X and A/F-X proposals were the Navy program that was to replace the A-12 when that program was cancelled. When that program didn't go anywhere, the JSF program was kicked off, resulting in the F-35.

The Lockheed A-X and A/F-X proposals were a completely different aircraft than the F-22 and NATF, although there are some visual similarities to NATF. It was a smaller aircraft, optimized for carrier attack operations.

The P&W proposal to power the A/F-X was the PW7000 engine, which was a whole new design from the F119. The core module was smaller, and the engine was higher bypass that the F119. There were different varients proposed, each with a different sized fan / LPT to match the thrust levels for each of the different airframers A/F-X proposals. The engine would have incorporated many of the maintainability features of the F119, but would have had better non-AB SFC and optimized for the high subsonic / low supersonic flight regime. You can see difference in the top views, with the engine nozzle have a reverse chevron trailing edge, compared to the F119 pointed chevron.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 22:29
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
  1. Not Invented here... Navy'll be damned before they take an Air Farce plane and adopt it to carrier (!) use
  2. Not MacDac (LM who?)
  3. Cost & Risk -- yeah, on paper a navalized F-22 might seem to make sense. But I think QS has previously written about the fallaciousness of simply assuming you can slap some beefier landing gear on a combat aircraft and, Voila!, you have the Super Tomcat replacement. As you start modifying things, there is very likely an engineering analysis --> design change --> engineering analysis --> design change --> analysis ... cycle that cascades through the entire aircraft. It may very well be cheaper, or incur far less risk, to design a carrier aircraft from scratch.


But doesn't the F-35C fit all of the above?
Everyone considers the A model as the "base model"
It doesn't have a any trace of McDonalds and its more or less just an F-35A with bigger wings, bigger H-Stabs and beefy wheels,


A navalized F-22 (NATF) would take much more than the difference between F-35A and F-35C, and big part of that is because NATF is much bigger aircraft designed to be a fighter. Just adding a few tweaks to existing F-22 airframe won't make it carrier compatible. Notice how Lockheed's NATF, A-X, and A/F-X all have swing wings. Since these are big and heavy aircraft, swing wings can get you lower sink rates and approach speeds because you get much better aspect ratio, but that means naval F-22 (and F-23) were pretty much totally different airframe from air force versions.

Also, F-35C has bigger impact on F-35A and B than you might think. Having to land on carrier is a big reason why F-35 went from canard delta to conventional tail design, because since the naval version needs bigger wing for lower landing speed, the bigger root chord means there was no room to put the canards for the same fuselage length, so to keep common fuselage they went to conventional tail design.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 22:53
by spazsinbad
LM differs from some of your assertions about the F-35C design history... AIAA AVIATION Forum 2018 - Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference - 10.2514/6.2018-3366 - June 25-29, 2018, Atlanta, Georgia. Fifty page PDF of this article attached below.
F-35 Program History – From JAST to IOC
25-29 Jun 2018 Arthur E. Sheridan & Robert Burnes

...D. The Lockheed Martin Air Vehicle Concept...
"...At Lockheed Martin, two series of configurations were developed [5]. The 100 series was derived from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s ASTOVL and Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) programs. These were canard-configured designs with an SDLF for the STOVL variant, like that tested under the ASTOVL program in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center’s full-scale wind tunnel [6]. The commonality strategy for the CTOL and CV variants was simply to remove the SDLF system and replace the aft vectoring nozzle with a two-dimensional vectoring nozzle, as implemented on the F-22. The 200 series of configurations used the same propulsion system with a conventional wing-tail arrangement. The commonality approach was to use identical aerodynamic configurations for the CTOL and STOVL variants. The CV variant was to be common as well, but at this stage had greater wing area due only to enlarged wing leading- and trailing-edge flaps and an extended wing tip, so the airfoil shape was thinner and the profile somewhat compromised to facilitate a common wing box with the other variants.

A conventional wing-tail arrangement was selected for two primary reasons. First, extensive research by Lockheed Martin leading to the F-22 design concluded that the conventional arrangement produced the best transonic turning maneuver performance and maximum lift for desired longitudinal stability levels, with competitive supersonic drag characteristics [7]. Second, although in this phase there was no explicit requirement, the need for low carrier powered- approach speed (VPA) indicated much lower risk for a wing-tail design compared to a delta-wing or canard configuration, both from a lift perspective (maximum lift and at approach angle of attack [AOA]), and from a low- speed control perspective (control-power and adverse control coupling). The canard configuration carried through the ASTOVL and CALF programs was designed for CTOL/STOVL capability without regard for carrier compatibility with a CV variant.

At this stage, commonality among the variants was very high within the configuration family, including airframe structure and vehicle systems (VS). It was expected that the benefits of extensive commonality would outweigh the costs of improvements in performance that might be gained by optimizing the structure and systems to specific service requirements. In later stages of the program, the airframe structure and some VS did evolve away from commonality at the detail level, as described later in the paper. Mission systems (MS) remained nearly 100-percent common
throughout...." page 5

Source: download/file.php?id=27741 [weez are no longer authorised to download this attachment]

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 00:50
by disconnectedradical
That pretty much goes in line with what I said. I said carrier requirements was a big reason for conventional tail design, and this paper said that it's one of two primary reason, so it lines up. I did get some of the details mixed up though. But the paper does state the difficulty of having a suitable wing for carrier operation and a common wingbox and fuselage.

Back to F-22, the situation is different because while F-35 was designed from the start to consider carrier compatibility, F-22 and F-23 were designed without that in mind at all, which is why their NATF versions are so different, and why a few tweaks to F-22 airframe won't make it compatible with carrier.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 01:29
by spazsinbad
Yep. My original post forgot to add a 'tongue in cheek EMOJI' and one for IRONIC as well and then 'the boy who wonders' jumped in before my 'error' could be corrected so I RAN with wot was posted. Yes I found it amusing that the F-22 could be modified with 'brochureware text' however it had some other good points about commonality. Guess who took that up.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 01:44
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:So all the text on the graphic of the F-35C means nothing to you? "...just an F-35A with bigger wings, bigger H-Stabs and beefy wheels..." OH PLEASE.


:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 02:16
by spazsinbad
At some point I'll get around to excerpting more 'F-35C differences' that I've read about recently in other LM pubs and probably in elsewhere articles also but for now these quotes are from the referenced 'JAST to IOC History' article above.

The graphic from the same publication shows the 'mini carrier suitability' tests conducted with the X-35C at 'Pax Rubber'.

FIVE HIGH COME DOWNS is particularly important to STRESS the pilot into REALLY test STRESSING the AIRFRAME & teeth.
"...Although on the surface, performance requirements did not vary significantly through the phase, there were subtle ground rule changes and a few added parameters that drove commonality among variants apart, particularly in the airframe. For example, revisions to the USAF design-mission penetration altitude and Mach number drove required fuel volume in the CTOL variant, and increasing the vertical load factor requirement to 9G for the CTOL caused most structural members and actuators to diverge from the corresponding STOVL parts. The addition of the VPA requirement as a KPP for the CV variant directly resulted in increased CV wing area and movement to a non-common wing-box planform and cascading changes into other systems, such as actuators....

...Ship 2 first flew in December 2000. It was configured as the X-35C with larger wing leading- and trailing-edge flaps and larger tail surfaces. It was flown by Lockheed Martin, USN, USAF, and UK pilots for approximately 40 flights at Edwards AFB, including field carrier landing practice (FCLP), aerial refueling, and supersonic flight, before ferrying across the country in February 2001 to Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, for an additional 30 flights of aggressive field carrier landing tests over four weeks, accomplishing 258 FCLPs. Again, up-and-away tests supported prediction models, and excellent flying qualities were noted. Eight government and Lockheed Martin pilots flew the X-35C configuration (Fig. 6)....

...2. CV Arresting Hook Redesign
One of the fundamental features of the CV variant allowing arrested landings on a carrier is the arresting hook system (AHS). The F-35C AHS was among the most challenging systems to design and one of the last to mature sufficiently to complete CDR. The requirement to completely enclose the system when retracted, combined with the relatively forward location of the engine nozzle, resulted in a configuration with the hook point longitudinal position considerably closer to the main landing gear than in any legacy aircraft. When roll-in testing of the system began at the USN’s Lakehurst, New Jersey, facility during 2011, and following initial fly-in tests, results demonstrated an unacceptably poor engagement rate. The low rate was due to the hook point bouncing over the arresting wire, caused by the unique physical dynamics of the system. Nose and main landing gear tires excited a wave motion in the wire that resulted in the center of the wire being on or close to the deck just as the hook point passed. Together with a relatively low hold-down force in the system that allowed the hook to bounce upward, and a blunt hook point, the hook often failed to catch the wire.

This problem led to a major redesign of the AHS [16], but fortunately did not have a significant effect on the surrounding airframe, systems installations, or door arrangement. The changes aimed chiefly to flatten and sharpen the leading edge of the hook-point shoe to improve the pickup of the wire and significantly increase the hold-down force on the hook to reduce bounce-up. A new CDR was conducted for the system, and testing resumed in early 2014, leading to ship trials later that year with excellent engagement rate results. By the end of 2014, 16 CV airplanes had already been delivered. Those, and an additional two aircraft, would ultimately be delivered before the change was implemented on the production line, requiring retrofits of a total of 18 aircraft....

...The F-35C CV fuel system configuration is similar to the F-35B, but the ultimate OBIGGS modification was somewhat different than either the STOVL or CTOL. Production effectivity for the change is LRIP-10, and as with the other variants, retrofits will be installed in previously delivered F-35Cs to relieve flight restrictions.

As a result, the F-35 is now fielded with no inflight restrictions related to lightning...."

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 02:57
by quicksilver
What the article didn’t make clear is that the AHS is a rather contained ‘module’ and that the features in need of redesign were exclusive that module. AIUI, If the redesign had required alteration of structure affecting the keel (think even more time and $$$), there would have been some discussion about the continuation of the variant...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 04:16
by spazsinbad
I'm guessing necessarily for the sake of 'brevity' a lot of details have been left out of the C history. The thread about the AHS redesign has a lot of detailed information. IIRC a bulkhead was strengthened/redesigned causing the trolls apoplexy.

'Membered Incorrectly m'lud: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=276876&hilit=hook+redesign+bulkhead#p276876
U.S. Deputy Program Manager Outlines F-35 Fixes
08 Apr 2014 AINonline Bill Carey

"...The initially deficient tail hook of the F-35C carrier variant has been redesigned and proven at the Navy’s carrier suitability test site in Lakehurst, N.J., without requiring structural changes to the airframe, Mahr said...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... f-35-fixes


SEARCH using these parameters for only a FEW interesting results that I won't replicate here: +hook +redesign +bulkhead

F-35C HOOK Fix Explanation VADM Dunaway NavAir Tailhook13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0molUKZnUqI


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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 13:30
by mixelflick
There is a large discrepancy between this statement...

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

And..

"It was designed to be the best strike fighter, and 2nd only to the F-22 in air to air...". So either quote #1 is indeed an extreme exaggeration, or the US (and especially its allies) are in BIG trouble in a future conflict. I personally feel #1 is an exaggeration, albeit how extreme remains an open question.

Next generation engines, two new air to air weapons and perhaps even more robust sensors will go a long way toward helping the F-35 dominate, or at the very least hold its own in any future conflict. Small numbers of SU-57's and perhaps even J-20's will help its cause, given the more likely adversaries are SU-30SM's, SU-35's and large numbers of J-10B's/C's.

As for the USN, I rather doubt the F/A-XX will make it to the fleet. A dedicated air superiority platform was last seen in the F-14, and when push came to shove they balked at advanced derivatives. Funding being what it is, they've decided "strike fighters" are their only viable platforms. First in the F-18A/C, then the F/A-18E/F and EA-F-18G. and now with the advent of the F-35C. And the longer it goes there appears to be no need for a true fleet air defense fighter, the more entrenched the Navy will be in this position IMO.

But yes, we still need the F-22. It guarantees air superiority in whatever theater it's assigned to, as it has a far greater phsychological/geopolitical impact than any amount of F-35's. I would add that I have long suspected the F-22 has secret sauce the F-35 does not, as there has to be a reason it's forbidden by law to be exported - including to our closest allies..

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 16:21
by spazsinbad
Ahh the secret sauce. The F-22 was not designed for export. The F-35 is designed for export. Is that enough secret sauce?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 16:39
by zero-one
There seems to be 2 accepted possibilities on why the F-22 was banned for export.

1. Theres a "secret sauce" that good old uncle SAM wants to keep for himself cause its so good and no one else should have it

2. The F-22 has fewer IP protection in place and will be easier to reverse engineer.

But are any of these theories backed up by official statements or at the very least by statements from people in the know?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 17:52
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Like I said, retiring the F-22 will be like retiring the F-15C because technically the F-16C and F-15E can also fulfill the air-superiority role to a degree.

Yes it can, but not to the same effect. We went down the F-22 vs F-35 in A-A role countless times . So I'll just summarize it in Gen. Hostage's words.


The difference in avionics and mission systems between F-15C and F-16C is much greater and in favor of F-15, while the difference is not nearly as big for F-22 and F-35. For example the F-16 initially couldn't even carry the AIM-7 and the radar was much more limited. As for F-15E, the airframe is just as capable, but it's a matter of training, where F-15E pilot and crews are trained for strike even if aircraft itself is just as able to do air-to-air.

F-22 is still the best at air-to-air but the difference especially against certain threats is not as pronounced. F-22 biggest advantage will be against high and fast threats.

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.

mixelflick wrote:But yes, we still need the F-22. It guarantees air superiority in whatever theater it's assigned to, as it has a far greater phsychological/geopolitical impact than any amount of F-35's. I would add that I have long suspected the F-22 has secret sauce the F-35 does not, as there has to be a reason it's forbidden by law to be exported - including to our closest allies..


There isn't some secret sauce, the mission systems of F-35 is a big step above F-22's, until F-22 MLU happens which should bring it to F-35 level minus some air-to-ground capabilities that F-22 don't need. Bigger reason is F-22 was never designed for export and computers don't have the necessary safeguards. I'll try to find the article. Other than that, F-22 has big kinematic advantage over F-35 mainly in the supersonic area but that's not really a secret.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 20:56
by disconnectedradical
The articles show that it's a combination of both superior air-to-air performance and also computers that need billion of dollars to make exportable and tamper proof.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms ... JU20090910

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 22:37
by optimist
Zero, "2. The F-22 has fewer IP protection in place and will be easier to reverse engineer." Is what I understand to be an issue.The secret tech stuff fell far below what is being shared with other platforms. Also at the time there were bulkhead issues and an unknown withdrawal date. If they were sold OS, they would have to have a known support plan. No one significant got upset, when someone tacked a 'don't sell f-22' on a voted bill. Japan's later interest was more about political home consumption, for messing up not going into the F-35 partnership


mixelflick "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant." sounds like he was on the Hill, asking for money.

I agree about how hard it would be to build a carrier F-22 and it isn't going to happen. ...but... Some things are possible :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 05:10
by usnvo
spazsinbad wrote:...2. CV Arresting Hook Redesign
One of the fundamental features of the CV variant allowing arrested landings on a carrier is the arresting hook system (AHS). The F-35C AHS was among the most challenging systems to design and one of the last to mature sufficiently to complete CDR. The requirement to completely enclose the system when retracted, combined with the relatively forward location of the engine nozzle, resulted in a configuration with the hook point longitudinal position considerably closer to the main landing gear than in any legacy aircraft. When roll-in testing of the system began at the USN’s Lakehurst, New Jersey, facility during 2011, and following initial fly-in tests, results demonstrated an unacceptably poor engagement rate. The low rate was due to the hook point bouncing over the arresting wire, caused by the unique physical dynamics of the system. Nose and main landing gear tires excited a wave motion in the wire that resulted in the center of the wire being on or close to the deck just as the hook point passed. Together with a relatively low hold-down force in the system that allowed the hook to bounce upward, and a blunt hook point, the hook often failed to catch the wire.

This problem led to a major redesign of the AHS [16], but fortunately did not have a significant effect on the surrounding airframe, systems installations, or door arrangement. The changes aimed chiefly to flatten and sharpen the leading edge of the hook-point shoe to improve the pickup of the wire and significantly increase the hold-down force on the hook to reduce bounce-up.


Wow, that is the most blatant revisionist history I have seen in a long time.

Let's See. (note, Lockheed sub-contracted the hook and associated stuff to Northrop Grumman (you know, the "experts")).

1. The distance from the MLG to the hook is very similar to the F-8, A-7, A-4, Super Entendard, and virtually every other single engine carrier jet. The same is true with the shape of the hook. What they really meant to say is that it is different than the F-14 and F-18 and no one at NAVAIR or NG was smart enough to figure out that the hooks were different for a reason. To bad no one from LVT was around anymore. So they started with what was basically an F-18 hook because you know, that was easy. After failing miserably, they changed it to something that worked and looked almost identical to a A-4 hook. Smart people would have started there.

2. The action of the wire after the MLG rolled over it has a similar, "NAVAIR were idiots" or some would say an "F-18 Mafia" answer. NAVAIR gave NG a computer model of the arresting wire that, to put it politically correct and not hurt anyone's feelings, had a few accuracy issues with it. In other words, it was totally wrong. And when they did provide the right model to the contractor, the next iteration of the hook worked perfectly. What a surprise

To act like any of this was something new or different is just flat out wrong. It was caused by hubris, ignorance, and human error. On a positive note, the bulkhead that required reinforcement was completely on Lockheed/NG.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 05:32
by quicksilver
You can see the differences by searching, ‘F-35 hook point.’

Probably the most notable consequence of the tailhook problem was its inclusion in the 2011 Concurrency Report and its characterization as a ‘Major Concurrency Risk.’

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 05:50
by charlielima223
Its always a little entertaining to me how quickly something goes off subject. One small mention about something else and everyone piles on it...

Also I have to agree somewhat with Zero about the whole "secret sauce" comment. There could be a little shred of truth to it.
For example, you dont see, hear, or read anything about the US wiling to sale retired Los Angeles nuclear attack submarines to other nations, no matter how politically and militarily close/friendly they are. Despite being superseded by the Seawolf and Virginia class, a single Los Angeles class attack submarine is a treasure trove of classified material and technologies. Besides, its not like anyone can afford it anyways.
Another example is the M1 Abrams tank. Despite being used by other nations, no exported M1 Abrams has the famed chobham armor and enhanced DU armor slabs. The only two tanks in the world with chobham armor is the British Challenger and US Abrams. The DU armor plating on US Abrams is said to be specially refined to increase its density properties.

Yes the F-22 wasnt designed to be exported, yet F-22 was pursued or garnered interest by Austrialian, Japanese, and even Israeli defense and political members. How hard could it have been to have an exported model of an F-22 back in the days? I dont believe the US Congress would have made it a federal law back in the late 90s for no real reason.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/105t ... fo?s=7&r=5

Despite the F-35s ever increasing rise to prominence, there are still certain capabilities or performance metrics of the F-22 that are still classified or that the pilots wont talk about.

Just thinking out loud....

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 05:57
by spazsinbad
Not sure WHERE the search was meant to occur however I'm not trawling through 20 pages of search results here. Using search term online brought up first result from USNInews which is not detailed: https://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockhe ... -hook-f-35

At some point history is written if not by the winners then by the also-rans. Online there is a lot of misinformation about the F-35C hook initial issues. Them twere daze. Sure details are fudged from perspective of those writing the history.

This thread has some XMAS CHEER: viewtopic.php?t=16571

For example the talk above about 'Australian interest in F-22'. AFAIK only a new labor numnut defence minister expressed interest in writing a letter to the US gubmint but I don't recall any result. Officially according to the RAAF they have NEVER been interested in acquiring the F-22 - they need a multi-role aircraft. Only APA banged on about it and THE PIG.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 06:01
by quicksilver
The F-35C discussion reinforces the points made earlier that making a jet carrier-capable isnt a stroll in the park, even when the intent is to do so from day one. I recall some wizards from down under suggesting some years that making a ‘Naval’ F-22 could be done with relative ease (I’ll see if I can find the quote).

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 06:09
by spazsinbad
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? NO here:

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/251 ... 10c42eb04a

OK THANKS I see 'QS' has found it otherwise - easier to read there online.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 06:10
by quicksilver
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

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 07:03
by boogieman
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 — <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html</span>


Oh dear lawd. SH and F35C can't out turn missiles(!?), Flankers have DRFM jammers (while ASQ239 apparently doesn't exist?), F35 VLO signature has (apparently) no appreciable effect on incoming radar AAMs, F35 lacks a towed decoy (it's called ALE-70 dummies), enemies use developmental AAMs while blue team gets bog-standard ones. Yup, sounds like APA to me!

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 07:36
by disconnectedradical
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


Wow, so how much weight will the folding wing, strengthened landing gear, stronger arrestor hook, retractable canards add? F-22 is already 43,430 lbs, and with arrestor cable limit of 50,000 lbs, with all the things needed, can this thing even land on a carrier? In that Annex below did he really just say that structural enhancements on this "F-22N" have no significant basic empty weight (BEW) increase?? :lmao:

Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

There's a reason why the NATF F-22 and F-23 designs were so different from the USAF versions, but this guy thinks he can get away with just a few "bolt on" changes to F-22A?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 08:43
by spazsinbad
This nonsense was very funny even all those years ago now. Taking the peepee is an not unusual Ozzie Trait. From PDF:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 11:09
by spazsinbad
Youse'll note at least ONE famous name in this lot. No.67 RAAF+RAN Pilot Course Graduation Photo Dec 1968 RAAF Pearce.

HINT: TOP MIDDLE & earlier we wuz at POINT COOK:
An Interesting Point: a history of military aviation at Point Cook 1914-2014
2014 Steve Campbell-Wright

“....Australia’s commitment to the Vietnam War in the early 1960s increased the demand for pilots, and airline pilot recruitment campaigns accounted for many pilot discharges. So, pilot training at Point Cook was placed under considerable pressure as the expected annual graduation rate increased from 38 before 1964 to 100 by 1968. In addition to this, Point Cook trained pilots for the Navy and Army at a rate of 12 and 28 each year respectively. On busy days, it was not unusual to have four parallel runways operating at Point Cook as aircraft also departed for training at Laverton and Bacchus Marsh. There could be over a dozen aircraft in the circuit at one time....” (page 176)

Source: http://www.radschool.org.au/Books/An%20 ... 0Point.pdf (15.3 Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:48
by madrat
So how do you deploy sidebay door when there is a CFT blocking it?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 15:57
by quicksilver
disconnectedradical wrote:
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


Wow, so how much weight will the folding wing, strengthened landing gear, stronger arrestor hook, retractable canards add? F-22 is already 43,430 lbs, and with arrestor cable limit of 50,000 lbs, with all the things needed, can this thing even land on a carrier? In that Annex below did he really just say that structural enhancements on this "F-22N" have no significant basic empty weight (BEW) increase?? :lmao:

Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

There's a reason why the NATF F-22 and F-23 designs were so different from the USAF versions, but this guy thinks he can get away with just a few "bolt on" changes to F-22A?


Would have been much needed comic relief had so many people not paid attention to them at the time...

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 19:42
by steve2267
disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.


That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 21:10
by disconnectedradical
steve2267 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.


That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...


Actually after doing some reading the F-18L was actually 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A, so my bad. Still, that is a big weight different since F/A-18A empty weight is only 23,000 lbs, so over 10% weight difference.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 22:42
by steve2267
disconnectedradical wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.


That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...


Actually after doing some reading the F-18L was actually 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A, so my bad. Still, that is a big weight different since F/A-18A empty weight is only 23,000 lbs, so over 10% weight difference.


According to that most authoritative source, Wikipedia:
New Fighter Aircraft Project

The resulting F-18L was about 30% lighter than the F/A-18A, about 27400 lb (12400 kg) take-off weight as opposed to 33700 lb (15300 kg) and as a result had considerably better performance and range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project


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.)

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 23:01
by spazsinbad
'AstroBoyStevenEven' said: "....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.)"

They could rendezvous in orbit. Can you hear me Major TOM.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 00:53
by disconnectedradical
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 01:02
by steve2267
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 03:45
by archeman
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 13:30
by charlielima223
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 14:07
by steve2267
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 14:19
by wrightwing
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 17:05
by steve2267
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 20:16
by charlielima223
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/

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 11:15
by hornetfinn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 14:30
by steve2267
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 17:19
by glennwhitten
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 19:59
by charlielima223
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 20:07
by steve2267
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2019, 01:16
by Corsair1963
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/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:50
by sunstersun
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

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 22:04
by spazsinbad
National Interest article first posted December 2018.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 23:47
by vilters
The cost for each upgrade/airframe is going to be huge.

Some 3.000 F-35 will be build and each upgrade R&D cost can be devided by 3.000.
The USAF only has some 180 F-22, so each upgrade R&D cost can only be devided by 180.
See where this is going?

In the long run, The F-22 will HAVE to be upgraded to stay on par or above the F-35 capabilities. But at what cost/airframe?

The Ruskies going bananas and the Chinese going oranges, sooner or later we will have to ask ourselves the question;
It it cost effective to continue upgrading 30 to 40 year old airframes? And do we "need" them at all?
And with what is in the pipeline for the F-35? My answer to that question is no, we do not.

Continue R&D for engine and avionix, OK. But for airfames?

What I can see happening, and it might even be cost effective, is opening up the F-35 airframe to Mach 2 Plus numbers.
But the same question pops up; Do we need it?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 23:59
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:The cost for each upgrade/airframe is going to be huge.

Some 3.000 F-35 will be build and each upgrade R&D cost can be devided by 3.000.
The USAF only has some 180 F-22, so each upgrade R&D cost can only be devided by 180.
See where this is going?

In the long run, The F-22 will HAVE to be upgraded to stay on par or above the F-35 capabilities. But at what cost/airframe?

The Ruskies going bananas and the Chinese going oranges, sooner or later we will have to ask ourselves the question;
It it cost effective to continue upgrading 30 to 40 year old airframes? And do we "need" them at all?
And with what is in the pipeline for the F-35? My answer to that question is no, we do not.

Continue R&D for engine and avionix, OK. But for airfames?

What I can see happening, and it might even be cost effective, is opening up the F-35 airframe to Mach 2 Plus numbers.
But the same question pops up; Do we need it?

F-22s are being upgraded right now, and the current plan is to keep them operational (and relevant) till 2060. The MLU consists of new computers, cockpit displays, helmet sights, new passive sensors, datalink upgrades, improved CNI/IFF, etc...

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 02:04
by weasel1962
The 3,000 F-35s is actually 2,456 for the US which after excluding the USN and USMC will be 1,763 USAF F-35As which after excluding F-35As used for training and BAI/attrition will be 960 which form 44 combat coded squadrons which after excluding ANG and reserve squadrons will be only 24 F-35A fighter squadrons which is less half of the operational fighter squadrons of the USAF's "air force we need".

The F-22s will thus be needed until PCA replaces it. However, as CBO had kindly pointed out in 2018, even the small 414 PCA unit program will require double the average procurement budget that has been allocated each year...Hence even the F-15Es will need to be maintained and upgraded whilst the F-22s are still the silver bullets.

It is theoretically feasible to swap the 414 PCAs for another 1,200 F-35As (which has its merits). However that would mean the F-35As would be the mainstay for the next 30 years. Whilst there are many who believe the F-35A to be a magic plane, I think the USAF would still want better silver bullets. The issue is also if the USAF sacrifices the PCA for more F-35s, they risk ending up with less than half due to budget cuts.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 03:59
by disconnectedradical
weasel1962 wrote:The 3,000 F-35s is actually 2,456 for the US which after excluding the USN and USMC will be 1,763 USAF F-35As which after excluding F-35As used for training and BAI/attrition will be 960 which form 44 combat coded squadrons which after excluding ANG and reserve squadrons will be only 24 F-35A fighter squadrons which is less half of the operational fighter squadrons of the USAF's "air force we need".

The F-22s will thus be needed until PCA replaces it. However, as CBO had kindly pointed out in 2018, even the small 414 PCA unit program will require double the average procurement budget that has been allocated each year...Hence even the F-15Es will need to be maintained and upgraded whilst the F-22s are still the silver bullets.

It is theoretically feasible to swap the 414 PCAs for another 1,200 F-35As (which has its merits). However that would mean the F-35As would be the mainstay for the next 30 years. Whilst there are many who believe the F-35A to be a magic plane, I think the USAF would still want better silver bullets. The issue is also if the USAF sacrifices the PCA for more F-35s, they risk ending up with less than half due to budget cuts.


Exactly. F-35 is a great strike fighter, but it’s not magic plane and with how limited the number of F-22 is, we will definitely need PCA as a dedicated air superiority fighter, and free of any airframe limitations that F-35 has, as good as it is.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 04:50
by Corsair1963
disconnectedradical wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The 3,000 F-35s is actually 2,456 for the US which after excluding the USN and USMC will be 1,763 USAF F-35As which after excluding F-35As used for training and BAI/attrition will be 960 which form 44 combat coded squadrons which after excluding ANG and reserve squadrons will be only 24 F-35A fighter squadrons which is less half of the operational fighter squadrons of the USAF's "air force we need".

The F-22s will thus be needed until PCA replaces it. However, as CBO had kindly pointed out in 2018, even the small 414 PCA unit program will require double the average procurement budget that has been allocated each year...Hence even the F-15Es will need to be maintained and upgraded whilst the F-22s are still the silver bullets.

It is theoretically feasible to swap the 414 PCAs for another 1,200 F-35As (which has its merits). However that would mean the F-35As would be the mainstay for the next 30 years. Whilst there are many who believe the F-35A to be a magic plane, I think the USAF would still want better silver bullets. The issue is also if the USAF sacrifices the PCA for more F-35s, they risk ending up with less than half due to budget cuts.


Exactly. F-35 is a great strike fighter, but it’s not magic plane and with how limited the number of F-22 is, we will definitely need PCA as a dedicated air superiority fighter, and free of any airframe limitations that F-35 has, as good as it is.


Eventually, we will need a replacement for the F-22. Yet, in the next 20-30 what is seriously going to challenge the F-35???

:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 09:15
by weasel1962
The difficulty is that being a 1 engine jet, there is a weight (and space) limitation imposed upon the jet. Despite advent, the opposition can upgrade far easier e.g. J-20.

6G projects are already taking off whether Russian (started in 2013), Chinese or European. Even Japan's F-3 stealth fighter will be likely match the F-35. If US choose to skip the PCA, even if they can protect the tech lead, they could end up losing field advantages with a sole F-35 fleet, even if these will be continuously upgraded. Much like how the F-16 is already seeing peers.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 11:16
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The difficulty is that being a 1 engine jet, there is a weight (and space) limitation imposed upon the jet. Despite advent, the opposition can upgrade far easier e.g. J-20.

6G projects are already taking off whether Russian (started in 2013), Chinese or European. Even Japan's F-3 stealth fighter will be likely match the F-35. If US choose to skip the PCA, even if they can protect the tech lead, they could end up losing field advantages with a sole F-35 fleet, even if these will be continuously upgraded. Much like how the F-16 is already seeing peers.


6th Generation Fighters are only at the very early conceptual stages. They won't enter service for at least 20 years. (most likely longer)


Also, the Japanese F-3 died sometime ago. That never got past the ATD-X/X-2 Demonstrator...They do plan to develop a future 6th Generation Fighter. Yet, that to is at a conceptual stage. Which, they likely will develop with a partner or partners!

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 11:42
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:6th Generation Fighters are only at the very early conceptual stages. They won't enter service for at least 20 years. (most likely longer)


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... n-5-years/

Roper calls the “Digital Century Series” would flip that paradigm: Instead of maturing technologies over time to create an exquisite fighter, the Air Force’s goal would be to quickly build the best fighter that industry can muster over a couple years,

Imagine “every four or five years there was the F-200, F-201, F-202 and it was vague and mysterious [on what the planes] have, but it’s clear it’s a real program and there are real airplanes flying.

“With the F-35, we had too much [emphasis on] systems and not enough [on the] air vehicle.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 11:49
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:6th Generation Fighters are only at the very early conceptual stages. They won't enter service for at least 20 years. (most likely longer)


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... n-5-years/

Roper calls the “Digital Century Series” would flip that paradigm: Instead of maturing technologies over time to create an exquisite fighter, the Air Force’s goal would be to quickly build the best fighter that industry can muster over a couple years,

Imagine “every four or five years there was the F-200, F-201, F-202 and it was vague and mysterious [on what the planes] have, but it’s clear it’s a real program and there are real airplanes flying.

“With the F-35, we had too much [emphasis on] systems and not enough [on the] air vehicle.


What have we seen to support such a claim??? As we've seen very little progress with "any" 6th Generation Program. All just conceptual designs and concepts....

Tempest is making a little progress. Yet, nothing to suggest. That they're in a position to substantially cut the time of development.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 13:04
by mixelflick
They're going to keep/upgrade the F-22, no question about it. And it will likely continue to maintain its dominant edge, despite advancements in Russian/Chinese aviation. The SU-57 is going nowhere fast: Marginal stealth at best, going to be expensive as hell (particularly for foreign operators) and probably built in very small numbers. The J-20 looks to have better stealth, but still won't give them an aircraft that'll survive the F-22 onslaught. All of this just gets magnified more when the AIM-260/Perigrine get here.

The F-35 will go on to dismantle air defense networks in various parts of the globe, although I would expect a few losses. These new generation SAM's aren't very forgiving, and I would expect poor mission planning/a lucky shot like we saw in Kosovo here and there. In the air to air realm I do think it'll be very close to the F-22: Silent, almost invisible, deadly.

As of yet though, it hasn't exuded the fear factor that the Raptor instills in enemies when it arrives in theater. The F-22 sends a powerful message, and I'm convinced it has helped us avoid more fights than we're probably aware of. You don't give up a capability like that, no matter how much is perception vs. reality. Those silver bullets need to stay in the magazine...

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 13:38
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:What have we seen to support such a claim???


Obviously only people with high level clearance can answer that.
Right now its mostly the aircraft developers who talk about going through another clean sheet design which will take years to develop.

However, for airforce brass, theres a lot of talk about moving away from the traditional development cycle of creating a clean sheet design and more about using mature systems and mature technologies. Think of the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet concept. It took Boeing like a few months to conjure that up. The F-15X also seemingly came out of nowhere and so did the F-21.

Using mature or existing platforms and upgrading them to meet the PCA's requirements can be done much quicker than starting from scratch.

For all we know the PCA program could be:
-Modified F-22 as the shooter component
-Modified B-21 as the Stealthy sensor node, while some will operate as stealthy refueling tankers and other will act as missile trucks.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 13:56
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The difficulty is that being a 1 engine jet, there is a weight (and space) limitation imposed upon the jet. Despite advent, the opposition can upgrade far easier e.g. J-20.

6G projects are already taking off whether Russian (started in 2013), Chinese or European. Even Japan's F-3 stealth fighter will be likely match the F-35. If US choose to skip the PCA, even if they can protect the tech lead, they could end up losing field advantages with a sole F-35 fleet, even if these will be continuously upgraded. Much like how the F-16 is already seeing peers.


6th Generation Fighters are only at the very early conceptual stages. They won't enter service for at least 20 years. (most likely longer)


Exactly!

And why are we calling those projects 6th gen??

Those projects such as the Su-57 (and other projects such as the Mig-41), J-20 (and other Chinese projects), Tempest, NGF, etc... are all in fact 5th gen aircraft!
I know that the companies/countries that develop them are "taunting" them as 6th as some sort of superior leverage against the F-35 and F-22 as well as a great part of the media which supports this lets say "behavior" but those aircraft/projects are still 5th gen.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 14:35
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:For all we know the PCA program could be:
-Modified F-22 as the shooter component
-Modified B-21 as the Stealthy sensor node, while some will operate as stealthy refueling tankers and other will act as missile trucks.


And why not a modified F-35?

By looking at the F-35's flight envelop it's seem clear that with further testing (and in case of being necessary, small modifications) it could pass the Mach 1.6 top speed with relative ease.

I believe that with further and definitely more extensive modifications it would be possible to develop a modified version of the F-35 with full supercruise capability, higher top-speed, (even) longer range and of course higher ceiling.

Someone previously mentioned that a single-engine fighter aircraft would be less "upgradable" than a twin engine fighter aircraft. I disagree with this and the F-16 is a clear testimony that a single engine fighter aircraft can be as "upgradable" or even more than a twin engine one.
Moreover the F-35 compared to the F-22 can already carry bigger, heavier and bulkier weapons compared to the F-22. For example the F-35 (excluding the -B variant of course) can carry 2000lb bombs while the F-22 can only carry 1000lb bombs.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 16:58
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:And why not a modified F-35?

The F-35 is originally designed as a ground attack aircraft with considerable A-A prowess.
Kinematically it will always be inferior to the Raptor.

The PCA program is tailored for A-A, If they will indeed upgrade a mature platform to fulfill one part of the PCA family of systems, its only logical for them to use an airframe that was tailored for A-A than one that is tailored for A-G.

Don't take my word for it,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCerewkIQE
F-35 pilot Maj. John Searcy, specifically said that the F-35 was consciously designed to be compromised in a way because it had a different mission in mind.

ricnunes wrote:By looking at the F-35's flight envelop it's seem clear that with further testing (and in case of being necessary, small modifications) it could pass the Mach 1.6 top speed with relative ease.

That wasn't clear to me, isn't the DSI intake only one of several limiting factors for it to be limited to 1.6M.


ricnunes wrote:I believe that with further and definitely more extensive modifications it would be possible to develop a modified version of the F-35 with full supercruise capability, higher top-speed, (even) longer range and of course higher ceiling.

For example the F-35 (excluding the -B variant of course) can carry 2000lb bombs while the F-22 can only carry 1000lb

Performance wise the only advantage the F-35 has over the Raptor is range, while the Raptor has speed, maneuverability, acceleration, Energy retention, supersonic persistence and max flight ceiling advantages over the Lightning.

The PCA will use Avionics and systems that the F-22 and F-35 don't have today, so if we're talking about choosing an air-frame only specifically for air-frame characteristics. Then the F-22 is the clear winner for a candidate A-A platform.

And while the F-35 can carry 2k bombs to the F-22's 1k, the F-22 can also carry 8 internal AAMs to the F-35's current 4 and possibly 6. so the payload argument is a draw.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 17:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:That wasn't clear to me, isn't the DSI intake only one of several limiting factors for it to be limited to 1.6M.


Not at all. The F-16 tested the DSI out to Mach 2. Even the F-35 was tested to Mach 1.67 as a test point, not an absolute limit. Look at the difference in 0.8-1.2M acceleration numbers between the C and the A. Most of that is due to higher wave drag from the giant wing causing a less efficient area rule. Not remember that the C still hits 1.6M. The A has a LOT of excess thrust available at 1.6M.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 18:28
by disconnectedradical
Why keep talking about F-35 or F-22 derivative? IMO clean sheet for PCA makes a lot more sense for a few reasons. The most expensive part of 5th gen fighters is actually their mission systems, not the airframe, so a new airframe itself isn't contributing to the expense as much as you might think. Also, modifying existing airframe is not as cheap as you might think especially if you want to add more capability.

With new airframe, you can start with a newer baseline of technology. Also, with new airframe you avoid having to figure out how to make parts that are out of production or components that are outdated like on F-22, and at the same time you avoid the inter-service limitations of F-35 design like limits on length or wingspan. And of course with new airframe you can easily have better performance and stealth than F-22 and F-35.

If they want lower risk, they can probably do something like a v-tail (with or without TVC). If they want to go really ambitious, they can go supersonic flying wing. And before someone starts ripping on v-tail for not being maneuverable, Paul Metz himself said YF-23 has high AoA capabilities at least as good as a Hornet.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 18:36
by steve2267
It'll be easy! Just do such and such!

Famous last words.

I suggest starting with a trade study to see if it is worthwhile.

Spurts makes good points about excess thrust of the -A etc. And while the DSI design has been tested to 2.0 Mach on the F-16, it's implementation on the F-35 may be specifically for 1.6 Mach as a design point. Want to go faster? May need to re-design (and re-test etc) that DSI inlet for more speed. And you'll probably give up something, somewhere else to get it.

The trapezoidal planform of the F-35 appears pretty stiff, still you'll need to clear the flight envelope with additional flight testing. Maybe the wing doesn't flutter, but the vertical tail does, or the stabs run into an issue, or what if the outer portion of the LEF ran into flutter issues? Gums didn't seem to care much for the time his LEF bent upwards nearly 90°. 2.0 Mach... LEF flutters and probably rips off due to high Q... well, might be best if it departs the airframe rather than stay attached. But that's the sort of thing you need to make sure doesn't happen.

And why does everyone want to go faster?

It was the advent of the radio in the patrol car that gave police the upper hand over the likes of Pretty Boy Floyd and other gangsters 80-90 years ago. In tactical air combat, it is sensors + fusion + interconnected network of nodes. Going 2.0 Mach or 2.5 Mach in a re-designed F-35 could be done (technically), but why? Gonna cost a ton of money, and what does that get you? Lots of thermodynamic problems, that's what. And stress / structural problems. And gonna cost LOTS of gas.

The F-22 can supercruise at 1.5 Mach, correct? But how far can it go at that speed? 200nm? 400? It's not like LM can wave a magic wand and suddenly the F-35 XLT can supercruise @ 1.4 Mach for 800nm...

Would you be willing to give up 9g kinematics for a combat radius of 1000nm?

IMO, I'd be interested in trade studies that looked at things like:
  • Increase fuel capacity for 1000nm combat radius. (Heck, may need to do a trade study to see what the "correct" combat radius should be. 1000 just sounds like a nice, long, round number. Maybe that number should be 825nm. Or 1260 or something.
  • Is a modest supercruise speed required or desirable? If so, what should it be? 1.2 Mach? 1.4? How far do I need to fly at that speed? Can that even be done by modifying the F-35?
  • If this uber-35 is to be an Air-to-Air machine, do I still need to lug 2000lb bombs around? Can I slim down the fuselage any by redesigning (expen$ive!) the weps bays?
  • am I willing to relax 9g capability to 7.5g if that gets me the gas for 1000nm range? Or Supercruise @ 1.x Mach for y00 nm? What if I can get that range with only 7g? or 5g?

What if what I really need is to be able to lug a 5000lb penetrating munition 1000nm... May have to lengthen the weps bays to 20ft, or 24ft... If so, do I only want one weps bay? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to have that axisymmetrically located along the vehicle centerline? Or do I have two, 22ft weps bays, but have the ability to fill one with gas on a mission basis?

It might be possible to simply stretch the F-35, the additional length giving more volume for gas and maybe the ability to carry GBU-28's internally, or new hypersonic strike weapon, or an air launched ABM... Probably can get more range, but that additional structure is going to weigh more, so probably lose the 9g capability, probably cannot VL a stretched -B (but again, trade studies). A modest supercruise may be possible with a better finesse ratio, but you're adding weight and skin friction drag, so I'm guessing supercruise would be achieved by slimming down the -A, NOT making it longer (and bigger and heavier), unless you can get P&W to cough up that extra 25% thrust or whatever they have. What if P&W can get you the thrust... BUT you have to give up hundreds or thousands of hours on the life of the motor?

It's fun to play what if's, but the devil and expen$e is in the detail$.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 22:45
by disconnectedradical
I don't think it's worth trying to modify F-35 airframe. It has too many limitations built in and trying to length it or change control surface you'll have to redo all your structural calculations and tests you might as well start fresh.

A new design with v-tails or no tails for lower drag, better stealth, and also bigger size with 2 ADVENT engines is where I think PCA should be going.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 22:58
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:The F-35 is originally designed as a ground attack aircraft with considerable A-A prowess.
Kinematically it will always be inferior to the Raptor.


If I earned a dime for each time I hear/read such argument I would be millionaire (perhaps billionaire) by now!

So and again, no the F-35 was not "designed as a ground attack aircraft"!
It was "designed as a multirole aircraft" and as such to be equally as capable as an air-to-air fighter aircraft and an air-to-ground fighter aircraft and not to be worse or secondary on one role while better on the other. This is possible due to advancement in technology and by the way the F-35 is definitely not the first aircraft designed from scratch to be like this. The F/A-18 and Rafale before it were also "designed as a multirole aircraft" from the start.

I believe it would be in the best interest to "kill" this rumor/urban legend/whatever... once and for all!

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2020, 23:07
by ricnunes
disconnectedradical wrote:Why keep talking about F-35 or F-22 derivative?


Cost saving measure. (solely)

disconnectedradical wrote:IMO clean sheet for PCA makes a lot more sense for a few reasons.


I'm not disagreeing that a clean sheet for PCA would be better compared to a F-35 or F-22 derivative. But it would likely be more expensive to develop.
Not that a F-35 or F-22 derivative would be cheap by any measure but IMO it would be considerably cheaper to develop a F-35 or F-22 derivative (and also faster to develop which again leads to cheaper) compared to a clean sheet for PCA.

So, if money isn't a problem then yeah, go for the clean sheet for PCA. But something tells me that money will indeed be a problem in the future.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 01:30
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:What have we seen to support such a claim???


Obviously only people with high level clearance can answer that.
Right now its mostly the aircraft developers who talk about going through another clean sheet design which will take years to develop.

However, for airforce brass, theres a lot of talk about moving away from the traditional development cycle of creating a clean sheet design and more about using mature systems and mature technologies. Think of the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet concept. It took Boeing like a few months to conjure that up. The F-15X also seemingly came out of nowhere and so did the F-21.

Using mature or existing platforms and upgrading them to meet the PCA's requirements can be done much quicker than starting from scratch.

For all we know the PCA program could be:
-Modified F-22 as the shooter component
-Modified B-21 as the Stealthy sensor node, while some will operate as stealthy refueling tankers and other will act as missile trucks.


We are only now "starting" to scratch the surface of what 5th Generation Fighters can do. So, considerable maturity is going to happen over the next decade. So, hard to even guess what the next stage in fighter development is at this stage.

Which, is likely why the USAF and USN aren't in a massive hurry to develop 6th Generation Fighters in the first place...

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 01:51
by disconnectedradical
Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:What have we seen to support such a claim???


Obviously only people with high level clearance can answer that.
Right now its mostly the aircraft developers who talk about going through another clean sheet design which will take years to develop.

However, for airforce brass, theres a lot of talk about moving away from the traditional development cycle of creating a clean sheet design and more about using mature systems and mature technologies. Think of the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet concept. It took Boeing like a few months to conjure that up. The F-15X also seemingly came out of nowhere and so did the F-21.

Using mature or existing platforms and upgrading them to meet the PCA's requirements can be done much quicker than starting from scratch.

For all we know the PCA program could be:
-Modified F-22 as the shooter component
-Modified B-21 as the Stealthy sensor node, while some will operate as stealthy refueling tankers and other will act as missile trucks.


We are only now "starting" to scratch the surface of what 5th Generation Fighters can do. So, considerable maturity is going to happen over the next decade. So, hard to even guess what the next stage in fighter development is at this stage.

Which, is likely why the USAF and USN aren't in a massive hurry to develop 6th Generation Fighters in the first place...


ATF RFP was just 10 years after F-15 introduction and RFI was only 5 years and technology development like engines and studies were Ben before that. They’re always looking ahead so if they’re looking for F-22 successor, they’re in the early phase of the program now.

Maybe you don’t think so but USAF and USN are making next gen fighter more important than you think. F-22 and F-35 aren’t magic aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 02:09
by Corsair1963
ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Why keep talking about F-35 or F-22 derivative?


Cost saving measure. (solely)

disconnectedradical wrote:IMO clean sheet for PCA makes a lot more sense for a few reasons.


I'm not disagreeing that a clean sheet for PCA would be better compared to a F-35 or F-22 derivative. But it would likely be more expensive to develop.
Not that a F-35 or F-22 derivative would be cheap by any measure but IMO it would be considerably cheaper to develop a F-35 or F-22 derivative (and also faster to develop which again leads to cheaper) compared to a clean sheet for PCA.

So, if money isn't a problem then yeah, go for the clean sheet for PCA. But something tells me that money will indeed be a problem in the future.


US clearly needs to develop future 6th Generation Fighters. If, it is to maintain it's level of Technological Superiority over the competition...

Also, I see a lot of advantages of not hurrying such designs. As upgraded models of the F-22 and F-35. Should be adequate until they arrive. Thereby not making the same mistake as Europe did with the Typhoon and Rafale.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 07:49
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:If I earned a dime for each time I hear/read such argument I would be millionaire (perhaps billionaire) by now!


I'm sorry, but its just the truth
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0102jsf/
the JSF will “provide an air-to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCerewkIQE
Maj John Searcy wrote:We're complementing the Raptor as our Air dominance fighter
We were designed for a different mission set. More of the Supression of enemy air defenses or destruction of enemy air defenses, or just kind of the long range strike or interdiction. We were designed more as that multi role fighter and not as a dedicated air superiority fighter.


We need to stop looking at the F-35 as the best for everything.
PCA is an air dominance program
Why would you adopt a design that was "designed for a different mission set. More for the Supression of enemy air defenses " for an air dominance fighter.


disconnectedradical wrote:Why keep talking about F-35 or F-22 derivative?

Because according to AirForce brass they want to move away from long development cycles and focus on Existing or mature designs. There is nothing existing or mature about a clean sheet design.

I'm not ruling out clean sheet designs. I'm just saying, If the AF wants a family of aircraft to form the PCA system, then a derivative of the F-22 will be a good candidate.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 10:24
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:I'm not ruling out clean sheet designs. I'm just saying, If the AF wants a family of aircraft to form the PCA system, then a derivative of the F-22 will be a good candidate.


Replace the F-119 with more powerful more fuel efficient advent engines, plumb/test the outer pylons for fuel tanks so it carries over 30klbs fuel in total like the F-15E, update the sensors/network/computers so it has MADL and IRST capability. It wouldn't be sexy like a brand new design but it would get the job done albeit with the proviso that stealth would be compromised at the start of long range missions. LM might even put it forward as a cheap option.

p.s. the ACM performance would be off the charts with ~50 klb engines. It should also be made exportable.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 12:31
by charlielima223
ricnunes wrote:If I earned a dime for each time I hear/read such argument I would be millionaire (perhaps billionaire) by now!

So and again, no the F-35 was not "designed as a ground attack aircraft"!
It was "designed as a multirole aircraft" and as such to be equally as capable as an air-to-air fighter aircraft and an air-to-ground fighter aircraft and not to be worse or secondary on one role while better on the other. This is possible due to advancement in technology and by the way the F-35 is definitely not the first aircraft designed from scratch to be like this. The F/A-18 and Rafale before it were also "designed as a multirole aircraft" from the start.

I believe it would be in the best interest to "kill" this rumor/urban legend/whatever... once and for all!


I think what former ACC Gen. "Hawk" Charlisle said about the F-35 when responding to dumb POGO question is the most accurate...



Air-to-air wasnt designed as the F-35's main mission set. Multi-role aircraft are good at what they do but we all heard and know the saying, "Jack of all trades master of none" (or something similar to). The late F-14 will always edge out the Hornet in air to air much like how the Typhoon could start to edge out the Rafale in certain envelopes and regimes. Has the capability gap between pure air-to-air breeds and multirole aircraft gotten smaller over the years? Yes, I wont deny that. If you have a mix fleet of aircraft of air to air, multi-role, air-to-ground etc, I am sure you would want to use the aircraft best suited for the intended job/mission.

We all agree that the F-35 is a superb aircraft that is proving many of its naysayers wrong, but let us not think that it is the end all be all.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 13:57
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:If I earned a dime for each time I hear/read such argument I would be millionaire (perhaps billionaire) by now!


I'm sorry, but its just the truth
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0102jsf/
the JSF will “provide an air-to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCerewkIQE
Maj John Searcy wrote:We're complementing the Raptor as our Air dominance fighter
We were designed for a different mission set. More of the Supression of enemy air defenses or destruction of enemy air defenses, or just kind of the long range strike or interdiction. We were designed more as that multi role fighter and not as a dedicated air superiority fighter.



Guess that I would be a billionaire by now :wink:

Look, what you posted is (or was) what the USAF intends to use their F-35, which is primarily in Air-to-Ground roles or more precisely as a direct replacement of the F-16 (an aircraft which the USAF uses primarily in Air-to-Ground roles).

However many and I would even dare to say most of the F-35 users will use it primarily in Air-to-Air roles, I'm pretty sure of. Examples of this are Dutch, Danish, Norwegian Air Forces, etc... and perhaps even the US Navy.

Of course that the USAF intends to use their F-35s primarily in Air-to-Ground, afterall they need more aircraft in this roles as opposed to Air-to-Air and since they have F-22s there's not so much of a need for the F-35 to perform primarily Air-to-Air roles/missions, this and again just like they do with their F-16 fleet.

But then again, this doesn't mean that the F-35 isn't equally designed and capable to perform Air-to-Air missions as its primarily mission, this again just like the F-16.


zero-one wrote:We need to stop looking at the F-35 as the best for everything.
PCA is an air dominance program
Why would you adopt a design that was "designed for a different mission set. More for the Supression of enemy air defenses " for an air dominance fighter.


No aircraft is the best for everything. Not even the F-22!
But taking all things into account the F-35 is probably the best, most advanced and effective fighter aircraft in all roles that a fighter aircraft can perform including Air-to-Air, this in existence today (and in the foreseeable future).

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 14:01
by madrat
disconnectedradical wrote:I don't think it's worth trying to modify F-35 airframe. It has too many limitations built in and trying to length it or change control surface you'll have to redo all your structural calculations and tests you might as well start fresh.

A new design with v-tails or no tails for lower drag, better stealth, and also bigger size with 2 ADVENT engines is where I think PCA should be going.

It's no secret that the future will see fewer exposed articulating joints and lean towards non-traditional active technologies emphasizing electromechanical solutions for actuators and active vectoring that is likely not directly derived from engine thrust. Less drag in a straight line. Internalized loads. Emphasis on passive sensors. It will be to the F-35 what Sea Wolf design is to the Los Angeles submarine.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 16:12
by mixelflick
I think the F-35 is a brilliant design, and will perform admirably in both roles (and for the record, quite a few more like recce and EW work). However, what I think is fair to say is the following...

A bigger (heavier) fighter designed first and foremost for air to air is almost always more capable in a swing role (air to ground) when modified appropriately. Case in point: The F-15E vs. the F-16XL. The Eagle starts off with many advantages.. bigger nose for bigger radar. Two engines vs. 1 for more power. Bigger airframe again leading to more room for internal fuel, more weapon stations and in general, more room for everything. The Russians built off the original Flanker airframe to get the SU-34. There's a reason they didn't do so with the Mig-27 or even Mig-29. Smaller, less powerful aircraft with less room for upgraded engines, weapons, sensors and fuel. The downside to modifying a big air to air platform for air to ground work? Primarily cost. You can't build as many. And they're more expensive to operate.

When you try and go the other way (F-16A to F-16XL, YF-17 to F/A-18 to SH), it's just not as capable an all around platform IMO...

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 16:27
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:However many and I would even dare to say most of the F-35 users will use it primarily in Air-to-Air roles, I'm pretty sure of. Examples of this are Dutch, Danish, Norwegian Air Forces, etc... and perhaps even the US Navy.

Just because most users will use it as their primary A-A, that doesn't mean it has been modified to be somehow as good as the Raptor in A-A.

It has always been designed to have a robust A-A capability, in fact it is supposed to be 2nd only to the Raptor, that effectively makes it the best A-A platform available for export which by default makes it the best option in A-A for everyone except for the USAF

ricnunes wrote:this doesn't mean that the F-35 isn't equally designed and capable to perform Air-to-Air missions as its primarily mission

Didn't you read the links sent to you by charlielima223 and myself?

Gen. "Hawk" Charlisle wrote:Air-to-air wasnt designed as the F-35's main mission set.

I believe the figure 60/40 (60% for A-G and 40% for A-A) has been thrown around here a few times already.

Think of it like the F-4, the designed primary mission was an interceptor, but most users used it as an air superiority fighter even if it was never designed for that role. yes it was good at it too but it will never be as good as a dedicated air superiority fighter in that role.

ricnunes wrote:But taking all things into account the F-35 is probably the best, most advanced and effective fighter aircraft in all roles that a fighter aircraft can perform including Air-to-Air, this in existence today (and in the foreseeable future)

I'll have to disagree with that last part,
is it the best for SEAD/DEAD? sure,
interdiction? yes,
strike? you bet,
but A-A well, since you wont listen to me, at least listen to actual F-35 pilots or Air Force Generals

We were designed for a different mission set We were designed more as that multi role fighter and not as a dedicated air superiority fighter
-Maj John Searcy

The F-22 is to the F-35 what the F-15 is to the F-16, the former are kings of air to air combat.
-General Mike Hostage

So again, IF (and its a big If) the PCA will use directives of existing designs to incorporate into their family of systems, using an airframe that was designed "more for SEAD/DEAD and Strike" according to Maj Searcy, doesn't make sense .

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 16:47
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Why keep talking about F-35 or F-22 derivative?

Because according to AirForce brass they want to move away from long development cycles and focus on Existing or mature designs. There is nothing existing or mature about a clean sheet design.

I'm not ruling out clean sheet designs. I'm just saying, If the AF wants a family of aircraft to form the PCA system, then a derivative of the F-22 will be a good candidate.


Why do you keep insisting mature is mainly about airframe? These days the mission systems and engines cost as much as airframe itself. I think you're underestimating how much it cost to have a derivative especially if you want additional capability that needs fundamental changes to airframe structure. In the F-22 restart study it cost $10 billion just to start up production for the existing aircraft, not even adding in more capability. F-22 development was $30 billion, so just start production up against will cost a third of that. And you still end up with same limitations of the existing airframe.

Another way to use mature technology is mating existing mission systems with a new airframe and also ADVENT engines. You get much more benefits that way. Also with a new airframe, you can have a lot more room for growth and future upgrade compare to F-22 derivative. So it might cost more upfront but in long term it also able to accept more upgrade. Not to mention from the start you can avoid the limitations of F-22 and F-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 17:27
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:this doesn't mean that the F-35 isn't equally designed and capable to perform Air-to-Air missions as its primarily mission

Didn't you read the links sent to you by charlielima223 and myself?


Yes, I read the link that you and charlielima223 posted.
But all those links are from USAF officials and what I'm reading from them is that they are arguing and giving reasons/arguments to keep the F-22. They know that the F-35 is extremely good so they must staunchly defend the F-22 (with compelling arguments) or else there's a risk of the F-22 being retired in favor of (more) F-35s, this due to the "political power"

Actually you seem to be somehow agreeing with my previous main point in which the F-35 was equally designed for A2A, this by reading the following paragraph posted by you:
zero-one wrote:It has always been designed to have a robust A-A capability, in fact it is supposed to be 2nd only to the Raptor, that effectively makes it the best A-A platform available for export which by default makes it the best option in A-A for everyone except for the USAF


IMO, I doubt that if the F-35 was designed mainly as an A2G fighter aircraft (and not equally designed for A2A) there would be so many nations interested in it.

Actually the "F-35 was designed mainly as an A2G fighter aircraft" has been one of the main arguments by the F-35 critic crowd, an argument which I believe has been clearly dismissed by now.


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:But taking all things into account the F-35 is probably the best, most advanced and effective fighter aircraft in all roles that a fighter aircraft can perform including Air-to-Air, this in existence today (and in the foreseeable future)

I'll have to disagree with that last part,
is it the best for SEAD/DEAD? sure,
interdiction? yes,
strike? you bet,
but A-A well, since you wont listen to me, at least listen to actual F-35 pilots or Air Force Generals


Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that the F-22 has a set of features that make it better for A2A roles and even I dare to say, even better in some (or many?) A2G roles!
The F-22 would definitely be an all-around better/superior plane compared to the F-35 if the F-22 carried the same/similar sensor and avionic suite (DAS, EOTS/IRST, more advanced sensor fusion, much more advanced Helmet, etc, etc, etc...).
But the truth is that it doesn't (the F-22 doesn't have such equipment)!
And as such even with inferior sensor and avionic suite the F-22 is still much more expensive (and almost prohibitively so) which means that only a handfull of such aircraft could be purchased.
As such I imagine that a more advanced F-22 would be even more prohibitive, this cost wise.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 17:31
by quicksilver
“I suggest starting with a trade study...” (steve)

Amen, and I would bet we can all bank on the idea that trades have been going on for years already.

Re: design “compromises” (which, as a reminder to some, ALL designs are an amalgam of...) — a favorite from somewhere in my distant past — a colleague once told me that an early JSF trade suggested that it would cost a half-million dollars of URF per every .1 IMN above 1.6 — this back in the day when the URF projections were in the $30-40M range. Not small change.

Now let’s imagine a design that has to go very very fast while concurrently traveling very very far with very low signatures and all kinds hi-end sensor and networking capabilities. And they need it starting in 5 years in not-insignificant numbers with budget projections flat or decreasing.

Giddyup fellas.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 17:38
by ricnunes
disconnectedradical wrote:So it might cost more upfront but in long term it also able to accept more upgrade. Not to mention from the start you can avoid the limitations of F-22 and F-35.


For what's worth, I trend to agree more with the view above. IMO, the PCA should be a true next gen (a true 6th gen fighter aircraft) unlike those projects being developed by the Russians, British, European, etc... which are again and IMO 5th gen fighter aircraft (I don't believe you can skip a generation "just like that").
So the PCA would be something whose research could start soon and come to fruition in 25-30 years from now.

What I previously meant is that for some reason a new aircraft - the PCA - would be needed rather sooner than later then a possible solution could be a modified F-35. However I also trend to agree with those that this won't likely be needed because both the F-35 and F-22 are more than capable now and superior to the competition as well as in the foreseeable future.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 17:46
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:Why do you keep insisting mature is mainly about airframe?


I'm not insisting anything. I'm saying if the PCA will want to use existing platforms, then the F-22 is a good choice. Sure they can go clean sheet. but will it cost less than the F-22 restart estimate, will it be produced in the 5 year time frame they want? I highly doubt that.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 17:55
by disconnectedradical
ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:So it might cost more upfront but in long term it also able to accept more upgrade. Not to mention from the start you can avoid the limitations of F-22 and F-35.


For what's worth, I trend to agree more with the view above. IMO, the PCA should be a true next gen (a true 6th gen fighter aircraft) unlike those projects being developed by the Russians, British, European, etc... which are again and IMO 5th gen fighter aircraft (I don't believe you can skip a generation "just like that").
So the PCA would be something whose research could start soon and come to fruition in 25-30 years from now.

What I previously meant is that for some reason a new aircraft - the PCA - would be needed rather sooner than later then a possible solution could be a modified F-35. However I also trend to agree with those that this won't likely be needed because both the F-35 and F-22 are more than capable now and superior to the competition as well as in the foreseeable future.


25-30 years is probably way too long for USAF, from all the statements it seems like they want this new aircraft in the mid to late 2030s, which is when F-35 procurement is ending. So they have to decide how ambitious they want to make PCA. For lower risk, they can go with a v-tail design like the Lockheed Martin concept art from a few years ago. If they want to be riskier, they can go for tailless supersonic which is what all the companies and USAF have been suggesting in their latest releases.

But again a huge part of the program cost will be mission systems, so do we know where USAF wants to go with that? Also, where do we go from F-35 mission systems? If they can be used on PCA, that's a LOT of money that can be saved.

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Why do you keep insisting mature is mainly about airframe?


I'm not insisting anything. I'm saying if the PCA will want to use existing platforms, then the F-22 is a good choice. Sure they can go clean sheet. but will it cost less than the F-22 restart estimate, will it be produced in the 5 year time frame they want? I highly doubt that.


5 years and $10 billion to restart F-22 without any additional capabilities, and also much less room to grow for future upgrades. You are also stuck with same limitation of an airframe designed in 1990s, when current state of the art can do much better.

Much better to upgrade existing F-22 and F-35, and process with clean sheet design for PCA. The whole point is that PCA using "mature" system doesn't mean airframe, it can mean mission systems or propulsion system which cost just as much.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 18:13
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:But all those links are from USAF officials and what I'm reading from them is that they are arguing and giving reasons/arguments to keep the F-22.


You're interpreting their words to fit your narrative, I simply read it and accept it for what it is.
what about Maj. Searcy's statement, is it also politically motivated? I highly doubt it.

ricnunes wrote:Actually you seem to be somehow agreeing with my previous main point in which the F-35 was equally designed for A2A,

I think you have a problem with the term "secondary role" as you seem to think we are implying that it is not good at A-A because it is simply a secondary role. Thats not what we are saying at all.

I always put this example to F-35 critics, the F-86 is a dedicated dog-fighter while the F-15 is an air superiority fighter with emphasis on BVR and secondary WVR. But I can guarantee you, any pilot and their gandma will choose the Eagle over the Sabre in a dogfight.

Like wise the F-35's Secondary A-A role, though not it's primary design, is still far more effective than any 4th gen out there.

ricnunes wrote:Actually the "F-35 was designed mainly as an A2G fighter aircraft" has been one of the main arguments by the F-35 critic crowd, an argument which I believe has been clearly dismissed by now.


No one dismissed that, in fact it has been further reinforced recently by Maj. Seacy's statements that they were designed for a different mission set which puts more emphasis on SEAD and Strike. Just read it as it is and don't put a spin on it.

ricnunes wrote:if the F-22 carried the same/similar sensor and avionic suite (DAS, EOTS/IRST, more advanced sensor fusion, much more advanced Helmet, etc, etc, etc...).
But the truth is that it doesn't (the F-22 doesn't have such equipment)!


But the F-22 has a bigger radar and more Passive EW receivers, 30 nodes against the F-35's 10.
The F-22 still has some advantages in some areas over the F-35 in the sensor department as well.

If the AF decides to choose between the F-22 and F-35 to incorporate in their PCA family of systems
any selected design will have the latest in sensor and avionics technology and in that regard an upgraded Raptor will be a better choice than an upgraded and possibly heavily modified F-35

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 22:25
by marsavian
It fundamentally boils down to what is the primary requirement of PCA, is it excess stealthy range to escort B-21 in and out, say something SR-71 sized ? Is it an efficient super cruising long range fighter/bomber say YF-23 sized which will have self-merits beyond just escorting ? Or is it to have the highest SEP fighter ever made, something that tends to a P/W ratio of 2 when fuel is low e.g. a super Raptor with advent F135 engines that can satisfy the range requirement by using 4 large external fuel tanks. The point is B-21 will need escorting at least on the way out when it's chugging along at subsonic speeds after bomb delivery and enemy fighters are looking for it using optical sensors and attempting to close off the expected exit routes using sheer numbers. The requirement will drive the PCA design and eventual choice but it will need enough differentiation from F-35 to justify its purchase and existence.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 23:02
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:It fundamentally boils down to what is the primary requirement of PCA, is it excess stealthy range to escort B-21 in and out, say something SR-71 sized ? Is it an efficient super cruising long range fighter/bomber say YF-23 sized which will have self-merits beyond just escorting ? Or is it to have the highest SEP fighter ever made, something that tends to a P/W ratio of 2 when fuel is low e.g. a super Raptor with advent F135 engines that can satisfy the range requirement by using 4 large external fuel tanks. The point is B-21 will need escorting at least on the way out when it's chugging along at subsonic speeds after bomb delivery and enemy fighters are looking for it using optical sensors and attempting to close off the expected exit routes using sheer numbers. The requirement will drive the PCA design and eventual choice but it will need enough differentiation from F-35 to justify its purchase and existence.


I agree that requirements will drive the design -- as they should.

However, first I note that "efficient super cruising" and "long range" in the same sentence (i.e. as a requirement) may be contradictory... or drive the design so far in one dimension, that it does not meet other requirements.

Second, I question whether or not the B-21 "will need escorting"... does the B-2 require escorting? Not that I have heard. If you're thinking is strictly 2nd / 3rd / 4th gen in that "bomb bay doors open / bombs away", then I suppose enema fighters will be looking for the B-21 after things go kaboom... but I don't think that is how it works in todays environment of JDAMS with tens of miles of range, let alone JSOWs and JASSMs, and (allegedly) soon-to-be hypersonic weapons. The concept of "escorting" bombers may be dead.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 23:18
by marsavian
B-2s have not been used against peer air forces which the B-21 must do as a last resort as a prime requirement e.g. China and escorting B-21s was the initial narrative when the PCA/NGAD concept was made public. Escorting subsonic stealthy bombers will be required as you really can't lose one due to the technology transfer that would then occur and I expect F-22/F-35 to do that even now at the limit of their range. Certainly if Iran flares up again into a major air campaign I expect F-22/F-35 to be there in escort as well as bombing/intercept roles. If an Iranian F-14A stumbles on an egressing B-2 without an escort it will be shot down. They only have to get lucky once.

As for efficient super cruising that's a question of drag and how important that is to the requirement i.e. can the escorting be at a distance that allows speedy efficient closure when required. It's not the cost argument that is important here in this thread but what is fundamentally required from PCA. If the USAF is prepared to spend a billion on each B-21 it will spend if necessary $200-300m on an efficient escort for it. If it is not used as a bomber escort what is the point then of PCA, is it a stealthy F-15E with more range than F-35 ? Or is just a two engined F-35 ? Precise requirements will drive the specific direction of the competing designs.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 00:42
by steve2267
Past "stealth doctrine" and tactics suggest stealthy penetrators will be flying solo sorties. F-117's did not fly in groups, nor were they escorted (duh), they flew alone. I would be interested in any references that suggest the PCA was to operate as an escort for stealth bombers. IMO, "escorting" stealth strike aircraft is soooo 2nd and 3rd generation thinking.

Regarding cost, the USAF seems pretty adamant about holding B-21 costs to $560M (maximum) per flyaway airframe. I do not think spending $2-300M on an "escort" is politically feasible. People were choking down the F-35 at $150-200M per airframe several years ago. And that cost "estimate" may not be far off what it would cost to create such an aircraft. B-21 is suggested to have a payload on the order of 30,000lb. A PCA probably needs to carry at least 2000lb of ordnance, if not upwards of 5000lb. While payload of a PCA is small compared to the B-21, the range requirement remains. Just to carry enough gas to go 2500nm to be able to escort a B-21 will require a large airframe. Start requiring that airframe to be able to supercruise will require copious quanties of additional gas, and the size starts to increase exponentially. Add maneuvering requirements (5g? 7g? oh lordy, 9g?) and it's going to get bigger still. So $2-300M per "escort" may be the minimum you will spend.

F-22's or F-35's as escorts for B-21's? You did suggest that, didn't you? (Or am I mistaken? I'm probably mistaken.) So you're going to compromise the stealth of the B-21 with less-stealthy escorts? (Yeah, didn't happen with the F-117 either.) Then there is the range thing... Maybe if the B-21 can IFR it's escorts on the way in? Y'know... about 4-500nm from the target... tank up the escorts... hang a big "HERE WE ARE" sign out the window while you tank. Regarding that point of a "less stealthy escort..." The size and shape of the B-21 is reportedly driven by the 1/4 or 1/2 wavelength requirement to defeat VHF band radars. I admit I do not understand it all. The gist of what I recall is that the F-35 and F-22 are too small to defeat VHF band search radar. So the B-21 minimum size is driven by VLO (ELO?) requirements. If true... then... your PCA escort is going to have to be on the same order of size as the aircraft it is escorting, correct? $2-300M each may be too low.

If you really need an escort, maybe it is better to have one B-21 be the escort and a second B-21 be the strike aircraft. OR each B-21 could be self-escorting... carry some of its own AIM-120D's or AIM-260s plus those miniature self-defense suckers (I forget that acronum -- MSDM ?).... and have it's own APG-81 (or the next one to come out)... you know, that whole 5th / 6th generation system-of-systems idea, every sensor a shooter... get sensor data from somewhere from the combat cloud that there is a bad guy over there... and you need to shoot him in 3-2-1...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 01:17
by marsavian
I think F-117 helps my argument rather than yours, one was spotted and shot down and by old technology too. You really can't afford to let B-21 technology be transferred in this way. No, I really did mean F-22/F-35 escorts for B-2s and eventually B-21s, they can form defensive screens around the bombers especially on egress. They don't have to be in line formation, just in the general area sweeping ahead, around and looking back for fighters. Iranian S-300 is not going to spot F-22/F-35 which take evasive measures. PCA can be smaller than B-21 because it won't need the big bomb bay plus it can be tuned for low drag with a more streamlined shape. Here's one of the many links on the PCA concept introduction ...

https://www.airforcemag.com/Defining-th ... -Platform/
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53264

The next air superiority platform—the Penetrating Counter Air aircraft—is “not a fighter,” insists the Air Force officer whose team came up with the concept, but will rather be a key flying sensor platform with lots of weapons and long range that will enable USAF’s existing fighters.

Brig. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, Deputy Director for Global Operations on the Joint Staff, who just a year ago headed up USAF’s enterprise capability collaboration team effort on Next-Generation Air Dominance, speaking at a joint Mitchell Institute/“War on the Rocks” symposium said the ECCT deliberately avoided using terms like “fighter” or “F-X” in its study of what’s needed to achieve air superiority in 2030, not wanting to prejudice the outcome.

This new aircraft is needed to penetrate enemy air defenses and keep all the other fighters relevant, he said, calling it mainly a sensor platform but one that could “finish” enemy targets “as long as it’s in the area anyway.”

Col. Tom Coglitore, who succeeded Grynkewich and is now the lead for Air Superiority 2030 concept development, said the PCA concept is six months into an 18-month analysis of alternatives that will refine the platform’s attributes, under the budgetary program element “Next Generation Air dominance.” He added that the PCA’s missions will include air escort, fighter sweep, suppression of enemy air defenses, and defensive counter-air. It fills a “gap” identified in the late 2020s that neither the F-22 nor F-35 can adequately fill, Coglitore said, and it will “enable the joint force” as well.

Grynkewich said the long range is necessary to both permit basing beyond the range of enemy ballistic or cruise missiles, and to allow “persistence” in the target area.

The sensors onboard will also provide coordinates for standoff weapons. The sensors and the ability to target for standoff weapons are “the key pieces” of what the PCA is all about, Grynkewich asserted. While there may be some overlap with the Strategic Capabilities Office “arsenal plane” concept, they’re not the same and will likely fulfill different roles, he added.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 01:38
by weasel1962
If we assume that engines drive plane design, twin F-135s at 43,000 lbs each would be 22% higher than the F-22's F-119s. This means 22% more fuel that can be carried whilst maintaining the aero-dynamics of the plane, translating into a 22,000 lbs internal fuel capacity. Adding potential engine thrust advances, I would hazard a guess that 22-25k internal fuel could be a sweet spot, with a potential 2-4 600 gal drop tanks. 22.5k lbs would be what the F-15E with CFTs carry.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 01:51
by quicksilver
2015 ECCT resulted in this public discussion in the summer of 2016 —

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/08 ... uirements/

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 01:58
by quicksilver

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 02:36
by disconnectedradical
I don't know why PCA is being framed or defined by some as a B-21 escort. The thing that's driving PCA requirements is range, payload, and more survivability in contested airspace in the future, thus the "Penetrating" part of the name. It will need range and stealth that current F-22 or F-35 airframe even with engine upgrades won't meet, IMO. You'll need new aerodynamic innovations and also more broadband stealth.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 03:38
by weasel1962
The downside risk of waiting for new tech to mature is delay. They got to go with what's maturing this decade to meet next decade deliveries. That means AETP engines (~45000lb *2 thrust). GE's XA100, PW's XA101.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 06:51
by zero-one
disconectedradical wrote:5 years and $10 billion to restart F-22 without any additional capabilities, and also much less room to grow for future upgrades. You are also stuck with same limitation of an airframe designed in 1990s, when current state of the art can do much better.

Well you can't recreate the F-22 as it was with the original computer boxes that are already out of production. So any restart will use current off the shelf components, as it is the F-22 is scheduled to have DAS capability with it's MLU upgrade by 2024.

disconectedradical wrote:Much better to upgrade existing F-22 and F-35, and process with clean sheet design for PCA. The whole point is that PCA using "mature" system doesn't mean airframe, it can mean mission systems or propulsion system which cost just as much.

Yes of course a clean sheet design with a 20 year development cycle will be better. No doubt. But thats not what they want.

We have to stop thinking of PCA as a new jet with long dev cycles.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 07:14
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
We have to stop thinking of PCA as a new jet with long dev cycles.


What source do you have than says the PCA is not going to be a new jet??? (clean sheet design)


What did I miss??? :|

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 15:21
by notkent
marsavian wrote:I think F-117 helps my argument rather than yours, one was spotted and shot down and by old technology too. You really can't afford to let B-21 technology be transferred in this way. No, I really did mean F-22/F-35 escorts for B-2s and eventually B-21s, they can form defensive screens around the bombers especially on egress. They don't have to be in line formation, just in the general area sweeping ahead, around and looking back for fighters.


The F-117 was shot down by a SAM not a fighter. It was shot down because it flew the same route each time, lacked threat detectors ...

Escorts would not have prevented it being shot down.

If the idea of the escort is to bomb the B-21 if it lands behind enemy lines to prevent technology transfer it would be better to have a build in self destruct system.

Flying more planes around the stealthy B-21 that is trying to hide just increases the chance of detection and giving away where they should concentrate their forces. They will be a limited force of PCA and they will have their own targets to attend to.

Even with near peer forces the PCA would be better off targeting the airfields and C3 assets.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 15:33
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Well you can't recreate the F-22 as it was with the original computer boxes that are already out of production. So any restart will use current off the shelf components, as it is the F-22 is scheduled to have DAS capability with it's MLU upgrade by 2024.


2024 is when funding is supposed to begin for MLU, not when MLU actually gets to the aircraft. I wish it's sooner but that's the time we have so far.

zero-one wrote:Yes of course a clean sheet design with a 20 year development cycle will be better. No doubt. But thats not what they want.

We have to stop thinking of PCA as a new jet with long dev cycles.


Why are you so stuck with clean sheet design = 20 year development? How long they want to take depends on how much risk they want. With F-22 you still have problems with range especially in the Pacific which is what PCA is supposed to address. Event ADVENT technology won't increase range that much, only about 18% and even being optimistic with 35% (you'll have to sacrifice supersonic performance for higher bypass to get this) you only get 810 nmi combat radius. And with PCA they're talking about over 1,000 nmi. It will need aerodynamics and propulsion beyond what F-22 airframe can do.

F-22 restart is at best an expensive bandaid solution considering you have little room for future upgrades compare to clean sheet, so in the longer term, fighter numbers should be made up of more advanced aircraft.

I don't know why you are so stuck on F-22 airframe since it's more than 20 years old and even a relatively low risk airframe can do better. Even F-23 probably would be better for great majority of F-22's missions.

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 15:59
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:
What source do you have than says the PCA is not going to be a new jet??? (clean sheet design)



https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... n-5-years/

Roper calls the “Digital Century Series” would flip that paradigm: Instead of maturing technologies over time to create an exquisite fighter, the Air Force’s goal would be to quickly build the best fighter that industry can muster over a couple years,

Imagine “every four or five years there was the F-200, F-201, F-202 and it was vague and mysterious [on what the planes] have, but it’s clear it’s a real program and there are real airplanes flying.

“With the F-35, we had too much [emphasis on] systems and not enough [on the] air vehicle.
[/quote]

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 16:23
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:Why are you so stuck with clean sheet design = 20 year development?

Well its hisrorically how long it takes.
F-22 was conceptualized in the 80s with IOC in 2005.
F-35 conceptualized in the 90s with IOC in 2015.

I think PCA will look more like the SuperHornet or F-20, an evolution of existing mature designs.

disconnectedradical wrote:With F-22 you still have problems with range especially in the Pacific which is what PCA is supposed to address.


The PCA won't be a 1 size fits all jet. Instead it will be a family of systems. Some planes in that family might be a dirivative of the B-21 that can address the long range escort duties. While other planes in the family can be derivatives of the F-22 that can fill the role of the traditional air superiority fighter that excels in both BVR and WVR.

https://www.flightglobal.com/usaf-backs ... 34.article
develop a “family of systems” – including longer-range, higher-payload platforms to launch volleys of weapons at targets from “standoff” distances and others that will swoop in for direct attacks.Grynkewich says range and payload are critical, but some studies show that speed, manoeuvrability and some level of low-observable shaping or stealth still have their place.


disconnectedradical wrote:I don't know why you are so stuck on F-22 airframe since it's more than 20

Its my interpretation of what USAF brass is saying that they want to use marure technologies.
So far all your interpretations of PCA revolves around a clean sheet design in a 1 size fits all jet. Exactly what AF brass is trying to move away from.

And lets not get into the YF-23 hole again. Because it was never built and because there so few details about it anyone can conjure up whatever they want about it. Plus the F-22 hasn't been used in actual air to air combat yet. So yes the YF-23 is more effective in the uneventful roles it has done so far, heck the Advanced Superhornet would have suficed.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 17:03
by quicksilver
Zzzzzz...

No one is addressing the cultural aversion to risk that is endemic to how the government has recently done aircraft development/acquisition. Most of the timelines cited for previous aircraft development ignore what kind of activity occurred in which stages of the program. Even if one looks at a milestone overview of the acquisition process and notes tech maturation and risk reduction, what gets ignored (or not realistically characterized wrt ‘time’) is risk aversion or acceptance in flight test and verification. Because we can instrument, monitor, download, and analyze more facets of an aircraft design and/or performance than ever before (by orders of magnitude), we thereby know more and learn more about what might be ‘wrong’ and consequently face far, far more decisions about not only how to address those ‘wrongs’ but to what degree we want to spend time and effort doing so. Those kinds of decisions are made by humans and, over time — the humans that occupy progressively higher levels of oversight in the various acquisition bureaucracies.

Thus, in the engrained culture and politics of risk, the aversion to same is not diminished, it is increased and intensified by the simple math of knowing more about what’s happening in the design. The consequence is one of time, and as we all know, time is money. Who are these new acquisition warriors that are going to sign up to the scale of risk acceptance that is necessary to meet some of these highly ambitious development timelines for new aircraft?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 17:38
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:No one is addressing the cultural aversion to risk that is endemic to how the government has recently done aircraft development/acquisition. Most of the timelines cited for previous aircraft development ignore what kind of activity occurred in which stages of the program. Even if one looks at a milestone overview of the acquisition process and notes tech maturation and risk reduction, what gets ignored (or not realistically characterized wrt ‘time’) is risk aversion or acceptance in flight test and verification. Because we can instrument, monitor, download, and analyze more facets of an aircraft design and/or performance than ever before (by orders of magnitude), we thereby know more and learn more about what might be ‘wrong’ and consequently face far, far more decisions about not only how to address those ‘wrongs’ but to what degree we want to spend time and effort doing so. Those kinds of decisions are made by humans and, over time — the humans that occupy progressively higher levels of oversight in the various acquisition bureaucracies.

Thus, in the engrained culture and politics of risk, the aversion to same is not diminished, it is increased and intensified by the simple math of knowing more about what’s happening in the design. The consequence is one of time, and as we all know, time is money. Who are these new acquisition warriors that are going to sign up to the scale of risk acceptance that is necessary to meet some of these highly ambitious development timelines for new aircraft?


They are the ones who are looking over the fence, with jealousy, at the rapid state of commercial software development, and at SpaceX, saying "Why can't we..."

But until they look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves the hard questions QS raises above, it probably doesn't go anywhere.

  1. Rapid development cycle (new airframe + new systems every few years)
  2. Low cost
  3. Healthy industrial base

Pick two.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:04
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:You're interpreting their words to fit your narrative, I simply read it and accept it for what it is.
what about Maj. Searcy's statement, is it also politically motivated? I highly doubt it.


My interpretation of their words is exactly what I personally believe to be the purpose of those same words: To justify the existence and keeping the F-22!
If that "fits my narrative", so be it.


zero-one wrote:I think you have a problem with the term "secondary role" as you seem to think we are implying that it is not good at A-A because it is simply a secondary role. Thats not what we are saying at all.


Yes, I kinda have a problem with that and I already told you why.
So and regarding this, what would you say about the F/A-18? Would you say that the "primary role" of the F/A-18 is A2A or A2G? And of course the question also extends to its "secondary role"? And what about the Rafale?

I have my opinion/answers to the questions above but I'll let you reply to them (if you wish, of course) while I develop about this further below.


zero-one wrote:I always put this example to F-35 critics, the F-86 is a dedicated dog-fighter while the F-15 is an air superiority fighter with emphasis on BVR and secondary WVR. But I can guarantee you, any pilot and their gandma will choose the Eagle over the Sabre in a dogfight.


Of course that anyone would choose a F-15 over the F-86 for dogfights! The diference in terms of generational lead is massive between both aircraft. Heck, using the same logic I would choose a B-52H (armed with 20mm M61 Vulcan tail gun) over a P-51 in a dogfight :wink:


zero-one wrote:Like wise the F-35's Secondary A-A role, though not it's primary design, is still far more effective than any 4th gen out there.


Ok, I know where you're trying to get at and while your reasoning as some logic/merit, I simply don't agree with you that the F-35 has a "primary A2G role" and a "secondary A2A role". IMO, the F-35 was designed as "true multi-role" aircraft (like the two aircraft that I mentioned above) and as such A2A and A2G are both "primary roles" when it comes to the F-35.
I strongly believe that an aircraft (F-35) which was designed to surpass any other existing fighter aircraft in BVR combat/realm (perhaps even exceed the F-22 in this regard - BVR) and to have the combined agility of the F-16 and the F/A-18 wasn't designed to perform A2A roles/missions as a "secondary role" but also as a "primary role".

Yes, the USAF does plan to use their F-35's primarily in A2G while A2A roles will be secondary. But again this won't be the case for most of the other F-35 users. But even regarding the USAF, this is yet to be seen due to the low number of F-22s in existence, the F-15C needed to be replaced and a big question mark of what the PCA will end up being. Resuming, USAF F-35As may end up having A2A roles as their primary role as well.


zero-one wrote:But the F-22 has a bigger radar and more Passive EW receivers, 30 nodes against the F-35's 10.
The F-22 still has some advantages in some areas over the F-35 in the sensor department as well.


Neither bigger or more necessarily means better. You can have better with smaller and fewer (parts) if you use newer and more advanced technology and the F-35 does this.
Moreover the F-35 has EOTS/IRST and DAS while the F-22 does not. So any advantage that the F-22 could potentially have over the F-35 in the sensor department is far offset by the advantages that the F-35 has over the F-22 in this same department.


zero-one wrote:If the AF decides to choose between the F-22 and F-35 to incorporate in their PCA family of systems
any selected design will have the latest in sensor and avionics technology and in that regard an upgraded Raptor will be a better choice than an upgraded and possibly heavily modified F-35


The problem is that you seem to ignore that the cost of the F-22 is prohibitive as it currently is - with less advanced technology and less sensors than the F-35 - so if you start building new and modified F-22s with among other things similar or more advanced technology/sensors as those found on the F-35, you'll have a PCA which like the original F-22 will be prohibitive in terms of cost which either means that only a fraction of PCA aircraft would/could be build compared to what it is planned or worse even, the program might get canceled like happened for example with the Comanche helicopter.

Like I previously said, I agree that a new sheet/designed PCA would be the best choice specially if this ends up being an easier design to be built and as such potentially cheaper (than a modified F-22) while more capable than existing 5th gen aircraft.
Regarding a tentative heavily modified F-35, IMO this would have the following advantages over a heavily modified F-22:
- The baseline design (F-35) has more range (and considerable so) which seems to be a major feature/requirement for the PCA.
- The baseline design (F-35) is cheaper to be build which could mean that a PCA design based on this could be cheaper than a PCA design based on the F-22.
- The baseline design (F-35) can carry heavier weaponry internally.
- etc...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:17
by ricnunes
disconnectedradical wrote:25-30 years is probably way too long for USAF, from all the statements it seems like they want this new aircraft in the mid to late 2030s, which is when F-35 procurement is ending. So they have to decide how ambitious they want to make PCA. For lower risk, they can go with a v-tail design like the Lockheed Martin concept art from a few years ago. If they want to be riskier, they can go for tailless supersonic which is what all the companies and USAF have been suggesting in their latest releases.


Well, 25-30 years is way too long for anyone. And of course anyone that develops aircraft even today doesn't wish and neither "plans" that new sheet aircraft take so long to develop. But unfortunately "development schedule overruns" inevitably happen which means that development times always suffer delays and development times for the modern fighter/combat aircraft have been lasting this long.
You mentioned that the USAF wants the PCA until the late 2030's which basically means 2040 which by its turn means 20 years from now. Now add the usual "development delays/overruns" and you'll "easily" get a 25 year long development (something like 2045). And depending how much newer and groundbreaking technology is added to the aircraft (like for example built-in energy weapons, etc...) then IMO you could possibly have a 30 year development time for the PCA.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:31
by quicksilver
For all the talk about ‘going faster’ in acquisition, the paucity of new programs is a disincentive to do so.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ricnunes wrote: built-in energy weapons


This is the #1 reason I think a twin engine design is preferable. The F135 can extract a great deal of power but only at great cost to the available forward thrust. With a second engine you can extract twice as much power while having twice the previous amount of thrust, or extract the same amount of power and have much more thrust available, or have twice the thrust available when no power is needed. Plus it allows even greater ability to withold from using the afterburner on a heavier aircraft.

But now I look at the title of the thread and realize all PCA discussions are a bit off topic.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:48
by quicksilver
Depends on how much you have to extract...

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 19:54
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:My interpretation of their words is exactly what I personally believe to be the purpose of those same words: To justify the existence and keeping the F-22!

But why would they even need to justify the existence of the Raptor if the F-35 is just as good in A-A.

ricnunes wrote:So and regarding this, what would you say about the F/A-18? Would you say that the "primary role" of the F/A-18 is A2A or A2G? And of course the question also extends to its "secondary role"? And what about the Rafale?

I honestly can't answer that cause I did not monitor their developments as closely as the F-35s. I swear the term 60/40 has come up a few times from official sources where the F-35 has a 60% emphasis on A-G and 40 for A-A. But the 40% is still well above any 4th gens A-A capability.

The closest I can find now officially is Maj.Searcy's statemet. He said it clear as day they were desinged more for SEAD and Strike not Air dominance why do you keep ignoring that?

If I had to guess tho, the Hornet's airframe originated from the YF-17 which was supposed to be the best dog fighting machine from the LWF program. To give it A-G they had to add weight, but at the same time added thrust. So I guess its still more of a fighter than a true attack platform like the A-6. But I'm just speculating here.


ricnunes wrote:Of course that anyone would choose a F-15 over the F-86 for dogfights! The diference in terms of generational lead is massive between both aircraft.

Well there you go thats my point. In the export market the F-35 is going up against 4th gen aircraft where it has a generational lead. So even if A-A is its secondary role, its still better than those 4th gens in that role.

ricnunes wrote:Neither bigger or more necessarily means better. You can have better with smaller and fewer (parts) if you use newer and more advanced technology and the F-35 does this.
Moreover the F-35 has EOTS/IRST and DAS while the F-22 does not. So any advantage that the F-22 could potentially have over the F-35 in the sensor department is far offset by the advantages that the F-35 has over the F-22 in this same department.

Well the APG-77v1 uses the same hardware as the APG-81 and its bigger. The primary long range detection of fighters is still via the EM spectrum not IR or Optical so theres a big chance that the Raptor will detect bandits first.

Yes the F-35 can tell you if its a blue airplane or if the pilot shaved this morning but Raptor alrady has more than enough SA to get the job done.

ricnunes wrote:The problem is that you seem to ignore that the cost of the F-22 is prohibitive as it currently is - with less advanced technology and less sensors than the F-35 -


If....I'll say it again IF, they choose to do a Superhornet style program, neither the F-22 or F-35 will use it's current suite of sensors or engines. They will just recycle the airframe, everything will be put up to current standards. We're talking ADVENT engines. The most advanced AESA and DAS probably a 10% increase in size, the Swedes and Russians increased the fuel capacity of the Gripen and Flanker variants without increasing the size too much, so why not the US.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 20:18
by quicksilver
“...if they choose to do a Superhornet style program...”

SH was based on preliminary design work circa 1985 called ‘Hornet 2000.’ One could therefore argue that its dev timeline was in excess of 15 years as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 20:25
by steve2267
zero-one wrote:If I had to guess tho, the Hornet's airframe originated from the YF-17 which was supposed to be the best dog fighting machine from the LWF program.

Do you have a source for this statement? I could have sworn the YF-16 was judged to be the "better" WVR dogfighter, although the YF-17 was judged to have better high AOA capabilities, and, by some accounts, the feel of the YF-17 was judged to be the better of the two LWF competitors.

zero-one wrote:To give it A-G they had to add weight, but at the same time added thrust. So I guess its still more of a fighter than a true attack platform like the A-6. But I'm just speculating here.

Uhhh... coulda swore the YF-17 was pretty good at dropping bombs. Pretty sure the additional weight was due to the requirement of being flung off a boat by the front landing gear strut and landing by getting its a$$ yanked by a cable.

zero-one wrote:Well the APG-77v1 uses the same hardware as the APG-81 and its bigger. The primary long range detection of fighters is still via the EM spectrum not IR or Optical so theres a big chance that the Raptor will detect bandits first.

Have to disagree here. With the advent of the F-35, the primary long range detection of fighters is the network, or combat cloud... whatever you want to call it.

zero-one wrote:Yes the F-35 can tell you if its a blue airplane or if the pilot shaved this morning but Raptor alrady has more than enough SA to get the job done.

Maybe, but... disagree again. SA is one of those things that fighter pilots can never get enough of.


zero-one wrote:The most advanced AESA and DAS probably a 10% increase in size, the Swedes and Russians increased the fuel capacity of the Gripen and Flanker variants without increasing the size too much, so why not the US.


Ummm.... because of VLO... and the restrictions it places on the OML of the aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 20:45
by marsavian
notkent wrote:
marsavian wrote:I think F-117 helps my argument rather than yours, one was spotted and shot down and by old technology too. You really can't afford to let B-21 technology be transferred in this way. No, I really did mean F-22/F-35 escorts for B-2s and eventually B-21s, they can form defensive screens around the bombers especially on egress. They don't have to be in line formation, just in the general area sweeping ahead, around and looking back for fighters.


The F-117 was shot down by a SAM not a fighter. It was shot down because it flew the same route each time, lacked threat detectors ...

Escorts would not have prevented it being shot down.

If the idea of the escort is to bomb the B-21 if it lands behind enemy lines to prevent technology transfer it would be better to have a build in self destruct system.

Flying more planes around the stealthy B-21 that is trying to hide just increases the chance of detection and giving away where they should concentrate their forces. They will be a limited force of PCA and they will have their own targets to attend to.

Even with near peer forces the PCA would be better off targeting the airfields and C3 assets.


The most important thing about the F-117 shotdown was that it was first detected on a long VHF wavelength which all stealth fighters are susceptible to and our Serbian poster milosh vehemently disputes the same route theory. They could have just as easily sent a supersonic fighter after it rather than just cueing a fire-control radar (to fire its SAM) which more modern stealth aircraft would be able to evade/jam and there's no escaping from the supersonic deficit for a subsonic bomber. Once the bombs are released there will be no doubt stealth aircraft are in the vicinity anyway so you lose nothing by sending stealth fighters to escort the bombers out in a protective bubble around them.

Returning to the thread title the primary reason F-22 is still needed even with F-35 around is that it is more proactive in establishing air superiority. You know that if you send F-22s to intercept they will have the supersonic endurance to complete that interception and engage the enemy. It's more touch and go with the F-35 which maybe chasing supersonic shadows from a very fast intruder which may even only be on a very fast reconnaissance mission like Foxbats in Iran-Iraq war. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the F-35 in either BVR or WVR combat so it is fine as a front line fighter for export nations but F-22 gives the US the edge in air superiority/intercept missions as there is no escape from this Raptor's claws as engagement will be made to happen.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 20:48
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:Well its hisrorically how long it takes.
F-22 was conceptualized in the 80s with IOC in 2005.
F-35 conceptualized in the 90s with IOC in 2015.


How much of that is because of the airframe and how much is because of the mission systems? You keep using development times of the whole program when mission system and software is what drove the schedule the most on F-22 and F-35. So your examples are bad at trying to argue why new airframe will take so long.

zero-one wrote:I think PCA will look more like the SuperHornet or F-20, an evolution of existing mature designs.


Roper's analogy of century fighters with more emphasis on airframes instead of systems does not mean you have to use "existing airframes", and besides, you need to completely redo structural analysis and aerodynamic analysis of a modified airframe anyways, so actual time you save is not as much as you think.

When they talk about "mature" systems, you keep on trying to use that to justify modifying existing airframe (namely F-22) even when it's been repeated said mature can mean mission systems which takes just as long and is just as expensive if not more. In fact, if we use the century fighter analogy, one way focus more on airframes with faster development is to use same mission systems on new airframes.

Also, what quicksilver said about Super Hornet. That airframe came from a McDonnell Douglas Hornet program from 1985.

zero-one wrote:The PCA won't be a 1 size fits all jet. Instead it will be a family of systems. Some planes in that family might be a dirivative of the B-21 that can address the long range escort duties. While other planes in the family can be derivatives of the F-22 that can fill the role of the traditional air superiority fighter that excels in both BVR and WVR.

Its my interpretation of what USAF brass is saying that they want to use marure technologies.
So far all your interpretations of PCA revolves around a clean sheet design in a 1 size fits all jet. Exactly what AF brass is trying to move away from.


AGAIN, mature technology DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN AIRFRAME. And I don't interpret PCA as 1 size fits all, don't know where you're getting that impression. PCA is supposed to be a fighter with much longer range, better survivability, and more "magazine depth" than current 5th gen fighters. I don't see F-22 airframe fitting that.

I too would like to see more F-22s. But that should have happened yesterday (in 2011), and with current timeline of having to restart production, it doesn't make sense anymore.

I don't know why you are so in favor of F-22. Is the airframe really that special? Why are all USAF and LM/NG/Boeing concept art using tailless designs in their concepts for the next fighter then?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 20:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
“...if they choose to do a Superhornet style program...”
then they will make a brand spanking new airframe with a similar design approach to an existing platform but scaled up and it will use all "off the shelf" avionics, displays, and communications.

It won't be until "block II" that it gets new state of the art versions of existing Systems to take advantage of the larger space.

It won;t be until "block III" that it even gets a proposed increase in power and proposed new systems that are in play on other platforms but not this one.

This is similar to the F-14 cycle: A - new airframe for Missaleer avionics and weapons using Aardvark engines, B - Give it the engines it should have had in the first place, D - Upgrade the radar from 1960s tech to current standard of radar.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 21:11
by disconnectedradical
And who knows if Roper's idea of going back to century fighters way of having small fleet of airframes in different batches will work out. Imagine the logistics to support all that.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 21:21
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:But why would they even need to justify the existence of the Raptor if the F-35 is just as good in A-A.


The F-35 is "just as good in A-A" (compared to the F-22) in general terms or "more precisely" if we consider all possible A2A roles/missions as a whole. This being said, there are certain A2A missions within the entire "A2A spectrum" where the F-22 is better, this due to the reasons we all know and as such not necessary to repeat, I believe.

I believe I already gave this example (but on another thread): This is like comparing the Su-35 and Mig-31 Russian fighter aircraft. In A2A the Su-35 is generally better than the Mig-31 but there are certain A2A missions that the Mig-31 does better than the Su-35 and as such the Russians try everything to keep the Mig-31 in service (and to modernize it) despite restrained budgets.
Although and despite the more obvious diferences, this isn't much different when looking at the USAF stance regarding the F-22 (and why they defend it, this in face of restrained budgets).


zero-one wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So and regarding this, what would you say about the F/A-18? Would you say that the "primary role" of the F/A-18 is A2A or A2G? And of course the question also extends to its "secondary role"? And what about the Rafale?

I honestly can't answer that cause I did not monitor their developments as closely as the F-35s. I swear the term 60/40 has come up a few times from official sources where the F-35 has a 60% emphasis on A-G and 40 for A-A. But the 40% is still well above any 4th gens A-A capability.


But I actually can (answer my own question):
The F/A-18 was equally designed to be an A2A and an A2G aircraft with the same emphasis on both roles. Or using a percentage scale like you used above, the F/A-18 was designed to have a 50% emphasis on A2A and a 50% emphasis on A2G from the very beginning.
Actually the initial plan was to have 2 different aircraft/variants based on the very same airframe, one would be called the F-18 with A2A as the primary role and A2G the secondary role and the other would be the A-18 with A2G as the primary role and A2A the secondary role. However advancements in technology a allowed to put all the features (namely sensors and avionics) of the F-18 and the A-18 in the same aircraft hence why the F/A-18 has this quite unique designation ('F' slash 'A' dash 18).

So if it was possible to design a multi-role aircraft (F/A-18) having the same level of emphasis in both A2A and A2G roles this in the late 1970's why can't or couldn't the same happen with the F-35 which is much more recent and was designed using far more advanced technology?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 21:47
by disconnectedradical
ricnunes wrote:Ok, I know where you're trying to get at and while your reasoning as some logic/merit, I simply don't agree with you that the F-35 has a "primary A2G role" and a "secondary A2A role". IMO, the F-35 was designed as "true multi-role" aircraft (like the two aircraft that I mentioned above) and as such A2A and A2G are both "primary roles" when it comes to the F-35.
I strongly believe that an aircraft (F-35) which was designed to surpass any other existing fighter aircraft in BVR combat/realm (perhaps even exceed the F-22 in this regard - BVR) and to have the combined agility of the F-16 and the F/A-18 wasn't designed to perform A2A roles/missions as a "secondary role" but also as a "primary role".


F-35 will perform A2A as primary role in some countries because it's the only thing that's available, just like with F-16 or F/A-18. That doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job, just the best that's available for use since F-22 isn't exported and there's not enough go to around everywhere.

ricnunes wrote:Moreover the F-35 has EOTS/IRST and DAS while the F-22 does not. So any advantage that the F-22 could potentially have over the F-35 in the sensor department is far offset by the advantages that the F-35 has over the F-22 in this same department.


I think EOTS is more designed for strike than for air-to-air, since a dedicated IRST would be at a different wavelength, IIRC. And EOTS has the same problem with all IRST, it's like looking through a straw so you need to know where to look in the first place. I don't think F-35 would actually have any advantage over F-22 in BVR, but they probably won't see each other until they get up close, and that's where F-35 DAS has a huge SA advantage that I don't know if F-22 advantage in kinematics can overcome. Once F-22 gets MLU though then F-22 can trounce F-35 in WVR but that hasn't happened yet.

ricnunes wrote:Regarding a tentative heavily modified F-35, IMO this would have the following advantages over a heavily modified F-22:
- The baseline design (F-35) has more range (and considerable so) which seems to be a major feature/requirement for the PCA.
- The baseline design (F-35) is cheaper to be build which could mean that a PCA design based on this could be cheaper than a PCA design based on the F-22.
- The baseline design (F-35) can carry heavier weaponry internally.
- etc...


I don't buy into the F-22 derived airframe for PCA, but F-35 derived PCA don't make much sense either. Because like it or not, F-35 is saddled with lots of limitations on size, and also what the airframe is optimized for. I don't think modifying either airframe will be that much cheaper or quicker than clean sheet, and especially in F-35 case where you'll have to modify for PCA mission, you need more speed, possibly twin engine, and other structural changes (F-35 carries less A2A weapons than F-22 even with the planned 6 AMRAAMs) so it's not trivial at all.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 22:05
by quicksilver
“...EOTS has the same problem with all IRST, it's like looking through a straw so you need to know where to look in the first place.“

It likely has a selectable scanning function, and the fusion engine provides additional ‘where to look‘ cueing.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 22:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
quicksilver wrote: the fusion engine provides additional ‘where to look‘ cueing.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

If the AN/ASQ-239 can jam (even an F-22) it can direct an EOTS as well. Any hot spot picked up by the EO/DAS can/will be targeted by EOTS. This is why everyone calls it such a game changer.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 04:40
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote:Do you have a source for this statement? I could have sworn the YF-16 was judged to be the "better" WVR

No, what I meant was, the LWF program itself was suposed to produce the best dogfighter, and since the YF-17 was a finalist candidate, then it had to be pretty good as a dogfighter. I agree that the YF-16 always had the edge

steve2267 wrote:Uhhh... coulda swore the YF-17 was pretty good at dropping bombs.

No doubt, but I saw a Hornet documentary once that said the Navy "heavily modified the YF-17 to make it more multi role" so Im sure they didn't simply add CATOBAR gear on it.

steve2267 wrote:Have to disagree here. With the advent of the F-35, the primary long range detection of fighters is the network, or combat cloud... whatever you want to call it.

Both the F-22 and 35 were used over Syria as ISR assets to collect data. What were their primary means of long range detection to share to the cloud?

steve2267 wrote:Maybe, but... disagree again. SA is one of those things that fighter pilots can never get enough of.

Never heared of anyone say the Raptor didn't give him enough SA, quite the opposite, pilots usually give high praise at the amount of SA they have on it,

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 04:53
by zero-one
disconnectedradical wrote:
I don't know why you are so in favor of F-22. Is the airframe really that special? Why are all USAF and LM/NG/Boeing concept art using tailless designs in their concepts for the next fighter then?


I said IF they choose to do a Superhornet style program the F-22 upgrade will be a better choice than an F-35 dirivative. You can't convince me that a new clean sheet design will take less time than an existing design, its just not possible.

If they can develop 3 clean sheet designs for the PCA family within the 5 year time table then great. I just don't see it.
Paul Metz once said that contractors told them
Speed
Maneuverability
Range
You can only choose 2.

PCA will require all in spades. So yes, 1 has to be a large bomber type that has a deep magazine and extreme range while another has to perform the role of traditional air superiority fighters. All I'm saying is I think a Raptor dirivative is better than a Lightning derivative for the air superiority variant thats all this is. If they can do clean sheet, great.... in 5 years? I don't know about that.

The contractors are businesses who need to make money, so obviously they will push for the project with the most profit margin. A clean sheet design. Those art renders are just proposals at this point.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 05:10
by zero-one
ricnunes wrote:So if it was possible to design a multi-role aircraft (F/A-18) having the same level of emphasis in both A2A and A2G roles this in the late 1970's why can't or couldn't the same happen with the F-35 which is much more recent and was designed using far more advanced technology?


Thats right I forgot all about the A-18 program, yes it was a 50/50 jet. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to make the F-35 that way. What I'm saying is, the requirements were simply not set up that way.

The US had the most leverage in the design requiremnts and since they had the Raptor already compounded by the fact that the main threat to aircraft remains to be SAMs, they put a premium on SEAD/DEAD capability. Exactly what Maj. Searcy said. They were designed more for SEAD and Strike.

The 40% A-A capabilities is nothing to sneeze at. It's still a stealth fighter which is a big deal. It has all the sensors and data links to give you all the SA you need and the kinematics of a Lightly loaded Viper with the AoA of a Hornet as the icing on the cake doesn't hurt as well.
To 90% of A-A combat that overkill.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 09:43
by marauder2048
zero-one wrote:
The contractors are businesses who need to make money, so obviously they will push for the project with the most profit margin. A clean sheet design.


That would actually favor a derivative since you'd get to the fixed-price production sooner where profit margins
aren't capped the way they typically are in longer clean sheet development contracts.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 16:55
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:I said IF they choose to do a Superhornet style program the F-22 upgrade will be a better choice than an F-35 dirivative. You can't convince me that a new clean sheet design will take less time than an existing design, its just not possible.

If they can develop 3 clean sheet designs for the PCA family within the 5 year time table then great. I just don't see it.
Paul Metz once said that contractors told them
Speed
Maneuverability
Range
You can only choose 2.


Source? And of course clean sheet will take some more time, but it will also be more capable and more adaptable for future, unlike F-22 or F-35 derivative.

zero-one wrote:PCA will require all in spades. So yes, 1 has to be a large bomber type that has a deep magazine and extreme range while another has to perform the role of traditional air superiority fighters. All I'm saying is I think a Raptor dirivative is better than a Lightning derivative for the air superiority variant thats all this is. If they can do clean sheet, great.... in 5 years? I don't know about that.


An F-22 derivative also won't be here in 5 years. It takes 5 years just to restart production of existing F-22 with no new capabilities, so adding capabilities will take even longer, and you'll end up with something not as capable or stealthy as clean sheet. And MLU funding won't even start until 2024.

Frankly delaying PCA for F-22 or F-35 derivatives and even worse the F-15X is ridiculous.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 17:14
by marsavian
Specify a radius/range, top speed, ITR, VLO targets and let companies build flying prototypes like the ATF/JSF competitions. The biggie is combat radius on internal fuel as that will define the aircraft size and cost. It should be 1500-1800nm IMO to make it worth buying over the F-35 which will be getting fuel tanks in the future, something that will go further than any future F-35/F-15 variant. It doesn't have to be Mach 2 or 9g but super cruise would be a nice feature as would an ITR of at least 18 degrees / second. Say an RCS of 0.0001 sq m (-40 dBsm) against VHF and -50 dBsm against X-band and just let the aerospace companies innovative to all these performance targets.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 17:34
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:Specify a radius/range, top speed, ITR, VLO targets and let companies build flying prototypes like the ATF/JSF competitions. The biggie is combat radius on internal fuel as that will define the aircraft size and cost. It should be 1500-1800nm IMO to make it worth buying over the F-35 which will be getting fuel tanks in the future, something that will go further than any future F-35/F-15 variant. It doesn't have to be Mach 2 or 9g but super cruise would be a nice feature as would an ITR of at least 18 degrees / second. Say an RCS of 0.0001 sq m (-40 dBsm) against VHF and -50 dBsm against X-band and just let the aerospace companies innovative to all these performance targets.


From where did you pull these requirements? War game simulations? Experience? Careful study of past engagements? Were they driven by a real objective, or just because they sound cool?

You do realize that some of your "specifications" are diametrically opposed?

Do you prioritize your requirements or give them scoring weights, so the competitors have some reasonable idea of how to win?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 17:48
by marsavian
Range and VLO (including IR spectrum) are the crucial ones so prioritise them and make them the highest scoring factors. The rest should be optional targets to aim for. YF-23 hit the ATF requirements alright but the USAF liked the extra features in YF-22 like TVC. The point about PCA is that has to be stealthier and rangier than what went before in fighters but allow latitude in other factors to allow the manufacturers scope to innovative to produce the best overall solution. The point about including stuff like super cruise and turning performance is that PCA may have to stand and fight or just disengage in certain situations so the better it can do these things while meeting the main two requirements will help a competitor get noticed if the main factors are close. I just wanted to bring the conversation out of the rut of existing designs and cost and look at what the USAF is really wanting from PCA and what those requirements might look like.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 18:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
diametrically opposing requirements are not new

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 18:28
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:diametrically opposing requirements are not new


Nope. But just because you specify a requirement, doesn't mean you are gonna achieve it.

Some people seem to think they can get a 9g airframe that can supercruise for 1500nm. A slight exaggeration, but not much.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 18:49
by marsavian
More like 6-7g and 200-300nm super cruise. It's not going to super cruise the whole of its range just enough to run supersonic chasers out of fuel or to chase supersonic runners down. Mig-21 and F-14 turned just fine at 7g as no doubt the F-35B will too. Even 6g at low enough speeds from a big high lift low drag wing will have impressive turn numbers. Your mistake is in only looking at past aircraft for reference whereas with 90+ klb of thrust there is a lot of scope to innovative in dimensions, shape and aerodynamic factors. So you missed my main points with your gross exaggerations.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 19:46
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:More like 6-7g and 200-300nm super cruise. It's not going to super cruise the whole of its range just enough to run supersonic chasers out of fuel or to chase supersonic runners down. Mig-21 and F-14 turned just fine at 7g as no doubt the F-35B will too. Even 6g at low enough speeds from a big high lift low drag wing will have impressive turn numbers. Your mistake is in only looking at past aircraft for reference whereas with 90+ klb of thrust there is a lot of scope to innovative in dimensions, shape and aerodynamic factors. So you missed my main points with your gross exaggerations.


My mistake? Are you referring to me?

My mistake is I went to college and studied aerodynamics. Even practiced for a while in industry. And I have this independent streak, a bad habit really, of thinking for myself.

My mistake is only considering aircraft from the past? You're right. They didn't give me a magic aerodynamics wand when I graduated. You know, where I can wave it and magically drop the SFC of my "90+ klb of thrust" motors to something like 0.25lb/lbthrust/hr, or full wet performance SFC of 1.0lb/lbthrust/hr or some such silliness. Where I can wave my wand and erase "base drag" (cuzz I don't like it). I missed the discovery of transaluminum where we can cut an airframe weight by 50%.

Gross exaggerations? To be sure. Exaggerations? Hardly.

Historically, since the advent of the jet age, increase in performance from plane to plane, or generation to generation has been a fraction of a percent here, a few percent there. Really BIG improvements might be five or ten percent. Twenty percent or more is virtually unheard of. VLO was a dramatic shift, but it didn't increase the kinematic performance of the aircraft.

Someone can probably build you an airframe that can go 3000nm (1500nm combat radius) cruising at, say 0.9 Mach. Figure you're going to need at least 40,000lb of gas (just for takeoff / climb / cruise / return to land) and that does not account for any "maneuvering" time or running away at supersonic speeds. Maybe that can be cut to 30,000lb if ADVENT pans out. But that's going to be a great big airframe to carry all that gas. We're starting to talk FB-111 sizes. Of course, the wing loading of the 'Vark was over 125ppsf (and that was with the wings spread apart for subsonic flight), so 6-7g turns? Ummm, I'm a little iffy on that part.

The 'Vark or a stealthified 'Vark might give you your range and speed, but your maneuverability requirement? Don't think so.

You could go with a flying dorito, a scaled down B-21 if you will. That will get you your range, but highly doubt you're going to get your beloved supercruise, let alone a modest supersonic dash speed.

The bottom line is to get your range, you're talking a takeoff weight on the order of 80-100,000lb, and getting something like that to give you 6-7g of turn, I just don't see it.

I suggest you go back and run a bunch of trade studies to refine your requirements.

And if I'm flying a B-21, I don't want you anywhere near me. I want to make a hole in the air and be invisible.

Aircraft design is the study (and art) in trade-offs. You don't get something for nothing. Just waving a wand does not enable you receive an VLO stealthy airframe with a 1500nm combat radius, 2-300 supercruise distance, and 6-7g of turning capability.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 21:12
by marsavian
I was thinking more SR-71 size than FB-111 and it had a wing area (not including the lifting body) of 1800 sq ft giving a gross weight wing loading under 100 lb/sq ft tending to under 40 lb/sq ft nearing empty weight of 60klb which is fighter territory. It had fuel of 82 klbs and a range of 3200 nm. Something similar to what I am suggesting has already been built but it was built with heavy 1960s heat resistant materials and for sustaining Mach 3. Build it of lighter composites and with a lifting body large wing built for maneuverability rather than very high Mach that could get you the PCA requirement even if it's not 9g. Stealth wise the SR-71 was said to be B-1B level. Stop thinking only of previous F-XX fighters, where X is any digit, as your only template for PCA outside of straight bomber conversions.

https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 21:23
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:I was thinking more SR-71 size than FB-111 and it had a wing area (not including the lifting body) of 1800 sq ft giving a gross weight wing loading under 100 lb/sq ft tending to under 50 nearing empty weight which is fighter territory. It had fuel of 82 klbs and a range of 3200 nm. Something similar to what I am suggesting has already been built but it was built with heavy heat resistant materials and for sustaining Mach 3. Build it of lighter composites and with a lifting body large wing built for maneuverability rather than very high Mach that could get you the PCA requirement even if it's not 9g. Stealth wise the SR-71 was said to be B-1B level. Stop thinking only of previous F-XX fighters as your template.


"heavy heat resistant materials"... SR-71 was built of titanium, widely regarded as the lightest, most high-strength-to-weight metal known to man (and aerospace).

"build it of lighter composites" --> does not necessarily give you a lighter aircraft
"lifting body large wing" --> does not necessarily give you maneuverability, and may very well impede your desired supersonic capabilities

Pro tip: when composites burst on the scene, novel aerodynamic shapes were possible that previously had been difficult or impossible to manufacture with metal. BUT, they did not turn out weighing significantly less than originally expected. (Because more material had to be used than originally "projected.")

  1. speed
  2. range
  3. maneuverability

Pick two.

Stop waving your imaginary, aircraft design wand.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 21:58
by vilters
Completely agree; Composites are not Always lighter then metal construction and have an "unproven" stress load long life history.

What could be done is that a lot of "tubing" can be build into the composite structures thus eliminating a lot of piping and tubing and connection hardware.
Then careful design comes looking around the corner. What if you have to change a bulkhead?
See? The puzzle is not as simple as it seems.

3D printing is another option, for metals AND for composites and offers more freedom of design shape and gives smoother finish and better stealth overall.

For range?

Add a plug-in to the F-35 to add some 5.000-6.000 lbs of gas.( requires kitchen and toilet for pilot too. :-) :-) :-) )

Do not fly with external wing drop fuel tanks; Realy? You lose 1/3 of the gas to drag. Not worth it.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 22:47
by marsavian
Titanium is 67% more dense than Aluminum (4.5 vs 2.7 g/cm 3) and over 125% more dense than carbon fibres (1.75-2.0 g/cm3) so a Blackbird type size will not weigh as much as it did then. Sorry but I don't share your defeatist attitude to this PCA specification, with enough lift from the wing and body and a very low drag shape like the Blackbird you could get Mach 1.5 super cruise and 6+g capability as well as a large combat radius double that of F-35. Even the F-111 could do 6.5 to 7.33g depending on model but the low wing loading of a Blackbird type wing/lifting body would make that usable and sufficient in ACM.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 22:50
by steve2267
vilters wrote:For range?

Add a plug-in to the F-35 to add some 5.000-6.000 lbs of gas.( requires kitchen and toilet for pilot too. :-) :-) :-) )



Stretching an F-35 to add gas is a trade someone could look into. Let's say the extra structure is worth the extra gas you get (maybe the extra length gets you weps bays long enough to house, errrm, interesting things such as ABM's or hypersonics). BUT nothing comes free. You most probably (definitely?) give up the maneuverability you have. 6g might not even be achievable; again, need to look at the trade study.) The fineness ratio probably improves, but not sure about overall drag. The F-35 Stretch probably still has a supersonic dash capability, but supercruise? Maybe with ADVENT, but, then again, maybe not.

Slap a second engine in there? Sure, more thrust... but more weight, and you double your fuel consumption (if two F135's). What does that do to your CG? Outer Mold Line?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 23:07
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:Even the F-111 could do 6.5 to 7.33g depending on model but the low wing loading of a Blackbird type wing/lifting body would make that usable and sufficient in ACM.


Was wondering when you'd go there. 6.5 - 7.33g you say? Really? I had no idea.

This person, an F-111 pilot -- you know, the human who was an actual stick actuator would seem to beg to differ with you:

Flying the Iconic Swing-Wing F-111 Aardvark at the Height of the Cold War
By Richard Crandall and Tyler RogowayJuly 27, 2016
...
Sadly, the F-111 was lousy at air-to-air. It had way too high a wing loading, poor visibility, and huge energy bleed-off when turning. It was almost impossible to get above 5 g's in it, and when you did you had just lost about 200-plus knots in the break turn. Oh well.

...

We had an F-111D from Cannon AFB head out to Canada for Maple Flag in the ‘80s. Everybody did an unofficial "arrival show." Upon arrival in the overhead pattern the F-16s would pull 9 gs, the F-15s would pull 9 gs, the F-4s would pull 7 gs, the A-10s would pull however many they could. Then again, for the Warthog it didn't really matter how many gs, as it could turn on a dime. And then there was the F-111.

If really light and pushing .95 mach or so while over-speeding the wings (if wings were swept forward, the jet was mach-limited) you might get 5 gs for a nano-second or so, and then you would be doing about .001 mach. Your awesome break turn would have taken half the state of Texas, too.
...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4595/flying-the-iconic-swing-wing-f-111-aardvark-at-the-height-of-the-cold-war


marsavian wrote:Titanium is 67% more dense than Aluminum (4.5 vs 2.7 g/cm 3) and over 125% more dense than carbon fibres (1.75-2.0 g/cm3) so a Blackbird type size will not weigh as much as it did then. Sorry but I don't share your defeatist attitude to this PCA specification, with enough lift from the wing and body and a very low drag shape like the Blackbird you could get Mach 1.5 super cruise and 6+g capability as well as a large combat radius double that of F-35.


Please do not project your attitudes on me. IMO, realist is a better description. But feel free to run some trades then show us your numbers to demonstrate that you know of what you type, and that 6-7g and1.5 Mach supercruise and 1500nm combat radius is actually within the realm of the possible. Tossing out phrases like "lift from the wing and body" and "very low drag shape" do not magically transport you there.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 23:20
by marsavian
An EF-111A in actual war ACM maneuvered a current of the time top line French fighter F-1 into the ground in Desert Storm so its maneuverability was sufficient to get the job done when the rubber hit the road but PCA would be much better being designed for that from the beginning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_eng ... e_Gulf_War

USAF EF-111 vs. IRAF Mirage F-1

On the first night of the war a USAF EF-111A Raven "Spark Vark", flown by pilot Captain James Denton and Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) Captain Brent Brandon, was on an electronic warfare mission ahead of a group of jets on a bombing run. Several IRAF Dassault Mirage F1s came in and engaged the flight. One of them went after the unarmed EF-111. Denton executed a tight turn while Brandon launched chaff to avoid missiles fired by the Mirage. An F-15C on the same flight, piloted by Robert Graeter, went after the Mirage to protect the EF-111. The Mirage launched a missile, spotted by Brandon, which the Raven avoided by turning and launching chaff. Denton decided to head for the deck to try to evade his pursuer. As he went down he pulled up to avoid the ground, the Mirage followed him through, but did not pull up in time and crashed. An unarmed EF-111 had thus scored an air-air victory against a Dassault Mirage F1, although Graeter was credited with a kill. The EF-111A crew were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 23:36
by steve2267
That's a cool story and all. Thanks for sharing it....

...and... so... ?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 23:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Okay, I am going to imagine a twin-engine (ADVENT), lengthened F-35. Lengthened by how much? Enough to carry two internal GBU-28s, so 6+ft. The only puts the new plane around 56ft so lets add another 6ft for a fuel plug. Now we are the length of an F-22. Now let's put the wings of an F-22 on it.

Let's say it weighs 50,000lb empty (to the F-22s 44,000) as the "holes add weight" thing applies. With the bigger wing and longer body... an F-22 has 6.5lb of fuel per square foot (length x wingspan) while an F-35A has 10.5. As I am "scaling up" an F-35 to Raptor levels of size in effect, this would give an internal fuel load of 28,700lb. Consider that a 6ftx5ftx6ft box (the 6ft fuel plug with room for intakes/engines to go by) is about 1,350 gallons by itself, or 9,180lb of that 10,200lb fuel increase.

So, now we have an aircraft that could have a gross (stealth) weight of a bit under 90,000lb. ADVENT should be, 15% more thurst, dry and wet we will assume (32.2k and 49.5k respectively, with a TSFC 20% lower? (0.71). At take off, T/W is in the range of .715 dry and 1.1 wet (0.53 and 0.81 for the F-35). This is with two 5,000 bombs. Fuel fraction is on the order of 0.32 (0.35 for the F-35 with two GBU-31s) and a wing loading of 107 (115 for the F-35). The "wing of the F-22" is good for 585,000lb lift, so this plane at take off is 6.5G.

The greater T/W and lower wing loading mean this aircraft can fly higher than an F-35 for cruise (which is already 10,000-15,000 higher than a combat configured F-16) and the improved fineness ratio (near F-22 level) means it should have no problem with high speed cruise (say in the 0.95M range). So we have this plane cruising along at 50,000ft and 0.95M with an L/D of...12 (CFT only strike eagle is around 10). This gives a cruise fuel flow between 5,000pph and 3,850pph for 18,700lb cruise fuel, or 4.2hrs. At 544.5KTAS thats 2,280nm of cruise (assuming 5k used in climb and 5k saved for decent and reserves). That is a radius of 1,140nm with two big a$$ bombs.

Now, my cruise TSFC and L/D are WAGs, but as a rough draft I created an aircraft that could be capable of 1,000nm range, 7G maneuver in combat, and some super cruise ( say 60% more weight is 60% more drag but with 130% more thrust).

Is in that simple? heck no! can it be done? Yes. Expect FRP price to be $140M current year dollars based on the F-35s cost per pound.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 23:45
by marsavian
This gives an indication of what the difference would be between an SR-71 and F-111 combat wing loading (50 vs 100 lb/sq ft) in practice and how it would affect available G at altitudes.


Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft

Part II: THE JET AGE

Chapter 11: Early Jet Fighters

Contemporary Fighters

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch11-6.htm

Figure 11.33 - Effect of wing loading and altitude on turning performance of a fighter aircraft. M = 0.85, CL = 0.7, constant altitude

Image
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 00:03
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
...

So, now we have an aircraft that could have a gross (stealth) weight of a bit under 90,000lb. ADVENT should be, 15% more thurst, dry and wet we will assume (32.2k and 49.5k respectively, with a TSFC 20% lower? (0.71). At take off, T/W is in the range of .715 dry and 1.1 wet (0.53 and 0.81 for the F-35). This is with two 5,000 bombs. Fuel fraction is on the order of 0.32 (0.35 for the F-35 with two GBU-31s) and a wing loading of 107 (115 for the F-35). The "wing of the F-22" is good for 585,000lb lift, so this plane at take off is 6.5G.

The greater T/W and lower wing loading mean this aircraft can fly higher than an F-35 for cruise (which is already 10,000-15,000 higher than a combat configured F-16) and the improved fineness ratio (near F-22 level) means it should have no problem with high speed cruise (say in the 0.95M range). So we have this plane cruising along at 50,000ft and 0.95M with an L/D of...12 (CFT only strike eagle is around 10). This gives a cruise fuel flow between 5,000pph and 3,850pph for 18,700lb cruise fuel, or 4.2hrs. At 544.5KTAS thats 2,280nm of cruise (assuming 5k used in climb and 5k saved for decent and reserves). That is a radius of 1,140nm with two big a$$ bombs.

Now, my cruise TSFC and L/D are WAGs, but as a rough draft I created an aircraft that could be capable of 1,000nm range, 7G maneuver in combat, and some super cruise ( say 60% more weight is 60% more drag but with 130% more thrust).

Is in that simple? heck no! can it be done? Yes. Expect FRP price to be $140M current year dollars based on the F-35s cost per pound.


Spurts,

point of clarification (and learning) on my end... I thought you had the F135 drinking between 4000 and 4500lb/hr in cruise for the F-35. Ignoring the increase in thrust, and just doubling the fuel consumption owing to two motors and then taking 80% of that fuel flow rate, gives me between 6400 and 7200lb/hr for cruise. Assuming cruise of 544KTAS, and 18700lb to burn, and the lower burn estimate of 6400, that seems to yield 2.9hrs of cruise, or 1590nm (795nm out and back). What am I missing? Or did you pull a Gums and shut one blower down during cruise?

Or am I doing my math all wrong, and you are assuming some thrust level for cruise, and then applying the SFC to that thrust number?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 00:16
by steve2267
OK, I think I see where you went...

90,000lb GTOW - 5000lb (T/O + climb + accel to cruise) = 85000lb weight --> 85000lb lift. L/D of 12 yields 7083lb thrust required * SFC ==> fuel flow per hour required.

Question about SFC... from TEG... I thought the best SWAG we had on F135 SFC was 0.71(ish). So wouldn't 20% decrease mean an SFC of 0.57? Which would give a fuel flow of about 4040lb/hr? (Less than your swag of 4450pph?) Which would yield a strike radius of 1260nm... inching closer to Marsavian's specs.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 00:29
by spazsinbad
On previous page 'marsavian' claimed via wickedpedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_eng ... e_Gulf_War
"...Denton [EF-111] decided to head for the deck to try to evade his pursuer. As he went down he pulled up to avoid the ground, the Mirage followed him through, but did not pull up in time and crashed. An unarmed EF-111 had thus scored an air-air victory against a Dassault Mirage F1, although Graeter was credited with a kill. The EF-111A crew were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross...."

Good on the triple-one, good strategy however the MIRACLE did not pull out of dive in time - pilot error of course and nothing to do with ACM in any sense except in the imagination of the writer. One may wonder why the NON triple-one pilot was credited with the kill? Perhaps there is more to this story than told here. Yes the triple-one guys were brave.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 01:24
by marsavian
Go Raven ! ;)

https://youtu.be/YhzJPKVSyEk



https://youtu.be/KciJUVoHHjo

First dogfight about 52secs in.


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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 02:04
by sprstdlyscottsmn
steve2267 wrote:Question about SFC... from TEG... I thought the best SWAG we had on F135 SFC was 0.71(ish).

I like to go conservative so I used the public 0.886 figure I've seen.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 03:23
by spazsinbad
Having watched the first RAVIN' video I'm not convinced there was ACM as the EF-111 flew low level (in TFR mode? whatever) to then abruptly pull up (no mention of a dive) at full power while the MIRACLE flew into the ground. This is not ACM - I'll watch 2nd video now which says "early morning hours" - was it night or daylight? Pilot says they are at 100 feet at night [at 6min] - tell me how aircraft (one without armament) DOGFIGHT at NIGHT. This is silly - because some people (not pilots I gather) say 'dogfight' then it must be true. Not tonight not this encounter but for sure good moves by the EF-111 to escape by going LOW at NIGHT while it had TFR Terrain Following Radar to do so whilst the MIRACLE had no such gizmo. No wonder the MIRACLE over reached to die. Later at about 7min 30sec we hear '400 feet for MIRACLE' being targeted by the F-15C with radar missile. Then MIRAGE/MIRACLE flies into the ground. So now we know why the KILL is credited to the F-15C. <sigh>

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 03:59
by marsavian
It was defensive ACM, they evaded two missiles and a guns attack, they lived to go home whereas the F1 pilot died not having shot down a 5g Sparkvark. On the deck those TF30s really worked.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 04:52
by spazsinbad
When was the gun attack? Sure the EF-111 was able to defensive maneuver down low and for sure TFR worked - the RAAF also had some ground collisions with TFR at night, so it was not always easy, even when flying unopposed. Full Marks to the EF-111 team work AT NIGHT (over flat desert terrain or was it mountainous? dunno). But not ACM - no cigar.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 06:52
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:Zzzzzz...

No one is addressing the cultural aversion to risk that is endemic to how the government has recently done aircraft development/acquisition. Most of the timelines cited for previous aircraft development ignore what kind of activity occurred in which stages of the program. Even if one looks at a milestone overview of the acquisition process and notes tech maturation and risk reduction, what gets ignored (or not realistically characterized wrt ‘time’) is risk aversion or acceptance in flight test and verification. Because we can instrument, monitor, download, and analyze more facets of an aircraft design and/or performance than ever before (by orders of magnitude), we thereby know more and learn more about what might be ‘wrong’ and consequently face far, far more decisions about not only how to address those ‘wrongs’ but to what degree we want to spend time and effort doing so. Those kinds of decisions are made by humans and, over time — the humans that occupy progressively higher levels of oversight in the various acquisition bureaucracies.

Thus, in the engrained culture and politics of risk, the aversion to same is not diminished, it is increased and intensified by the simple math of knowing more about what’s happening in the design. The consequence is one of time, and as we all know, time is money. Who are these new acquisition warriors that are going to sign up to the scale of risk acceptance that is necessary to meet some of these highly ambitious development timelines for new aircraft?

Saw this today will He HYTEN the risk with SPEED? :mrgreen:
Hyten Leading JROC Reform Process To Speed Decisions
17 Jan 2020 Theresa Hitchens

"...Hyten, [Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Hyten] an Air Force general who previously led Strategic Command, says the the critical problem is DoD’s crippling need to avoid risk. This has led to bureaucratic approaches that value risk avoidance above all else — including moving most decision-making authorities into the Pentagon and away from the field....

...Hyten noted that DoD acquisition undersecretary Ellen Lord, research and engineering head Mike Griffin and other DoD leaders are starting to work on how to reform and speed up the processes. As Breaking D readers know, Lord has been overseeing a sweeping review of DoD’s infamously Byzantine series 5000 acquisition rules. That review, as Sydney reported, includes a new streamlined process for buying software...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/hyt ... decisions/

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 10:04
by zero-one
marauder2048 wrote:That would actually favor a derivative since you'd get to the fixed-price production sooner where profit margins
aren't capped the way they typically are in longer clean sheet development contracts.


Well who had more profit? Boeing's Superhornet or Lockheed's Raptor?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 10:35
by quicksilver
Well spaz, they gotta start somewhere and recognition/acknowledgement that there IS a problem is a start.

Wanna change behavior in government acquisition? Change ‘process’. In order to get the new-think ‘in’ ya gotta get some of the old-think ’out.’ Review the old rules, regs, and processes and kill some of them; ’bullet in the head’ kill — not ‘review and rename’ for the sake of rebranding a la another ‘Better Buying Power’ x.x. Gotta involve the Congressional pro-staffs as well.