5.5\6th Gen Fighter - F-22C?

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

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2472
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 14:57

Sounds like it's time to dust off the YF-23a EMD diagrams... :)

It just seems perfect for the requirements. Big, lots of range, ability to carry large payload, fast, stealthy, maneuverable. And maybe, unlike the F-22.. they didn't "lose" the tooling LOL
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post17 Apr 2017, 17:55

You're thinking that far ahead huh? Here I am just hoping to finally have the SAR and EA features of the avionics fully unlocked and harnessed with the 3.2b increment update, in addition to the Block II 9X and AMRAAM-D. That automatic ground warning and collision avoidance system would also be good to have finalized as no joke but the AF really can't afford to lose any more airframes or pilots. Maybe an engine upgrade for the F-119s as well at some point, it's been 12 years since IOC already. Not sure where the TNNT AT&T Verizon or whatever the hell it's called is at (I can't keep up with all the acronyms) as relaying data via voice or radio isn't really a good option when that matters since the other guy can also pick it up. And now this re-coating/LO painting maintence is about to start, that would be nice to keep on track for sure.
I won't even bitch about the HMD system or lack of follow on to the AIM-120. We'll kick that can down the road some more I guess.

And last but not least, won't happen now but it would have also been nice if the F-22 had been produced with the AESA chin arrays attached and the wing root IRST pods fitted. Sour grapes at this point but I'd like to see these things squared away first before I can even allow myself to hope for anything more with how dragged out and cluster Fd development and procurement is these days.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post17 Apr 2017, 21:08

icemaverick wrote: Furthermore, the F-22 uses PowerPC microprocessor architecture (long out of production) and its code was written in ADA whereas the F-35 was written in C++. So you would have to upgrade the entire computer system and I don't think it's as simple as simply porting the F-35's computer and software over. You would probably have to re-write millions of lines of code.


Exactly when did the PowerPC processor go out of production? Give I support multiple E Series IBM server with a PowerPC processors. Also the PS3 uses a PowerPC chip. Must be news to IBM, wonder when they will find out they no longer make these chips......

FYI C++ code works fine on a PowerPC based system, just recompile...
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post18 Apr 2017, 00:07

If it has to be an IBM cpu, it's a power1 based and not a gen1 powerpc.

Anyway, its really a non issue, considering you can ask GloFo or TSMC to bin a 22nm cpu capable of executing ADA code(or bruteforce it via encode/decode) for dirty cheap.
From there on, you could slowly rewrite a software package in complete relax.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post18 Apr 2017, 21:19

h-bomb wrote:FYI C++ code works fine on a PowerPC based system, just recompile...

I see potential issues there with timing. Also any CPU specific code will not work.

nutshell wrote:Anyway, its really a non issue, considering you can ask GloFo or TSMC to bin a 22nm cpu capable of executing ADA code(or bruteforce it via encode/decode) for dirty cheap

I highly doubt you will get a jet fighter grade CPU from them that easily (EMP and high G stress resistant with a wide temperature and pressure delta).
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post19 Apr 2017, 00:55

You cannot make the die of a chip emp proof. You can build a case strong against electragnetic forces tho.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post19 Apr 2017, 18:26

nutshell wrote:You cannot make the die of a chip emp proof. You can build a case strong against electragnetic forces tho.

That's why I used the term "resistant" and not "proof", I guess I should have made it clearer by using the term "radiation hardened".

There is a direct relation between the thickness of a casing and the level of EMP protection. This means that you have to find a compromise between weight, size and EMP protection level for your aircraft. In this a radiation hardened CPU helps to balance things out and probably makes the complete package less costly (both to procure and maintain).
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post20 Apr 2017, 00:10

botsing wrote:
nutshell wrote:You cannot make the die of a chip emp proof. You can build a case strong against electragnetic forces tho.

That's why I used the term "resistant" and not "proof", I guess I should have made it clearer by using the term "radiation hardened".

There is a direct relation between the thickness of a casing and the level of EMP protection. This means that you have to find a compromise between weight, size and EMP protection level for your aircraft. In this a radiation hardened CPU helps to balance things out and probably makes the complete package less costly (both to procure and maintain).



Nothing stops LM to ask for a new processor based on the upcoming 12 or 7 nm node tech, shrink it (if needed) to match raptor's cpu so you don't incur into a form-factor mismatch. At that point, no issues with its protective shell.

Given, its LM and the US lacking the will to male such a move.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1768
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 May 2017, 15:23

As has been noted, F-22 production line restart would appear to be prohibitive. If you are going to spend that kind of money, you may as well (re)consider the YF-23 design as a starting point. Since everyone is broadstroking this idea and ignorning all the nagging little details... why not an F-23 using the F-35 VLO skin tech, F-35 systems, with the AETP engines? Range / endurance may be key here -- 1000nm or maybe even 1500nm mission radius. Gonna have to carry a lot of gas.

Alternatively, if the F-135 Block 1 upgrade does yield +10% thrust and +5-7% better fuel efficiency could be a super-cruise stepping stone. If a follow-on 3-stream AETP engine could fit the F-35... a 1.2M super-cruising F-35D with 800nm range (maybe that could be stretched to 900-1000nm?) could be a less expensive 5.5Gen approach? Especially if DIRCM or a laser weapon could be integrated into the airframe. This approach would build off all the avionics / software / systems that has been invested in the F-35.

I wonder if the F-35 will be the stepping stone to an airframe-agnostic avionics systems approach. In the future, the avionics system would be competed / developed / produced separate from the airframe and engine. When a new airframe is required, it will be the airframer's responsibility to integrate the already proven / produced avionics system into their vehicle. Radar / IR sensors etc would be akin to computer peripherals (printers, modems etc) and only new drivers (radar driver <-> printer driver) would need to be created to integrate new 'dars or other avionics into the system.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post03 May 2017, 16:35

Regarding all the posts about modifying F-22/YF-23: I think clean sheet is going to be the best approach for a new air superiority fighter. Don't think you gain much by reusing an old airframe, and by the time you do all the rework you might as well design a new aircraft leveraging the 30+ years of technological development we've had since.

steve2267 wrote:I wonder if the F-35 will be the stepping stone to an airframe-agnostic avionics systems approach. In the future, the avionics system would be competed / developed / produced separate from the airframe and engine. When a new airframe is required, it will be the airframer's responsibility to integrate the already proven / produced avionics system into their vehicle. Radar / IR sensors etc would be akin to computer peripherals (printers, modems etc) and only new drivers (radar driver <-> printer driver) would need to be created to integrate new 'dars or other avionics into the system.


In some ways this approach is similar to what ODASD(SE) is pursuing with the Modular Open Systems Approach initiative:
The Department of Defense’s (DoD) modular open systems approach (MOSA) is to design systems with highly cohesive, loosely coupled, and severable modules that can be competed separately and acquired from independent vendors. This approach allows the Department to acquire warfighting capabilities, including systems, subsystems, software components, and services, with more flexibility and competition. MOSA implies the use of modular open systems architecture, a structure in which system interfaces share common, widely accepted standards, with which conformance can be verified.

DoD is actively pursuing MOSA in the life-cycle activities of its major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) and major automated information systems (MAIS), in large part due to the rapid evolution in technology and threats that require much faster cycle time for fielding and modifying warfighting capabilities. As part of a comprehensive systems engineering strategy, MOSA can accelerate and simplify the incremental delivery of new capabilities into systems.


There's an interesting brief on this from ~3 years ago: http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/briefs/16943- ... OSA-vF.pdf
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1768
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 May 2017, 19:06

Thanks for the link to the MOSA pdf.

rheonomic wrote:Regarding all the posts about modifying F-22/YF-23: I think clean sheet is going to be the best approach for a new air superiority fighter. Don't think you gain much by reusing an old airframe, and by the time you do all the rework you might as well design a new aircraft leveraging the 30+ years of technological development we've had since.


You may very well be correct on this point. However, before going the clean sheet route (Gen 6?), as many military pilots have noted we are only scratching the surface of what the F-35 can do, and since it is just about to enter full production / conclude testing... perhaps a better 5.5gen solution is the F-35:
  • uprated engine (either F-135 block improvements) or 3-stream AETP end-product
  • possible fuselage stretch for additional fuel, possible 2nd crewmember
  • possible directed energy weapon integration: either laser (kinetic-like effects) or emp (offensive EW)
  • internal carriage of hypersonic standoff missile

I think the key is going to be engine development. +10% thrust improvement may get a modest supercruise capability in the Lightning. But to get a large range increase, the AETP 3-stream tech needs to deliver. With it, 1000nm mission radius may be possible. (And with it, either better piddle packs or sustained 1.5M performance may be required! :D )
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

ignorantnewb

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2018, 16:32

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 20:45

Tomcattech's original posts were 'thinking outside the box' 'build upon what we know' 'something we haven't thought of'

So I present the F-35D Death Adder, a fully automated (room for more fuel) tweaked F-35C, in Defender mode optimised for short strike a2a but capable of swapping weapons for other missions. This is for stealth on stealth ending up in the merge.
As a spaghetti mess of fighters without an easy weapons lock it brings guns back into vogue. A sure kill from the rear isn't next gen thinking, to take advantage of all that SA and computing power that in some situations is better than a pilot, so...

1) 3 stealth gunpods! Longer for more punch centreline stealth gunpod, across two inner hard points another stealth gunpod. So we have 3 dimensional shots with the 3 gunpods covering an area.
This allows the computer to take quality predictive/guesstimate bbrrrts, in combination with inhuman reflexes and unique attacking patterns it makes for some interesting possibilities.
2) Backed up by a slightly faster/longer ranged bullet, with a shredding/penetrative effect capable of disabling a fighter in a small number of hits :drool:
3) To help the F-35D in Defender mode take the most dangerous central position:
Swivel stealth MSDM pods on the outer wings, MSDM in place of chaff optimised to target the canopy of a fighter trying to come in behind for a sure kill. Extra SACM in the internal bays for attack and defense against incoming missiles. False canopy to confuse the enemy by blending in with F-35C's. (No lazer pod for stealth priority.) Self-healing properties with redundant/safety wiring, 'plumbing' etc.

A superior number of J-31/20 enter the merge against a squad of F-35C with a few F-35D blending in, only to have reds dropping from the sky for no apparent reason, and in the face of a swarm of SACM many reds turn to flee!..
Offline

ignorantnewb

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2018, 16:32

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 22:24

The original poster's follow-up had
'A. Kinematic beast F-22 + F-35
B. F-35 to next level a2air with F-35 airframe
C. New F-23 with F-35 systems
D. Something else we haven't thought of'

So I just posted on points B. and D. But seeing as this is the F-22 forum (respect to Steve2267's excellent post re engines), an F-35D could really use a kinematic/engine upgrade to bring it closer to F-22 manoeuvrability - token F-22 reference

I chose the F-35C for an upgrade as it would be more useful against China and can be used in the airforce too, while don't really need more a2a superiority against Russia. (p.s. to exponentially increase the NEZ of guns, I'd prefer 4 guns in a square shape, but a triangle will have to do.)

Re an upgraded F-22 for something completely out there, I'd prefer its manoeuvrability to deliver an attacking microwave weapon if that's even possible? If stealth on stealth ends up in a wvr spaghetti mess, could it zap both incoming missiles and enemy planes out of the sky? I doubt it's possible I'm just curious why... Not effective, not powerful enough, zaps itself too?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 07:32

talkitron wrote:
citanon wrote:I think if you look at what they are talking about, the primary focus of the PCA is still in taking down IADS. They see F35 as sufficient for the traditional peeling back layers of an onion style campaign but want PCA to go right into the heart of the enemy defenses to change the fight.


Yeah, I think the PCA is supposed to be able to fly into the interior of mainland China. It probably needs to be bigger to fit the fuel and weapons required for such long range penetrations.



Yes, agree with you both, the comments of the past two years are clearly along those lines, the only question is what ingredients to use in that PCA evolution.

One other point is the rejection of 5th-gen or 6th-gen paradigms in this as that way of thinking was deemed unhelpful, to more or less pointless.

They only want what will assure forced deep penetration over a near-peer's airspace, strong stealth, deep loiter, data node conduit and long range. The quotes below make clear it will replace F-22A as the deep penetrator.

So to rehash 2016 to present, and get away from suped-up megadeath gunfighters, here's the concept as actually envisaged (as per what tom and citanon said):
----
Air Force Prepares to Hash Out Future Fighter Requirements

By: Valerie Insinna
August 28, 2016

/ ... I would make them operationally realistic, relevant prototype. 'Fieldable' prototypes is the term I would like to use. Whether we go there or not will be another tradespace discussion," he said. "You get it as mature as you can. You get these prototypes, you fly them around for a while. You do some testing on them.

"If you do something like that, if you don't change your requirements, if you don't set your sights on technologies that you know aren't going to mature on the timeline required," he said, "then you'll be in decent shape."

Penetrating Counter Air

The Air Force is trying to flush the words "sixth generation fighter" from its lexicon, Grynkewich said. Even the service’s initial terminology for an F-35 follow on — Next Generation Air Dominance — is being eschewed in favor of the label "Penetrating Counter Air."

"You start to have an argument over what does 'sixth gen' mean. Does it have laser beams, is it hypersonic? What is it? What does it look like? That’s not a useful conversation," he explained. "The more useful conversation is, what are the key attributes we need in order to gain and maintain air superiority in 2030?"

The Air Force is looking at incorporating sophisticated, cutting edge technologies like directed energy in the initial version of Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) or a future block upgrade. But ultimately, the service does not want to hold up the program so that a particular sensor or weapon can mature.


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

---

Air Force: $147M funding increase needed to keep future fighter on schedule

By: Valerie Insinna
March 22, 2017

/ ... The Air Force has been extremely tight-lipped on what kinds of capabilities it is exploring under the PCA effort. Grynkewich had previously identified that range and payload would be two of the aircraft’s core characteristics, and it will be optimized for an air superiority role like the F-22.

Beyond that, little is known about the technology development efforts contained under the NGAD funding umbrella.

"It's mission systems, it's EW [electronic warfare], it's weapons, it's everything about having a platform to go into that kind of [high-end] environment," Bunch said, declining to say more about how the service would direct the additional $147 million.

Rob Weiss, executive vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, said Tuesday that the company is already engaged with the Air Force on PCA. Like Bunch, Weiss would not comment on specific technologies the service is considering, but said the next fighter would have longer range and be stealthier, with improved signature management "across a wide spectrum, not just radar cross section."

"It is clear, in our mind, what they are asking for," he said. "We are having a very good back and forth conversation about this desire to have this deployed quickly."


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/03 ... -schedule/

Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

ignorantnewb

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2018, 16:32

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 14:12

Having ticked off the 'thinking outside of the box' request, and stepping firmly back in the box, it may be impossible for a F-22C or YF-23 to be turned into 6th gen/PCA by all the descriptives available (like the one above). Things have moved on requiring a clean sheet design (as rheonomic said). The problem with the hot production line of the F-35 is that the plane is too small to significantly upgrade - it's already near its limits. More range, EA, more room for next gen weapons/capabilities? Might get to the threads 5.5 gen request if one removes the pilot and goes fully automated (to make room).

Otherwise we're looking at 5+ gen through better engines for the F-35/22, allowing a tweak of the weapons bays for next gen weapons (without sacrificing range). Tweaked EW with broader aspect stealth coatings, with the F-35 optionally manned. IRST? Both planes are locked out of lazers without sacrificing stealth (with all the talk of PCA they'll likely build a new platform before 'stretching' the old one, though the Israelis want a two seater F-35). And I doubt they'll put laze in the B's vertical lift shaft, short range airfield only? I could be wrong.

The other possibility is the F-35 tweaked for an additional role, like protecting AWACS from the J-20. More long range hypersonic missiles to fire back (when available), combined with more defensively minded missiles that can take out incoming missiles. Otherwise it's jumping back out of the box...

p.s. No disrespect intended to element1loop, I agree but the thread was asking for interim solutions until PCA i.e. 5.5 gen. I don't know if this is presuming a delay in PCA or wanted it pushed back, so I went for complementary capabilities as well. An optionally manned F-35 could be a software upgrade and a little hardware away, and new stealth gunpods (plural) are a weapon, so 'megadeath gunfighter'?..
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests