Restarting F-22 production

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post05 May 2016, 11:45

zero-one wrote:Well the F-22 won't be fighting alone, it will be part of a highly integrated combat cloud. Basically the F-35 will act as the brains while the F-22 will be the brawn.

in the USAF the F-35 will act as sensor nodes creating a clear picture of the battle space, feeding the few F-22 hunter killer teams with valuable S.A. that they cannot collect themselves.

If they see a VLO target, the F-22s have the option to Salvo fire or get close knowing that they have both the missile payload to ripple fire Slammers or the performance should the fight develop into a classic phone booth fight.

The F-35s on the other hand can mop up everything else that the Raptors left behind.


There is no doubt that a combination of F-35 and F-22 will be a seriously painful enema to any possible enemy force out there.

As you stated at the end the F-35 will mop up everything else that the Raptors didn't kill in the first place. With so few Raptors available as is let alone what could be in theater... that is a heavy work load for the F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6006
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 May 2016, 20:20

accessdenied wrote:I would also like to not see the 6th gen become what the F-22 and F-35 were and are: designed with state of the art technology that needs to be perfected over a very long engineering development cycle lasting years and years, I say use today's off the shelf technology to mitigate risks, costs, and shorten development time.


6th generation fighter
new fighter using 5th generation technology.

pick one.

I don't know how you develop next gen airplanes but refuse to develop next gen technology. please explain.
Choose Crews
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post08 May 2016, 00:36

6th gen has to have revolutionary tech...otherwise you will end up in the position russia is in now, with 5 different upgraded versions of the same cold war based airframe

Granted when the wall came down, their economy was shot and their investment in r & d plummetted.
But at least they have the pak fa.....
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 May 2016, 13:39

les_paul59 wrote:6th gen has to have revolutionary tech...otherwise you will end up in the position russia is in now, with 5 different upgraded versions of the same cold war based airframe

Granted when the wall came down, their economy was shot and their investment in r & d plummetted.
But at least they have the pak fa.....


5 different variations of same cold war airplane.

Six, if you count PAK FA as a Flanker that got stepped on... :)
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post08 May 2016, 17:06

It's almost the same as to say the Raptor is an upgraded F-15.

BTW, if I were to be the DoD of the US, I think I'd save the money just to upgrade the current fleet of Raps and go deep down with the Navy and new gen SAMs systems
Offline

arl8733

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2009, 18:05

Unread post10 May 2016, 03:10

I think that most of us agreed that production was stopped very prematurely. When you subtract from the fleet those birds that are used for flight test, those used for flight training and those in various forms of up-grades as well as those down for normal maintenance, how many are truly available at any one time? But given this, I doubt the feasibility of re-starting the line now. I have witnessed the re-start of the C-5 line as well as the start-up of the F-22 line and know the challenges that must be overcome. The resurrection of the vendor base being perhaps the biggest challenge. Perhaps the next biggest challenge would be to prevent design creep to the extent that most of the bird is internally re-designed blowing the cost out of the water. As much as I would like to have many more, I don't see it happening. I think what we need is once we make a production decision we should build everything planned as fast as possible and keep the short term politicians out of it.
Offline

accessdenied

Banned

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2015, 13:39

Unread post10 May 2016, 16:00

arl8733 wrote:I think that most of us agreed that production was stopped very prematurely. When you subtract from the fleet those birds that are used for flight test, those used for flight training and those in various forms of up-grades as well as those down for normal maintenance, how many are truly available at any one time? But given this, I doubt the feasibility of re-starting the line now. I have witnessed the re-start of the C-5 line as well as the start-up of the F-22 line and know the challenges that must be overcome. The resurrection of the vendor base being perhaps the biggest challenge. Perhaps the next biggest challenge would be to prevent design creep to the extent that most of the bird is internally re-designed blowing the cost out of the water. As much as I would like to have many more, I don't see it happening. I think what we need is once we make a production decision we should build everything planned as fast as possible and keep the short term politicians out of it.


Restarting the line is possible, and easy. The few components that need to be re-tooled, they will need to be qualified through design verification and production verification, and vehicle verification/integration. It's not impossible. It's not rocket science. It's just mundane hum-drum-engineering. The hard work has been done. The parts exist in CAD. The materials specs already defined. The GD&T and tolerance stack-ups are done, and have been done for a long, long time.

The u's are the big bad boogeyman that everyone loves to point their fingers at, because Oh My God, u's are black magic. They're wafers with gold wire bonding. Like the tooling for every other component, it's design exists in CAD and can be turned out in a matter of months. I've been a party to what happens when a u's supply chain is interrupted for reasons beyond the control of the production plant, and it's about 6 months to bring it back to life from scratch. Not years. Not even a year. It's a matter of months.

I know you boys want to hold out for a 6th gen aircraft. But the 15/16 fleet is about to be rendered obsolete depending on how things play out in China and Russia.

The US can walk and chew gum at the same time. It can build 2 fighters at the same time and do work on a third.

The thing that irks me is giving to much business to Lockheed. But it's not as if the Raptor will go back into production.
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post10 May 2016, 16:55

accessdenied wrote:Restarting the line is possible, and easy.


Hahahaha.


No.


Okay, yes it is possible, but no, it. Is in no way easy. $200 million anythings are never easy.
Offline

accessdenied

Banned

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2015, 13:39

Unread post10 May 2016, 18:06

str wrote:
accessdenied wrote:Restarting the line is possible, and easy.


Hahahaha.


No.


Okay, yes it is possible, but no, it. Is in no way easy. $200 million anythings are never easy.


No. Easy. Mundane. Dull.

What don't you understand that the designs are complete, fully dimensioned, fully spec'd out, and it's a matter of producing new tools, fixtures and gauges, for a minority, not a majority, of components.

Difficult is creating something from nothing. Difficult is what was done in the late 80s and the 90s.

Most pilot-engineers, you could hand them a fully dimensioned drawing and CAD model for a wing spar, and they would be clueless about how to even to go about running an effect supplier source selection process. You may know your thermal dynamics equations with your BS and MS, but have no experience or knowhow in how to build something. I doubt any of you have done a stack up analysis on mating components or have done a worse case circuit analysis, let alone visited an electronics assembly line.

The Raptor line could be up and running before the end of the next US presidency.

So yeah, let's bring back the F-15 to hedge our bets against the F-35. The US can then build up a 4.5 gen AF while China and Russia move ahead with their advanced designs.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5415
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 May 2016, 18:57

accessdenied wrote:No. Easy. Mundane. Dull.


:lmao:

accessdenied wrote:What don't you understand that the designs are complete, fully dimensioned, fully spec'd out


And what you don't understand is that, assuming they can even find them, they may not even be in a usable condition. Speaking as somebody currently involved in multiple production projects your whole position is laughable.

accessdenied wrote:and it's a matter of producing new tools, fixtures and gauges, for a minority, not a majority, of components.
Assuming (there's that word) the existing tooling has been stored and maintained in proper condition. EXTREMELY unlikely. "Best intentions" and all that.

accessdenied wrote:Difficult is creating something from nothing.


You mean like a new assembly line from a patch of dirt?

accessdenied wrote:Difficult is what was done in the late 80s and the 90s.


Sure that was difficult. This would be marginally less so. And that's assuming they didn't take the opportunity for a "refresh" and you KNOW that would never happen. So you'll end up with a massive kludge of trying to build an old design using current software, while rolling in a significant portion of new stuff and making it all work. In the words of Mr. T, "I pity da fool".

accessdenied wrote:Most pilot-engineers, you could hand them a fully dimensioned drawing and CAD model for a wing spar, and they would be clueless about how to even to go about running an effect supplier source selection process.


"Drawings"? What the hell are those? MBD all the way baby!

accessdenied wrote:You may know your thermal dynamics equations with your BS and MS, but have no experience or knowhow in how to build something. I doubt any of you have done a stack up analysis on mating components or have done a worse case circuit analysis, let alone visited an electronics assembly line.


Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

accessdenied wrote:The Raptor line could be up and running before the end of the next US presidency.


Six years? That's more time than it took to go from a clean piece of paper to Blackbirds breaking records. Guess it ain't so simple after all eh?

accessdenied wrote:So yeah, let's bring back the F-15 to hedge our bets against the F-35. The US can then build up a 4.5 gen AF while China and Russia move ahead with their advanced designs.


How about, "no". Any money dumped into bringing back the F-22 would be money taken from the F-22 replacement. No thanks. Better to just accelerate the F-22's "replacement". The F-15Cs would finally get to leave with the F-22s taking their place while the new plane takes the F-22's place.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

accessdenied

Banned

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2015, 13:39

Unread post10 May 2016, 21:45

The US presidency is 6 years? It may take about 36 months (at the max end of the spectrum) to get the line up and going.

And how do you equate the time to re-source select, re-tool, re-test components, and re-test vehicles with it being hard? It's boring, mundane time consuming work.

Keep dreaming about gen 6 with it's particle beam weapons 20+ years out in the future.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5415
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 May 2016, 23:08

accessdenied wrote:The US presidency is 6 years? It may take about 36 months (at the max end of the spectrum) to get the line up and going.


As much as I can't wait for him to leave, the current occupant isn't gone yet. So that's 5 years to the end of the next cycle.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6006
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 May 2016, 00:31

accessdenied wrote:
arl8733 wrote:I think that most of us agreed that production was stopped very prematurely. When you subtract from the fleet those birds that are used for flight test, those used for flight training and those in various forms of up-grades as well as those down for normal maintenance, how many are truly available at any one time? But given this, I doubt the feasibility of re-starting the line now. I have witnessed the re-start of the C-5 line as well as the start-up of the F-22 line and know the challenges that must be overcome. The resurrection of the vendor base being perhaps the biggest challenge. Perhaps the next biggest challenge would be to prevent design creep to the extent that most of the bird is internally re-designed blowing the cost out of the water. As much as I would like to have many more, I don't see it happening. I think what we need is once we make a production decision we should build everything planned as fast as possible and keep the short term politicians out of it.


Restarting the line is possible, and easy. The few components that need to be re-tooled, they will need to be qualified through design verification and production verification, and vehicle verification/integration. It's not impossible. It's not rocket science. It's just mundane hum-drum-engineering. The hard work has been done. The parts exist in CAD. The materials specs already defined. The GD&T and tolerance stack-ups are done, and have been done for a long, long time.

The u's are the big bad boogeyman that everyone loves to point their fingers at, because Oh My God, u's are black magic. They're wafers with gold wire bonding. Like the tooling for every other component, it's design exists in CAD and can be turned out in a matter of months. I've been a party to what happens when a u's supply chain is interrupted for reasons beyond the control of the production plant, and it's about 6 months to bring it back to life from scratch. Not years. Not even a year. It's a matter of months.

I know you boys want to hold out for a 6th gen aircraft. But the 15/16 fleet is about to be rendered obsolete depending on how things play out in China and Russia.

The US can walk and chew gum at the same time. It can build 2 fighters at the same time and do work on a third.

The thing that irks me is giving to much business to Lockheed. But it's not as if the Raptor will go back into production.


Whether you are for or against it, restarting F-22 production and hand waiving it as "easy" is ridiculous. That's like Kopp level of lunacy

"A simple bending of sheet metal"

Arl8733 is right.

Can it be done? Of course it can be done, easily? no. If it was easy we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would have bought the nearly 400 the USAF wanted in the first place when they were in production and easy to get in the first place instead of waiting years to spend more and do it all over again
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5415
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 May 2016, 00:40

arl8733 wrote: I think what we need is once we make a production decision we should build everything planned as fast as possible and keep the short term politicians out of it.


This. They turned out 100 B-1Bs in about four years. High rate production is what brings your learning curve down quickly and gives you the best value for your money.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post11 May 2016, 02:36

accessdenied wrote:No. Easy. Mundane. Dull.

What don't you understand that the designs are complete, fully dimensioned, fully spec'd out, and it's a matter of producing new tools, fixtures and gauges, for a minority, not a majority, of components.

Difficult is creating something from nothing. Difficult is what was done in the late 80s and the 90s.

Most pilot-engineers, you could hand them a fully dimensioned drawing and CAD model for a wing spar, and they would be clueless about how to even to go about running an effect supplier source selection process. You may know your thermal dynamics equations with your BS and MS, but have no experience or knowhow in how to build something. I doubt any of you have done a stack up analysis on mating components or have done a worse case circuit analysis, let alone visited an electronics assembly line.

First off, talking down to people won't get you anywhere on this forum, or you know, life in general. There are plenty of talented engineers, pilots, and mechanics that frequent this forum that have a wide variety of experience within the Aerospace Industry, including some in the very areas you mentioned. Show respect and you might just get some back.

The Raptor line could be up and running before the end of the next US presidency.

Ya, we could probably be cranking out XB-70 Valkyries in 5 years too, anything is possible if you throw some serious cash at the problem. That doesn't make it an intelligent or rational decision. If you do in fact work in the Aerospace Industry, I probably don't need to tell you that F-35 suppliers have a lot on their plate already in meeting the increased capacity required for full rate production for that aircraft. Production yields on certain complex parts are still low, and will require process improvements and redesigns going forward. Oh by the way, as you probably know we are also seeing a significant ramp in quantities on the commercial side as well. Evidently the Asian airlines are buying up jets like crazy.

Fabricating a CNC part from a CAD drawing is one thing, producing a quality cast or forged part in mass quantities is quite another. As someone who deals with out of production spares on a regular basis, producing anything out of production, be it years or decades, is not a trivial task and requires a great deal of re-learning on the production floor. It seems more often than not the original tooling can't hold the part within it's original tolerances anymore so either new tooling must be acquired (costly and time consuming, always a fight over who is paying for it) or a revision needs to be done to the print (also a pain) in order to get the part to pass first article. This is particularly true with castings and forgings.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests