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 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1677
  • 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: 638
  • 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

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • 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...
Online

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 305
  • 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: 511
  • 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"
Online

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 305
  • 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: 511
  • 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"
Online

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 305
  • 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: 1137
  • 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 little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

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
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1137
  • 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 little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Previous

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests