Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1841
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 May 2018, 15:23

SpudmanWP wrote:
zero-one wrote:But as it stands the F-22 is actually cheaper to operate than the F-35 as per Business insider
https://www.businessinsider.sg/air-forc ... ?r=US&IR=T


That is OLD info and is contradicted by the latest actual data on RCPFH where the F-35 is HALF that of the F-22.


Exactly SpudmanWP!

Moreover, the F-35 just entered in service while the F-22 have been on service for more than a decade now! This means that the maintenance and the supply part lines are well established for the F-22 where for the F-35 this is only starting now.
And again like Spudman said, the operational costs of the F-35 are already HALF of those on the F-22 and I have absolutely no doubts that the F-35 will become even cheaper to operate as more and more F-35's are manufactured and the maintenance and supply part lines are and will be well established - And then there's ALIS which promises to reduce the F-35 maintenance/operational costs even further.

@zero-one, please don't get me wrong but I also trend to agree with others here when they say that you're trying so hard to make the case for a F-22 re-manufacture when this makes absolutely no sense at all while at the same time trying to come with non-existing arguments (like the F-22 being "cheaper to operate", which isn't!).
This being said, the F-22 is an awesome fighter aircraft but... (there's the F-35)

By the way, I would also like to add that I fully agree with geforcerfx's two latest posts (and with other similar posts from other members here as well).
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 May 2018, 17:54

disconnectedradical wrote:The B-21 is new airframe even when it is using mature technology and it will be stealthier but cheaper than B-2. The same can happen to PCA vs F-22.


We don't know that yet. The B-21 isn't in production and info about it is scarce so we don't know if its going to be cheaper than the B-2 program.

@Rincnunes,

Some guys here are agreeing with me also. But this isn't a contest of who gets more likes. We share opinions and sometimes the unpopular opinion gets to be the right one.

I remember 5 or 6 years ago when I said that if needed, F-22/35 pilots would not hesitate going to a merge if thats what the mission calls for. Everyone was against it, this is not some knighly chivalrous contest they said, pilots would rather go BVR, cheat or go home they said. And this came from some really respected people here.

And just a few months ago Tailgate said that if he needed to mix it up, he wouldn't hesitate to do it. Just like I said 6 years ago. Maj. Hanche implied the same thing as well

Anyway, back to my point, all Im saying is the F-22 as it is, remains to be a good choice for PCA if the USAF wants to use mature technology ala Superhornet,

You can't use the F-35. Its easier to give the F-22, the F-35's strengths than to give the F-35 the F-22's strengths. The F-35 was also created with a substantial emphasis on Strike missions which the PCA won't be doing.

The only real advantage of the F-35 against the Raptor is in sensors, these sensors can or may actually be integrated into the F-22 in the future. But to turn the F-35 into a supercruiser, turn it to an ultra high altitude flyer, make it super maneuverable in both post stall and supersonic regeimes, heck even giving it a bigger radar will prove problematic.


With Cleansheet, sure, will it be more capable, definitely, can they do it in 10 years? Is it mature technology? Is it cheaper?
I don't know, but its probably not
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 827
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post10 May 2018, 21:45

PCA will conduct strike, it has to, the USAF will not accept a combat aircraft in 2030 that cannot be used for strike missions. What do you think is replacing the F-15E? It's not the F-35A. Everything that makes PCA good at it's named mission make it good for long range penetrating strike.

I think basing the PCA off the F-22 makes it a dud from the get go. Either your completely redesigning significant parts of the F-22 to make it match PCA's mission( so your cost and time advantage are gone), or your have a really crappy PCA with limited improvements over the base F-22. If that's the route they go better to just put that money into F-35 upgrades and buy a few hundred more of them, if your gonna half a$$ it might as well do it the cheap way and not be the Navy.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1841
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 May 2018, 22:33

zero-one wrote:@Rincnunes,

Some guys here are agreeing with me also. But this isn't a contest of who gets more likes. We share opinions and sometimes the unpopular opinion gets to be the right one.


Yes, I agree with you that this isn't a "contest of likes" - this isn't Facebook afterall (and thank god for that) :wink:

My point was only to avoid quoting and repeating points that were already posted by other users and which I fully agree with.

For example and another example, I fully agree (again) with geforcerfx - PCA won't be a "fully" or mainly dedicated Air-to-Air combat. PCA will be a full multi-role combat aircraft like the F-35. IMO, the days of developing dedicated air-to-air fighter aircraft are gone.


zero-one wrote:The only real advantage of the F-35 against the Raptor is in sensors, these sensors can or may actually be integrated into the F-22 in the future.


Again, no it isn't. Cost - both acquisition and operational - are much better on the F-35. A clear advantage of the F-35 over the F-22.
Range is another spec in which the F-35 also beats the F-22! And this (together with cost) are two major advantages that the PCA should/must have. I would even dare to say that Range is more important than Supercruise, this even for the PCA.


zero-one wrote:But to turn the F-35 into a supercruiser, turn it to an ultra high altitude flyer, make it super maneuverable in both post stall and supersonic regeimes, heck even giving it a bigger radar will prove problematic.


And restarting a F-22 production line and changing it in order to give it far more range (on internal fuel only) and more internal weapons isn't?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post11 May 2018, 06:07

geforcerfx wrote:I think basing the PCA off the F-22 makes it a dud from the get go. Either your completely redesigning significant parts of the F-22 to make it match PCA's mission( so your cost and time advantage are gone), or your have a really crappy PCA with limited improvements over the base F-22. If that's the route they go better to just put that money into F-35 upgrades and buy a few hundred more of them, if your gonna half a$$ it might as well do it the cheap way and not be the Navy.


See this what I don't understand, basing it off the F-22 is a dud but upgrading the F-35 is better? Why?

The range improvement of the F-35 over the F-22 is not all that large in the first place. In fact somone posted here that their subsonic cruise range is almost the same. Not sure about that, but if its true, then the only real advantage of the F-35 is cost and the fact that it is still in production.

But there is no evidence that redesigning the F-35 to meet PCA requirements will be cheaper than restarting the F-22.

My point is simply, if and thats a big if, the choice came down to upgrading the F-22 or F-35 for PCA, I have the same opinion as Col. Lance Wilkins, an F-15 instructor

While the F-35 is a great airplane, it is not designed specifically for, nor as capable in, the air superiority realm. Not to be trite, but a lot of air superiority and “first look-first shot-first kill” is a compilation of physics equations, and in this, the F-22 wins hands-down.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 11075.html
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3082
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 May 2018, 06:14

The PCA will be a clean sheet design. Not an upgraded F-22/35. Neither design has the room to upgrade fuel/weapon capacity. The PCA will likely take signature reduction far beyond what is capable with the F-22/35, as well
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1550
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 May 2018, 06:48

zero-one wrote:]
See this what I don't understand, basing it off the F-22 is a dud but upgrading the F-35 is better? Why?
The range improvement of the F-35 over the F-22 is not all that large in the first place. In fact somone posted here that their subsonic cruise range is almost the same. Not sure about that, but if its true, then the only real advantage of the F-35 is cost and the fact that it is still in production.

F-35 and F-22 have around the same fuel capacity but F-35 has 1 engine while F-22 has 2, so i would say the combat radius of F-35 is much better and AETD upgraded seem to benefit it more too
Image
Advantages of F-35: range, cost, currently in production, sensors (already have IRST/use more modern databus, chips).
Advantages of F-22: speed, agility.
Advantages of F-35 may sound a lot less sexy but arguably much more important/practical for the acquisition process of PCA. Consider stuff like HEL/EMP then kinematics will become even less important
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post11 May 2018, 12:19

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:The B-21 is new airframe even when it is using mature technology and it will be stealthier but cheaper than B-2. The same can happen to PCA vs F-22.


We don't know that yet. The B-21 isn't in production and info about it is scarce so we don't know if its going to be cheaper than the B-2 program.

@Rincnunes,

Some guys here are agreeing with me also. But this isn't a contest of who gets more likes. We share opinions and sometimes the unpopular opinion gets to be the right one.

I remember 5 or 6 years ago when I said that if needed, F-22/35 pilots would not hesitate going to a merge if thats what the mission calls for. Everyone was against it, this is not some knighly chivalrous contest they said, pilots would rather go BVR, cheat or go home they said. And this came from some really respected people here.

And just a few months ago Tailgate said that if he needed to mix it up, he wouldn't hesitate to do it. Just like I said 6 years ago. Maj. Hanche implied the same thing as well

Anyway, back to my point, all Im saying is the F-22 as it is, remains to be a good choice for PCA if the USAF wants to use mature technology ala Superhornet,

You can't use the F-35. Its easier to give the F-22, the F-35's strengths than to give the F-35 the F-22's strengths. The F-35 was also created with a substantial emphasis on Strike missions which the PCA won't be doing.

The only real advantage of the F-35 against the Raptor is in sensors, these sensors can or may actually be integrated into the F-22 in the future. But to turn the F-35 into a supercruiser, turn it to an ultra high altitude flyer, make it super maneuverable in both post stall and supersonic regeimes, heck even giving it a bigger radar will prove problematic.


With Cleansheet, sure, will it be more capable, definitely, can they do it in 10 years? Is it mature technology? Is it cheaper?
I don't know, but its probably not


So you keep saying mature technology means existing airframe even when a program like B-21 use mature technology but still have a new airframe? Mature technology isn’t same as using existing airframe, What don’t you understand? If you want half a$$ PCA by enhancing F-22 what happens when China Russia and EU make a bigger leap to 6th gen? It will be like making F-15 Silent Eagle instead of ATF and face J-20 and Su-57.

geforcerfx wrote:PCA will conduct strike, it has to, the USAF will not accept a combat aircraft in 2030 that cannot be used for strike missions. What do you think is replacing the F-15E? It's not the F-35A. Everything that makes PCA good at it's named mission make it good for long range penetrating strike.

I think basing the PCA off the F-22 makes it a dud from the get go. Either your completely redesigning significant parts of the F-22 to make it match PCA's mission( so your cost and time advantage are gone), or your have a really crappy PCA with limited improvements over the base F-22. If that's the route they go better to just put that money into F-35 upgrades and buy a few hundred more of them, if your gonna half a$$ it might as well do it the cheap way and not be the Navy.


B-21 will replace F-15E. Clean sheet PCA will be much stealthier than F-22 and F-35.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 827
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post11 May 2018, 15:51

zero-one wrote:
See this what I don't understand, basing it off the F-22 is a dud but upgrading the F-35 is better? Why?


Basing the PCA off either frame is basically half assing it, if we re half assing it it's because of cost. So if we are going to half a$$ it might as well take the cheaper option in upgraded F-35's, which by 2025-2030 might very well be within 10% of the F-22's kinematic performance, looking at the planned upgrades, better engine (already here) more missiles (6 matches the F-22) and better avionics(new EODAS and EOTAS).

The range improvement of the F-35 over the F-22 is not all that large in the first place. In fact somone posted here that their subsonic cruise range is almost the same. Not sure about that, but if its true, then the only real advantage of the F-35 is cost and the fact that it is still in production.


Subsonic A2A F-22 radius is ~600nmi, F-35A is 760nmi, I guess 300nmi additional is small to some. But that range growth is only going to get greater with advent engines, 1,000nmi for the F-35 and only 750-800nmi for the F-22.

But there is no evidence that redesigning the F-35 to meet PCA requirements will be cheaper than restarting the F-22.


Your right, there is just he logic of it being a hot production line with engineers still at the company the worked on and designed the air craft. Versus setting up a new assembly line, creating a hybrid half new half old aircraft and integrating a bunch of new tech into it.


PCA will be a new airframe, airframes actually aren't as difficult to make and test as everything else(we have a lot of experience with it). If PCA is a new airframe with maximum stealth, tons of fuel and can haul around 16 Amramms it will be perfect. It can be made in the time frame and cost they want by taking all the avionics from the F-35 and using them, all the software, the engines. Carry all that over and you just shaved 5-6 years of development and testing off of the program. It will need only one new thing, a larger more powerful radar, and over the 2030's money will need to be invested in upgrades for sure. Another bonus is if we use F-35 systems they are cleared for export, making the aircraft potentially exportable allowing the cost to drop further for he select countries that could afford it and need it.

That's why I see wasting time on a hybrid for Japan as stupid, they can pick upgraded F-35's (which they are building in Japan anyways) or they can pick to join PCA with a slightly custom variant.



disconnectedradical wrote:
B-21 will replace F-15E. Clean sheet PCA will be much stealthier than F-22 and F-35.

Replacing a tactical asset with a strategic one? I guess if you team up PCA and B-21 you get the penetration aspect for the F-15E. I still think PCA will end up doing it, long range, large payload, makes sense.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 410
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post11 May 2018, 18:03

I would caution on thinking about PCA as a sure fire thing.

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/0 ... ogies.html

Notice the shifts in the AF of systems and requirements. I believe the NGAD concepts outlined concepts around networks and ew. In terms of immediate priorities AF seems to be shifting to rolling out fifth gen ideas across it's platforms.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 May 2018, 09:09

The way I understand it is, if PCA goes into production it would need its own assembly line anyway. You can't use the F-35's assembly line to produce an F-35 based PCA. If I'm wrong on this, then please tell me, I have no problem with that.

B-21 (judging by the released info) seems to be heavily influenced by the B-2. So thats what I'm rooting for. If PCA will be bassed on an existing platform, what would be easier\cheaper to do:

a) turn an F-35 into a super cruising, extreme high altitude , super maneuverable platform with an emphasis on A-A.
b) give the F-22 DAS, IRST and more fuel.

I just think B is easier, cheaper and meets the mature tech requirement.

both will have ADVENT, both will have better sensors and better datalinks, both will have better RAM materials for improved RCS reduction, they will also have DI weapons (more room in the Raptor obviously)

It won't be as good as a clean sheet design, but it will have a shorter time frame, it'll almost certainly be cheaper and have that mature technology stamp
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post12 May 2018, 13:53

zero-one wrote:The way I understand it is, if PCA goes into production it would need its own assembly line anyway. You can't use the F-35's assembly line to produce an F-35 based PCA. If I'm wrong on this, then please tell me, I have no problem with that.

B-21 (judging by the released info) seems to be heavily influenced by the B-2. So thats what I'm rooting for. If PCA will be bassed on an existing platform, what would be easier\cheaper to do:

a) turn an F-35 into a super cruising, extreme high altitude , super maneuverable platform with an emphasis on A-A.
b) give the F-22 DAS, IRST and more fuel.

I just think B is easier, cheaper and meets the mature tech requirement.

both will have ADVENT, both will have better sensors and better datalinks, both will have better RAM materials for improved RCS reduction, they will also have DI weapons (more room in the Raptor obviously)

It won't be as good as a clean sheet design, but it will have a shorter time frame, it'll almost certainly be cheaper and have that mature technology stamp


B-21 is a new airframe. The intake and wing shape and sweep will be different and engine configuration will be different. All this mean new airframe. And you still keep thinking mature technology means existing airframe when that’s wrong. Using your logic a F-15 Silent Eagle should be made instead of F-22 in the 90s. Then see how it compares to Su-57 and J-20.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3274
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post12 May 2018, 14:11

zero-one wrote:The way I understand it is, if PCA goes into production it would need its own assembly line anyway. You can't use the F-35's assembly line to produce an F-35 based PCA. If I'm wrong on this, then please tell me, I have no problem with that.

B-21 (judging by the released info) seems to be heavily influenced by the B-2. So thats what I'm rooting for. If PCA will be bassed on an existing platform, what would be easier\cheaper to do:

a) turn an F-35 into a super cruising, extreme high altitude , super maneuverable platform with an emphasis on A-A.
b) give the F-22 DAS, IRST and more fuel.

I just think B is easier, cheaper and meets the mature tech requirement.

both will have ADVENT, both will have better sensors and better datalinks, both will have better RAM materials for improved RCS reduction, they will also have DI weapons (more room in the Raptor obviously)

It won't be as good as a clean sheet design, but it will have a shorter time frame, it'll almost certainly be cheaper and have that mature technology stamp

So, about the way only things the F-35 needs to be “a super cruising, extreme high altitude , super maneuverable platform with an emphasis on A-A“ is an engine with more thrust and a missile that can be carried like a SDB.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 May 2018, 14:41

disconnectedradical wrote: Using your logic a F-15 Silent Eagle should be made instead of F-22 in the 90s. Then see how it compares to Su-57 and J-20.


Well yes, if the requirement of the ATF was to use "mature technology" and have a development cycle of less than 10 years. then yes.

But it wasn't. In fact, watching Test Pilot Paul Metz's testimony, he said that the design team were designing a fighter for 2005 back in the 1980s. The Avionics test bed for ATF program was housed inside a Boeing 757 because the computers at the time would not fit in a fighter sized aircraft. They were gambling on the notion that by 2005, computers should be small enough to house all those avionics into a fighter sized platform.

So they were really looking ahead at what could be, not what is. But thats not what the PCA is going for.

So, about the way only things the F-35 needs to be “a super cruising, extreme high altitude , super maneuverable platform with an emphasis on A-A“ is an engine with more thrust and a missile that can be carried like a SDB.


I don't think Engine power is the only thing that makes the F-22 the way it is. Don't you have to redesign the wing for that, increase the sweep angle maybe, then you'll have to do the same for tail to have that whole planned formed alignment thing.
then theres the whole radar dome size which is smaller for the F-35.

But hey I'm no engineer. If all it took for the F-35 to have F-22 kinematics is to slap bigger engines then why didn't Japan just ask for bigger F-135 engines or fast track ADVENT. Why this whole F-22/35 hybrid thing
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 410
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post12 May 2018, 21:23

I don't think any of the manufacturers project that ADVENT would give the F35 supercruising performance like the F22. They project better range, higher sustained speed at low altitude due to better cooling, and better acceleration but not significantly higher speed at military thrust levels.

I could be wrong (if so please give a link).

This is a gross simplification but remember that aerodynamic drag scales as the square of the velocity. It takes a lot of extra thrust to change your drag limited top speed from < mach 1 to mach 1.8.

If you want F22 type kinematics (supercruise, acceleration and altitude) you will need twin engines, and F22 type aerodynamic configuration.

I don't see a possible universe where you could upgrade the engines on a F35 and get there. What you will need to do is to re-engineer the F22 for the F35 production process and use F35 air frame materials, sensors, and avionics.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests