AMRAAM/HARM Replacement

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

hobo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39

Unread post01 Mar 2011, 18:07

But as you note, no, there is nothing really extreme or impractical about a 650lb AAM/MMM concept being part of a load-out (internal or external) and as you say, nobody is suggesting 10 rounds on an F-16. (although, 6x on a block 50/52+ or blk60+ could imho be assessed as an asymmetrical, force-multiplying stopgap)??



...and so we return yet again to you thinking a bigger missile would be cool. What about that exactly is "asymmetrical" btw? Building bigger guns, bigger missiles, thicker armor, or more of something are all classic symmetrical responses to a threat that in this case, doesn't exist.

You seem to love the idea of yet another fantastically expensive development program, provided it produces a missile suitably large for your imagination, but you haven't yet managed to articulate the fundamental need for such a weapon.

What the heck is it for? The US already has the best BVR missile in the world and has gone to work on its successor even while continuing to upgrade the current design.

Where is the need for an interim anything? What is the justification for spending billions on an unwieldy weapon that would be replaced shortly after going into service?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2121
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Mar 2011, 19:12

geogen wrote:
sferrin wrote:Why all the hatred for an ESSM-based AAM or an AIM-120 with a 10" dia. booster? It's not like there have never been any 600lb AAMs before. And it's not like anybody is suggesting loading a dozen of them on an F-16.


Fair point, sferrin.

I would concur w/ hobo though, that those who might be against the proposal (a requirement for an enhanced ESSM-based AAM/mulit-mission missile) are probably more in a 'critics' camp of thought.

What I was more frustrated over in the discussion though would be what one may observe as straw man and red herring arguments making up a large part of the 'criticism'.

But as you note, no, there is nothing really extreme or impractical about a 650lb AAM/MMM concept being part of a load-out (internal or external) and as you say, nobody is suggesting 10 rounds on an F-16. (although, 6x on a block 50/52+ or blk60+ could imho be assessed as an asymmetrical, force-multiplying stopgap)??

Moreover, it's not like Ground/surface launched missiles haven't been adapted for air-launch operation either. (e.g., AGM-78 ). And it's not like different seeker types haven't been adapted to common missile airframes. The latter example being a very common practice of course.

Just saying legit research for an 'interim' stopgap and/or hedge against JDRADM overruns/ineffectiveness, or delays, etc, could be based on an in-house program, potentially in conjuction with joint USAF/USN design funding too. If valid, then it could be argued as a viable independent (or if need be, an alternative) project.

Something which could come in far less than JDRADM and fielded 1-2 yrs sooner as a bonus. imho.


At this point in the JDRADM development, there's no indications of overruns/ineffectiveness/delays. The AIM-120D and D+ ARE the interim missiles, with perhaps an E model, if the JDRADM is late. You still haven't identified any capability gaps that warrant an entirely different missile.
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 358
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 18:59

This might sound silly but I have to ask this because I am not sure , is the RAPTOR optimized for JHCMS and AIM-9X ??
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 19:52

duplex wrote:This might sound silly but I have to ask this because I am not sure , is the RAPTOR optimized for JHCMS and AIM-9X ??


No and no. A perfect example of how LM failed to execute and allowed the program to whither on the vine when it became obvious that they were not going to sell that many, dragging out development for so long that many systems were dated before the plane was operational.

Because of LM's apathy and its small numbers, the F-22 is doomed to be the last airframe to receive any new weapon or avionics upgrade. It's always 1 or 2 steps behind the rest of the TACAIR fleet, which is one of the reasons it has never seen combat.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 933
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 20:49

1st503rdsgt wrote:
duplex wrote:This might sound silly but I have to ask this because I am not sure , is the RAPTOR optimized for JHCMS and AIM-9X ??


No and no. A perfect example of how LM failed to execute and allowed the program to whither on the vine when it became obvious that they were not going to sell that many, dragging out development for so long that many systems were dated before the plane was operational.

Because of LM's apathy and its small numbers, the F-22 is doomed to be the last airframe to receive any new weapon or avionics upgrade. It's always 1 or 2 steps behind the rest of the TACAIR fleet, which is one of the reasons it has never seen combat.


Wow, that's a pretty backwards understanding of how contractors work. LM isn't a charity, they aren't to do work at a loss just to be nice.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 23:14

Prinz_Eugn wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
duplex wrote:This might sound silly but I have to ask this because I am not sure , is the RAPTOR optimized for JHCMS and AIM-9X ??


No and no. A perfect example of how LM failed to execute and allowed the program to whither on the vine when it became obvious that they were not going to sell that many, dragging out development for so long that many systems were dated before the plane was operational.

Because of LM's apathy and its small numbers, the F-22 is doomed to be the last airframe to receive any new weapon or avionics upgrade. It's always 1 or 2 steps behind the rest of the TACAIR fleet, which is one of the reasons it has never seen combat.


Wow, that's a pretty backwards understanding of how contractors work. LM isn't a charity, they aren't to do work at a loss just to be nice.


Sorry, but I have no sympathy left for LM. A low sales volume is no excuse for milking development costs and doing a $hitty job. If LM had done what they were payed to do, buying 400 or so of these planes wouldn't have been a problem and they still would have made money. As it was, their incompetence made the F-22 into an easy political target.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 00:56

1st503rdsgt wrote:Sorry, but I have no sympathy left for LM. A low sales volume is no excuse for milking development costs and doing a $hitty job. If LM had done what they was payed to do, 400 or so of these planes wouldn't have been a problem. As it was, their incompetence made the F-22 into an easy political target.


Weren't Lockheed Martin highly praised for their ability to deliver the F-22 on schedule and moreorless on budget? Considering how vastly it contrasts with its supposedly better and cheaper replacement, I'm surprised that everyone seems to condemn such a remarkable fighter... and overlook all the schedule and budget problems plaguing the F-35.

We're investing our future in that, and not the other?
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 03:55

battleshipagincourt wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Sorry, but I have no sympathy left for LM. A low sales volume is no excuse for milking development costs and doing a $hitty job. If LM had done what they was payed to do, 400 or so of these planes wouldn't have been a problem. As it was, their incompetence made the F-22 into an easy political target.


Weren't Lockheed Martin highly praised for their ability to deliver the F-22 on schedule and moreorless on budget? Considering how vastly it contrasts with its supposedly better and cheaper replacement, I'm surprised that everyone seems to condemn such a remarkable fighter... and overlook all the schedule and budget problems plaguing the F-35.

We're investing our future in that, and not the other?


I don't care what some brown-nosing politician said at an LM-sponsored white-tie function. If you had been alive when the YF-22 was being tested, you would have known that it was supposed to have been operational in 1996, not 2005. The fact remains that LM either f^cked up, or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior. That they were able to hide this long enough to win the JSF contract is unfortunate. After what I've seen, I wouldn't hire this company to design so much as a wheelbarrow for hauling $hit.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4843
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 04:30

1996 was NEVER supposed to be the IOC date. When LM signed the EMD contract in 1991, the expected dates were as follows.

Start of LRIP: 1996 (1999 actual)
IOC: 2002 (2005 actual)

I am not sure of what the delay in LRIP was (design/spec changes, problems, etc), but I can dig up the info later.

EMD info:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02523.html

LRIP info
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 23-240.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 05:05

writing off one of the test aircraft might have helped.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 05:24

SpudmanWP wrote:1996 was NEVER supposed to be the IOC date. When LM signed the EMD contract in 1991, the expected dates were as follows.

Start of LRIP: 1996 (1999 actual)
IOC: 2002 (2005 actual)

I am not sure of what the delay in LRIP was (design/spec changes, problems, etc), but I can dig up the info later.

EMD info:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02523.html

LRIP info
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 23-240.pdf


Great, now I have to dig out some of the books I owned when I was a teenager. I think they're still at my mom's place, but it's gonna be awhile. I'm still 99% positive that the stated IOC back then was sometime in the mid-late 1990s, certainly not after 2000. Even if I'm totally wrong, it's still obvious that the F-22 took WAY too long in development, even had it been operational by 2002.

I'm also aware that attempts the to give the thing more A2G capability caused some delay, but I don't accept JDAM/SDM compatibility as an acceptable reason for taking 15 years from flying prototype to operational fighter. As a historian, I'm aware of programs with more technical hurtles that were still able to produce workable hardware in much shorter periods of time.

It's worth noting that, given what I know now, I still feel the DoD should have focused on finishing F-22A production and developing the FB-22 (along with a separate low volume VLO fighter for the DoN) while purchasing fresh F-16s and Superbugs for the rest of our TACAIR. :pint:
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 933
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 06:24

1st503rdsgt wrote:I don't care what some brown-nosing politician said at an LM-sponsored white-tie function. If you had been alive when the YF-22 was being tested, you would have known that it was supposed to have been operational in 1996, not 2005. The fact remains that LM either f^cked up, or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior. That they were able to hide this long enough to win the JSF contract is unfortunate. After what I've seen, I wouldn't hire this company to design so much as a wheelbarrow for hauling $hit.


Devoloping super advanced jet fighters using technology you (or anyone) has ever used before is always more expensive than originally anticipated. See Eurofighter, Rafale, Tejas, F-15... it's not a Lockheed problem, it's a universal government-industry problem.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post17 Aug 2011, 00:00

Prinz_Eugn wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:I don't care what some brown-nosing politician said at an LM-sponsored white-tie function. If you had been alive when the YF-22 was being tested, you would have known that it was supposed to have been operational in 1996, not 2005. The fact remains that LM either f^cked up, or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior. That they were able to hide this long enough to win the JSF contract is unfortunate. After what I've seen, I wouldn't hire this company to design so much as a wheelbarrow for hauling $hit.


Devoloping super advanced jet fighters using technology you (or anyone) has ever used before is always more expensive than originally anticipated. See Eurofighter, Rafale, Tejas, F-15... it's not a Lockheed problem, it's a universal government-industry problem.


I'm not a big fan of the way Lockheed does some things, but the Raptor's problems are not all their fault.

It was true that the first deliveries were supposed to take place in 1994, and Dick Cheney moved it back to 1996, cutting 102 of the production total at the same time. This automatically raised unit price. when you stretch out a development program or reduce total buy, it raises unit cost. It always does.

Then the Raptor ran into the "triangulation" strategy of the Clinton Administration as it applied to Defense. This was to not come right out and cancel a program they didn't want, lest there be political fallout, but to restructure said program so that the big money for the program wouldn't come due until after the 2000 election, when it's someone else's problem. Another strategy was to not face the music by blocking a weapon or capability, but to structure the program that it would be impossible to succeed. This happened over and over. Examples of the latter include the SSGN program and theater ballistic missile defense. Examples of the former are the V-22, Super Hornet, advanced AIM-120s, JSF and the F-22. That is why if you read documents of the late '90s, you see references to the "oncoming train wreck", referring to the funding requirements that would all hit close to each other after the 2000 election. And this was even before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

In addition, multi-year programs like this tend to be funded incrementally. In other words, you can only count on the program gong the way it's planned to go for each year alone. Everything could change the next year. This adds to costs. The constant stretchouts and reduced numbers procured also raised prices. It wasn't until 2007 that the F-22 program got a multi-year production contract. None of this even takes into account the byzantine ways Congress makes the Government buy stuff. People who haven't seen it simply can't believe it when described to them. This too adds costs. A Lot. Lockheed is not blameless, but the problem goes far deeper than just them.

Regarding JHMCS or any similar type of cueing system, F-22 doesn't have it because USAF never asked for it. The ability to use such a system was not part of the ATF requirements. AF was emphasizing stealth in preference to most else. In fact, early in the program USAF investigated the idea of deleting AIM-9 capability entirely, saying that they could reduce costs that way, and it wasn't needed anyway, since no one would get close enough to a Raptor to require such a shot. USAF also for many years opposed longer ranged missiles than current AIM-120s since their position was they'd always get close enough undetected that existing range was sufficient (besides a longer range missile, even an AIM-120 derivative, might not fit in Raptor's bay). When JHMCS was looked at for F-22, it appears there was a mapping problem with Raptor's cockpit preventing its use. One might argue that this was a Lockheed design-caused problem. One might be right, but can you really blame a company because its product doesn't do something the buyer didn't ask it to do? With such a small production run of fully capable aircraft, it's unlikely that a special HMCS system just for the Raptor can be funded.

Lockheed is not blameless, but it can't all be laid at the feel of an "evil" contractor.


Interestingly enough, Rafale is in a similar situation. Had it been developed to its original schedule, it would pretty much own the current fighter market, because it would have such a lead on everyone else. The reason that didn't happen was partly technical, but also a large part was that the French government chose to keep stretching it out so they could fund more social welfare programs, and others caught up.
Previous

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests