The UK reveals F22 knock off

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

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 793
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post18 Jul 2018, 18:11

Corsair1963 wrote:High and Fast is overrated.......

Other than the large benefits it offers in BVR, sure
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5609
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Jul 2018, 21:44

No buck, no Buck Rogers.


Not gonna happen
Choose Crews
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jul 2018, 22:54

The UK will make it happen for industrial/technology reasons alone so the politicians will make the investment and the announcement went well in the UK Parliament with all parties expressing approval as they can see the job dividend from it. Initially it will be a stealthy aircraft with Typhoon innards to save time but one interesting detail is they plan to eventually have directed energy weapons which would be a first. Without waiting for the French/Germans/Italians/Spaniards to all agree by committee development could actually be quite rapid by Eurofighter standards.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... r-strategy
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... the-future
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... challenges
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5609
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 Jul 2018, 00:53

marsavian wrote:The UK will make it happen for industrial/technology reasons alone so the politicians will make the investment and the announcement went well in the UK Parliament with all parties expressing approval as they can see the job dividend from it. Initially it will be a stealthy aircraft with Typhoon innards to save time but one interesting detail is they plan to eventually have directed energy weapons which would be a first. Without waiting for the French/Germans/Italians/Spaniards to all agree by committee development could actually be quite rapid by Eurofighter standards.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... r-strategy
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... the-future
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... challenges



The UK has proven many many times, that there is such a thing as too high a price on defense. Its the honey moon phase.
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jul 2018, 04:09

The current UK Government can't adequately fund the Armed Forces today. So, why should we believe they could with such an ambitious 6th Generation Fighter Project??? (i.e. Tempest)

:|
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Jul 2018, 10:59

I could be wrong but I think the private companies involved will build a prototype for this project like the EAP and leave the actual procurement for the government at a time of its choosing. Basically about 130+ Typhoons will have to be replaced from 2040+ and it does not currently appear that it is the UK's wish to do this with F-35A. By that time all the current 138 F-35B proposed order should have been filled so there will be money available then for the Typhoon replacement.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2381
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jul 2018, 18:17

Long, long way to go for this tempest thing. Futuristic shape, but we've seen it before..

As for the Mirage 4000, I always liked that one. No idea how much more capable it was vs. the 2000, but looked the part. Looking at its demo though it appears sluggish, vs. the recent F-35 RIAT demo. Whoa.

Impressive :)
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1943
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post19 Jul 2018, 21:56

I'm thinking if Mirage 4000 looked like Rafale it might have inspired sales.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2381
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post20 Jul 2018, 12:14

madrat wrote:I'm thinking if Mirage 4000 looked like Rafale it might have inspired sales.


How so?

Rafale strikes me as much smaller, and it's not really fair to compare avionics giving the Mirage 4000 was 25 years ago. IMO, the 4000 looked very capable, although flying with 6 IR missiles made me wonder about its BVR capabilities. It looked big, with excellent range and lots of room for growth in that nose. Give her a big radar, BVR missiles and powerful motors and it had potential IMO. I'd imagine Saudi Arabia, perhaps even Israel and others (Australia) would have given it a serious look.

End of the day though it would have to represent around a 25% improvement in combat capability vs. the Mirage 2000, while only being marginally more expensive. Perhaps that's where they fell down on the matter...?
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post21 Jul 2018, 10:47

I love the Raptor but one of the few things I don't like about it is the fact that it is so darn hard to upgrade. It's as if the F-15 and F-16 are more up-gradable than the F-22, Why is that?

Sometimes I think its a victim of it's own prowess, its so good that you can afford to keep it as plain as it was in 2009 and it would beat fighters in 2030, it made the Aim-9M a real threat and the gun a real option again.

But It looks like the Brits will take a page off from that learning curve and make the Tempest with modular MCC, maybe even sensor packages. I wonder if even the airframe will be modular. One can carry more weapons internally, one has nore fuel, one can perform better etc.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 793
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post22 Jul 2018, 19:14

zero-one wrote:I love the Raptor but one of the few things I don't like about it is the fact that it is so darn hard to upgrade. It's as if the F-15 and F-16 are more up-gradable than the F-22, Why is that?


Software
Offline

lrrpf52

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 01:52

Unread post30 Jul 2018, 00:36

zero-one wrote:I love the Raptor but one of the few things I don't like about it is the fact that it is so darn hard to upgrade. It's as if the F-15 and F-16 are more up-gradable than the F-22, Why is that?

Sometimes I think its a victim of it's own prowess, its so good that you can afford to keep it as plain as it was in 2009 and it would beat fighters in 2030, it made the Aim-9M a real threat and the gun a real option again.

But It looks like the Brits will take a page off from that learning curve and make the Tempest with modular MCC, maybe even sensor packages. I wonder if even the airframe will be modular. One can carry more weapons internally, one has nore fuel, one can perform better etc.

That's a new one on me.

I understand the opposite to be true due to open architecture designed into the aircraft from the start.

F-15s and F-16s still have independent LRU and component system box architecture for combat/nav/comms avionics.

The F-15 was the transitional bird in this respect by design, with the Programmable Signals Processor upgrade to the APG-63 PSP. That milestone in US fighter avionics set the stage for avionics architecture on the ATF and JSF.

You're still pulling LRUs on the teen fighters, although many systems have been upgraded into software-driven upgrades vs hardware pulls and BIT.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jul 2018, 07:49

lrrpf52 wrote:That's a new one on me.

I understand the opposite to be true due to open architecture designed into the aircraft from the start.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... cant-19420

While the Raptor is the most advanced operational warplane in the Air Force’s inventory, its computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s. The core processors run at 25MHz–since it took so long to get the jet from the design phase to production. Moreover, the Raptor’s software is particularly obtuse and difficult to upgrade–which is partly why integrating the AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles onto the aircraft has been so problematic. The jet’s avionics would have to be completely revamped for a production restart, not just because they’re obsolete, but also because the jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades.


This is difficult to understand for me, they upgraded F-15s with new avionics, computer boxes and all the wiz bang tech hardware, but why is it so hard for the Raptor.

will it cost them billions to create new computer boxes for the Raptor derived from the F-35's.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7752
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Jul 2018, 15:49

That would require them rewriting and re-certifying a vast majority of the software that runs the F-22. Then, you would need to re-certify all of the new hardware throughout the F-22's envelope. That is a lot of flight testing and money.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jul 2018, 16:38

SpudmanWP wrote:That would require them rewriting and re-certifying a vast majority of the software that runs the F-22. Then, you would need to re-certify all of the new hardware throughout the F-22's envelope. That is a lot of flight testing and money.


For $1.4B they're doing that for the F-16V.
The sensors, avionics and computer hardware that runs on that bird is in the same league as the F-35.
they're smaller and less powerful but the same generation.
You could argue that its 4th gen platform with 5th gen avionics and sensors.

They also did it for the F-15SA,QA,SG and others
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests