Assembly Of Final F-22 Begins

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

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2431
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post04 Sep 2011, 20:42

From Code One Magazine. The final Raptor is taking shape. Should be delivered sometime next year.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=445

Image
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1373
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Sep 2011, 21:12

Cool, but depressing at the same time.
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post04 Sep 2011, 22:11

sadness
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 01:27

Definitely depressing (but at least the production line is being preserved, at least there's the hope of restarting it sometime in the future). Hopefully they'll get the O.B.O.G.S. problems worked out as well.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 02:25

FlightDreamz wrote:Definitely depressing (but at least the production line is being preserved, at least there's the hope of restarting it sometime in the future). Hopefully they'll get the O.B.O.G.S. problems worked out as well.


Four things need to happen before I would support the expense of restarting production, perhaps as a kind of "Superraptor" substitute to save money over a so-called 6th generation design (like the Navy did with the Superhornet to save money over the NATF).

1. IRST, the space is there, use it.

2. JDRAAM and associated SEAD avionics.

3. Tougher LO skin.

4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2431
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 03:39

1st503rdsgt wrote:4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.

I'm a gonna venture a WAG and say the mapping problem may have had something to do with whatever LO properties the canopy transparency has. Perhaps it was messing with the JHMCS EM field such that it had trouble finding where the pilot's head was? :shrug: Except for maybe the gold Viper canopies, the transparencies on the "older" jets (is the Super Bug old?) don't have a whole lotta LO stuff AFAIK.

But I do agree: If they're smart enough to build a jet that cosmic you'd think they could figure out how to track the driver's head. Perhaps using something other than an EM field?
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 04:01

If they build a new F-22 variant then I would aim for a niche rather than end-all do-all design that made the F-35 program so convoluted. I'd rather see a stretch performed, add a second seat, reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler, stretch the internal bay for much larger weapons, and gear its electronic suite for a tactical strike version.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 04:28

1st503rdsgt
IRST, the space is there, use it.

Definitely agree that should be in future block F-22/possible future builds. As far as tougher LO skin, I was under the impression that Lockheed was incorporating lessons learned from the F-35 into the F-22 Raptor? :shrug:
And madrat sounds like you're going for a FB-22 which I would like to see as well.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 05:20

madrat wrote:If they build a new F-22 variant then I would aim for a niche rather than end-all do-all design that made the F-35 program so convoluted. I'd rather see a stretch performed, add a second seat, reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler, stretch the internal bay for much larger weapons, and gear its electronic suite for a tactical strike version.


A strike version would be nice, but to keep costs down and increase usefulness, I'd rather see the F-22 become a dual role (SEAD and air-superiority) fighter with the simple mission of protecting other US aircraft from air and ground threats, no more, no less. This would remove the need to enlarge the airfame for heavy A2G munitions while also giving the F-22 a more valuable role in future conflicts where opponents will probably rely more on advanced SAM capability than on airpower.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 05:41

The B-1 is only going to hold out so long, its time for thinking interim solution that can be used for other roles. And the FB-22 idea is what I was alluding.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 06:19

madrat wrote:The B-1 is only going to hold out so long, its time for thinking interim solution that can be used for other roles. And the FB-22 idea is what I was alluding.


It comes down to costs and psychology. At this point, it's difficult to tell if the FB-22 would be any cheaper or quicker than a whole new aircraft, but that might not matter. A new medium bomber would probably be best, but when anyone says the words "new bomber" in Congress, everyone $hits themselves and the media has a field day.

Dedicated bombers are the best way to put a payload on a target, that's why they're called... "bombers." Even the Clinton administration wanted a few more B-2s. Given the advantages of VLO and the JDAM, I'm not certain there's really a need for a long-range, supersonic strike/interdiction aircraft these days, but the FB-22 might be a way for the USAF to get what it needs without having to use the dreaded B-word.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1373
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 08:44

2. JDRAAM and associated SEAD avionics.


I thought those avionics were already there in the form of the ALR-94 and datalink.


3. Tougher LO skin.


Why not use the F-35s?
4. JHMCS and AIM-9X LOAL, I'm not sure what constitutes a "cockpit mapping problem," but it sounds like a lame excuse when older fighters were able to integrate the thing with less fuss.


How about using the Scorpion HMD instead of the JHMCS.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4795
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 20:43

There is no need for mapping the F-22 (as any helmet would be a problem, not just the JHMCS), just upgrade the MLD to EODAS tracking (as this is already in the works).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 20:50

*sob* :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I wants more Raptor. Maybe the next Pres can convince Congress to stick in funding for a hundred more as they gut the socialist welfare state... :wink: :wink:
Offline

exorcet

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
  • Location: US

Unread post05 Sep 2011, 21:03

madrat wrote:reinvent the engine bays for the F135 because its simpler


Well the F-22 was designed to fly high and fast, while the F135 wasn't. To really get the best out of the engines, they may need to rework the shape of the plane, and that will only make things more complex. I say stick with the F119.
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron