Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

SpudmanWP wrote:

Ships in the med have ZERO chance of intercepting either LPI AESA or IFDL traffic from the F-22s.

Perhaps they might glean useful information on it's stealth signature?

F-16.net Sponsor

How would that be any different from putting those ships near Japan, the coasts of the US, or anywhere else the Raptor operates. The F-22 could always extend the radar reflector to screw with the results just for the fun of it.

I think part of the reason the Raptor has a reputation as a maintenance hog is not that it's more fragile than legacy aircraft. It's that the Raptor's diagnostics are so much better than anything that came before, they're fixing momentary system blips that weren't even detectable on the legacy planes. The blips happen, and probably happen far more than on the Raptor, but the Raptor sees them and reports them, and therefore "requires" maintenance, while there's no way to even notice those same problems on anything else, so no maintenance is done.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of aspects of the Raptor were inherently meant to reduce the workload and the level of maintenance required as exemplified in river otter's post on cars. The engines are a prime example. Everything from the Alloy C stators and augmentors designed to operate at far higher operating temperatures for longer time periods to the floatwall combustor that uses thermally isolated cobalt panels all serve to increase TBO, reduce the scheduled maintenance frequency, and improve performance.

SpudmanWP wrote:

How would that be any different from putting those ships near Japan, the coasts of the US, or anywhere else the Raptor operates. The F-22 could always extend the radar reflector to screw with the results just for the fun of it.

The reflectors are retractable?
I thought they were just jettison-able.

Not sure

count_to_10 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

How would that be any different from putting those ships near Japan, the coasts of the US, or anywhere else the Raptor operates. The F-22 could always extend the radar reflector to screw with the results just for the fun of it.

The reflectors are retractable?
I thought they were just jettison-able.

Not sure if this is meant to be a joke or not, but I'll just leave it at that.

And yes, this jet is very maintenance intensive. The diagnostics aren't nearly accurate enough, unless you've got a large amount of experience and are very proficient with the systems and how they're supposed to operate. It's nowhere near as difficult to diagnose a legacy jet, just because every problem has been found on them. As far as the Raptor, we're finding new issues everyday, but in order to find them you have to troubleshoot and understand how that part could be causing the issue. Most of the time it can be kind of fun, that is, unless you have to pull a shoulder bay Sad

.

Did you mean to quote someone else?

Why is it so hard for folks on this forum to stay on topic and the topic being an evolution to the Raptor. I see the evolution of this jet no different than any other high end legacy platform before it from the F-14, F-15, Typhoon, Rafale even the B-2 is no different. Something always gets left out due to cost or change in priorities. And just like these platforms each one reached the field with two tons of skeptisicm behind.

It’s sadly amusing how fatcat jumped in early stirred the pot and has left this thread to meander about like most others.

Well, on the topic of F-22 improvements, when do they get 4pi IR coverage like the F-35?

count_to_10 wrote:

Well, on the topic of F-22 improvements, when do they get 4pi IR coverage like the F-35?

No time soon which is why I mentioned the cheek AESA arrays. That would improve the secure network access issue while substantially increasing it's ISR, high bandwidth comms, surface mapping and air superiority capabilities.

Win, win.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

Hmmm, well there are a lot of high tech weapons, that have proven themselves time and time again.

In what evenly matched conflict have these new weapons proved themselves.
Tech is good so long as it is proven. No argument there.

What difference does it make how evenly matched the foe was? If the weapon worked as advertised, should that not suffice to demonstrate the capability? We're not talking effectiveness vs. ________.

Quote:

My marathon was more about un-necessary tech and assumptions it all will work in real world conditions.
New unproven tech replacing something proven that can do the job well to me is the wrong way to go.

Proven technology was unproven technology at one point in time. That's why it's rigorously tested, under harsh conditions to see how it will perform in real world scenarios.

wrightwing wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Perhaps not from the Libyan side but there would have been a lot of other interested third parties who would have loved the opportunity to gain precious intel on the jet .. this would include countries involved in the conflict and one or two outsiders.

I do not think there would have been enough time to smuggle the necessary hi-tech equipment into Libya.

I think one of the concerns was the ESM systems on the Rafale, snooping in on the F-22.

That and among others.

structuresguy wrote:

Why is it so hard for folks on this forum to stay on topic and the topic being an evolution to the Raptor.

Welcome to the world of F-16.net forums.

I guess I'm like you in that I can't stand off topic sh!t. Makes the topic that may be interesting unappealing because some will highjack the thread to talk about everything other than the topic at hand. I (or other mods) may not be here 24hrs a day or see stuff immediately, but when I do, I make sure the F-22 Forum stays on topic as much as possible.

Thanks for speaking up on that.

This new article is dedicated to the delivery of 10-4195 in the first place, but includes up to date information about planned incremental upgrades so it should fit here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... or-371401/

Accordig this AGCAS and the capability to dynamically target 8 targets for the SDBs will not come with 3.2B, but integration of AIM-120D and AIM-9X will be accelerated to introduce them before 3.2B in 2017.

Most notably and new to me is the planned addition of a new SMS. could this be based on the UAI?

Most notable to me is the exclusion of Auto-GCAS. If ANYTHING needs to be rushed out to the fielded aircraft it's this.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Some increment 3.3 news