F-22 AIRST

Is there any info about cancelled Raptor IRST? Is there any chance F-22 even get IRST?

Buy a few new-build F-15SA+ (w/ AGP-82, etc) for USAF and simply equip with IRST (as well as modern ECM capabilities) as 'escort' for F-22 in future. Call it a day.

or simply put an IRST on an F-22. call it a day.

Internal? External pod -- a la F-35-type multi-use LO pod?

IOC by ??

I'm going to stick my neck out in saying our fundamental approach to solving such recap/modernization problems is probably in disagreement.

You apparently tend to say 'stay the course', push ahead (rigid mindset) with Plan A no matter the cost or delay, come hell or high water (or catastrophic TACAIR implosion)... while others more critical in their assessments are simply arguing... Ok, do that, just also ensure absolutely that there is a credible stopgap solution (hedge) to 'augment' an unexpectedly insufficient (and potentially uncertain/risky) plan A.

Which is only 'necessary' sadly (as a last-resort), due to a fundamentally flawed (anti-seamless and unsustainable) modernization and recap/acquisition process being implemented still today.

Given more strategic planning and prudent process though, there would most likely be more balanced and sensible upgrade, life-extension and new-build procurement in actual benefit to national defense and security policy. God speed.

Well you got all the right buzzwords in there. Unfortunately you forgot the biggest problem when it comes to planning: the politicians.

Very true... invariably, 'politicians' will likely throw a wrench into such an epic and historic multi-decade-conceived MICC Program cluster such as the F-35.

Which of course 'should have' been part of the 'original' calculations (calculus) by top brass deciders too, when pulling the trigger on an effective and prudent TACAIR recap/modernization plan back in the late 90s and even into the late 2000s? Just my view at least. God speed.

Which is only 'necessary' sadly (as a last-resort), due to a fundamentally flawed (anti-seamless and unsustainable) modernization and recap/acquisition process being implemented still today.

Given more strategic planning and prudent process though, there would most likely be more balanced and sensible upgrade, life-extension and new-build procurement in actual benefit to national defense and security policy. God speed.

Well you got all the right buzzwords in there. Unfortunately you forgot the biggest problem when it comes to planning: the politicians.

Very true... invariably, 'politicians' will likely throw a wrench into such an epic and historic multi-decade-conceived MICC Program cluster such as the F-35.

Which of course 'should have' been part of the 'original' calculations (calculus) by top brass deciders too, when pulling the trigger on an effective and prudent TACAIR recap/modernization plan back in the late 90s and even into the late 2000s? Just my view at least. God speed.

"MICC"? That explains a lot.

Internal? External pod -- a la F-35-type multi-use LO pod?

IOC by ??

Indeed your plan of developing (IOC by ??) and fielding a credible force of advanced F-15s is far better/cheaper/faster.

I'm going to stick my neck out in saying our fundamental approach to solving such recap/modernization problems is probably in disagreement.

I admit I can't match your buzzwords

You apparently tend to say 'stay the course', push ahead (rigid mindset) with Plan A no matter the cost or delay, come hell or high water

Yes, my opinion is not at all based on logically comparing the alternatives.

(or catastrophic TACAIR implosion)...

such a flair for the dramatic.

while others more critical in their assessments are simply arguing... Ok, do that, just also ensure absolutely that there is a credible stopgap solution (hedge) to 'augment' an unexpectedly insufficient (and potentially uncertain/risky) plan A.

is that what you think you are doing? because your "arguments" have been proven false time and time again on a myriad of threads on this board. moreover, many times you have been called out on the claims you make, both the hard facts and the dramatics ("tacair implosion"!!) Several times, your alternatives have been explored, and no matter how many times you repeat the formula it has never worked, at which point you disappear for a month or two before returning to spew the same stuff, often verbatim. We get it, there is a seemingly infinite amount of upgrades and developments that could be applied older aircraft, should the desire exist. But the demand isn't there. We know that upsets you because it can't "Revitalize us TACAIR" as you always say.

If you really want to look at this as "more critical in their assessments are simply arguing... Ok, do that, just also ensure absolutely that there is a credible stopgap solution (hedge) to 'augment' an unexpectedly insufficient (and potentially uncertain/risky) plan A."

Its been explored, time and time again. And if you compare it fairly,and lay off the bold claims (Tomcats are cheaper) and dramatics (Tacair implosion!) And actually look its fairly clear.

So what is the cost, entry date, and numbers of these advanced variant F-15s that would "hedge" the F-22 getting an IRST? how does the advanced F-15 "escort" the super cruising F-22s? why does it make sense to by a whole separate fleet of aircraft rather than add one feature to the fighter that actually needs the upgraded feature? Wouldn't the advanced F-15s simply be used to replace the older F-15s still in service, Many F-15s that aren't even stationed near F-22s? Wouldn't the F-22 still need upgrades in order to coordinate and share data with the new F-15s to make the most of the F-15 IRST? Why even suggest advanced F-15s? how is that being "more critical in their assessments"?

You apparently tend to say 'stay the course', push ahead (rigid mindset) with Plan A no matter the cost or delay, come hell or high water (or catastrophic TACAIR implosion)... while others more critical in their assessments are simply arguing... Ok, do that, just also ensure absolutely that there is a credible stopgap solution (hedge) to 'augment' an unexpectedly insufficient (and potentially uncertain/risky) plan A.

Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23362&start=45

Count-to-10 -- Let's say we compromise: Order 400 of those NAFT F-23 to equip joint USAF-USN Tactical command, augment with new build F-16, Super Hornets as gap-fillers, round off with UAV/UCAV + next gen stand-off and call it a day until 2035 =)...

...Hence, in my mind at least, the more relevant question should rather be a matter of the customer first and foremost satisfying it's respective recap requirements via 'good enough', affordable (sustainable), reliable, operational platforms on a timely schedule.
.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=257735#p257735

This updated revision would sound fairly prudent and strategic in hedging risk.

Who knows...maybe even USMC will be advised by policymakers to hedge risks starting in FY15, FY16?

An F-18F ASH-lite with CFT and a centerline Litening SE pod would be a considerably cheaper Hornet-replacement alternative than F-35B, let alone have greater endurance and loiter performance when operating in CAS role. Moreover, it's buddy-tanking ability wouldn't hurt either.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=24619&p=260357#p260357

If only USAF was procuring FBW F-15E+ today (essentially an F-15SA + APG-82 + PAWS II+ MLD(?) + Elta jammer(?)) as part of a stopgap recap strat... Remove the CFT, configure with centerline tank and arm with 4x latest/best semi-conformal BVR rounds + 4x AIM-9x if flying your described 1v1 DACT exercise. I would wager your USAF block 50 software would alert you to make a quick retreat upon assessing the disadvantage

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=188&p=261747#p261747

Actually, an FY15/FY16 with CFT (plumbing), new displays and new computer could absolutely be a valid play. CFT could naturally be integrated if/when available, perhaps in time for IOC.

The radar mode enhancements will be incrementally updated according to plan and requirements, of course.

Other bolt-on upgrades, such as Litening SE pod and off-the-shelf IRST pod would be as simple as 1,2,3.

Bolt-on MAWS/MLD upgrades would need to be developed and integrated as part of a follow-on option, yes. But an FY15/16 advanced Super is absolutely doable as a stopgap option.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=24737&p=261874#p261874

If only the Mitsubishi F-2 were still in production...

Add thrust vectoring GE-132, updated avionics, IRST pod, call it a day.

Perhaps a modified Gripen NG could fill the hole??

[/quote]

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=24319&p=264974#p264974

and the latest from this thread:

Buy a few new-build F-15SA+ (w/ AGP-82, etc) for USAF and simply equip with IRST (as well as modern ECM capabilities) as 'escort' for F-22 in future. Call it a day.

Here is from all the way back in 2008:

Great post, host. Now we're debating.. and I appreciate your personal perspective.

I'd agree and have posted similar tunes in the short time here already on the current need to re-examine new factors and think outside the box. And the post-cold-war, mid-90s JSF dream machine, bringing happily ever after wealth and security until 2045, etc etc. was unfortunately very locked in a box origin, I'm afraid.

I'm not going to make statements on precise technical aspects of things, as it's not my field, but agree one could study such a 'hypothetical' realistically and I personally don't think it's too late to reconsider.

I'd vote for more F-22 at expense of USAF F-35A (as long as F-22 is truly cost-effective and reliable which is classified of course). But I'd admit if I were wrong on F-35 too, later on. (Just as RAAF was probably wrong on wanting RA-5C vigilante over the F-111)?

But I'd think a tailless, F-16XL type, vectoring, AESA with the best off-the-shelf avionics/radar/engine, etc, could indeed match %95 of the F-35 and deter any Su-30 to boot. Besides it would look pretty badass! But even an updated XL with the tail-on, or Block 60/IN variant, F-15SG type Eagle could be valid, modern 'complement' to fewer than preferred F-35 orders in future scenario. IMO.

Heck, could one imagine a tailless, delta-winged, F-111 w/ 2-D LON vectoring, LO inlet, (V)4, composite material/body and 2x GE-132 ? World class interceptor, or strike bomber at perhaps %25 of JSF development costs?

Lastly, DoD def can't be skimping on the 'deployed' A-A weapons part of equation, as is seemingly secondary to the sexy platforms.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=10151&p=122226#p122226

Call it a godpeed revitalized hedge day tacair?

I think Martin Marietta was supposed to deliver the IRST system for F-22 and the contract for that was made in 1992. A test system was supposed to be delivered by 1997. This is almost exactly the same time frame as for Pirate IRST sensor for Eurofighter Typhoon. Pirate IRST is supposed to be a scanning system with 768 pixel detector. I think I've read somewhere that F-22 system was also supposed to be scanning array as those had superior performance (especially resolution) compared to staring arrays of that time. Staring arrays really took off some years later. I think F-22 system might have been roughly equal to Pirate IRST in performance. I doubt the production technology of that time would've allowed much superior performance than that.

The AIRST started out as a multi-color IRST but was simplified to a single color IRST before it was cut from the program. The location on the prototype was to be on the wing roots but was moved to a chin location similar to what the F-35 has. I do agree that it'd be way more cost effective to add it back in in a future upgrade then buying a bunch of off the shelf 4th gen jets. Not only would that be more expensive (especially in life cycle costs) but they'd have to stay far behind the F-22s and as a result the data they provide may be of limited use to the Raptors. Detection ranges would be close to the F-22s, tracks may be beyond the ranges where they can be ID' etc. Space, power and cooling are already installed on the jets. Theoretically all would be required is the IRST itself, a aero/LO housing (the latter already tested) and a software upgrade. I do think this should be a priority upgrade for the F-22 fleet, hopefully in increment 3.3.

Is there any info about cancelled Raptor IRST? Is there any chance F-22 even get IRST?

Apparently there's the space, it might come in 2020s.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997

An IR search and track (IRST) system was part of the original ATF requirement. It was deleted during dem/val, but the Avionics Directorate of the USAF Wright Laboratories has continued its development with Lockheed Martin as the contractor, and space, weight, power and cooling provisions for IRST are still on the aircraft. A low-observable IRST window for the F-22 was tested for stealth and durability last year. IRST is valuable for raid assessment, because of its high angular resolution. It is also useful against tactical ballistic missiles, and it can double as a thermal imaging system for ground attack.

Apparently there's the space, it might come in 2020s.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997

That article is an old. In terms of IRST for the F-22, I do not believe it will get one yet will instead use other methods...

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ricks.aspx

One thing the jets could not share is the F-35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), the diamond-shaped wedge under the F-35’s “chin” that provides many of the visual and infrared sensors other jets must carry in pods. Though the Air Force is considering an infrared search and track (IRST) system for the F-22 to help it better see stealthy adversaries, Merchant said, “we really don’t have the real estate” in the same location on the F-22. “We’re looking at other options.” He was unable to elaborate due to classification.

I'm guessing that will use the existing AN/AAR-56 and improve some of its hardware and software to make it more "DAS-ish" like the F-35. Rather than superimposing an image on a HMD, it will be used for cueing, tracking, and ID at certain ranges.

More things for the F-22 as well.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/10/1 ... rnization/

Maybe they could use dual IRSTs and put them where the side arrays were going to be. (They saved the space.)

Just substitute a F-35 for the F-15SA.

The F-22 isn't going anywhere, and its doubtful that even when retired, you'll see it in the boneyard.

2019 is a BIG year for Raptor upgrades: More capable AIM-9x and integration of the AIM-120D are tangible, concrete examples that people can comprehend. Less concrete are the associated software upgrades the aircraft is going through, along with various sensors. You heard a USAF higher up saying they "didn't have the real estate" for something like DAS, but even more importantly he said they were looking at other options. So nobody is giving up on that idea, and there may well be an even better solution for the Raptor in the future.

Not going anywhere, far from it. New build legacy jets aren't the answer either, and those in the know are aware of that fact. It'll be upgraded F-22's and 35's in a future high end fight, and although we're short on F-22 numbers they'll still play a key role in any future (large scale) conflict..

The F-22 isn't going anywhere, and its doubtful that even when retired, you'll see it in the boneyard.

2019 is a BIG year for Raptor upgrades: More capable AIM-9x and integration of the AIM-120D are tangible, concrete examples that people can comprehend. Less concrete are the associated software upgrades the aircraft is going through, along with various sensors. You heard a USAF higher up saying they "didn't have the real estate" for something like DAS, but even more importantly he said they were looking at other options. So nobody is giving up on that idea, and there may well be an even better solution for the Raptor in the future.

Not going anywhere, far from it. New build legacy jets aren't the answer either, and those in the know are aware of that fact. It'll be upgraded F-22's and 35's in a future high end fight, and although we're short on F-22 numbers they'll still play a key role in any future (large scale) conflict..

The exact quote was "we really don't have the real estate in the same location," and that was referencing EOTS, not DAS.

Apparently there's the space, it might come in 2020s.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997

That article is an old. In terms of IRST for the F-22, I do not believe it will get one yet will instead use other methods...

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ricks.aspx

One thing the jets could not share is the F-35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), the diamond-shaped wedge under the F-35’s “chin” that provides many of the visual and infrared sensors other jets must carry in pods. Though the Air Force is considering an infrared search and track (IRST) system for the F-22 to help it better see stealthy adversaries, Merchant said, “we really don’t have the real estate” in the same location on the F-22. “We’re looking at other options.” He was unable to elaborate due to classification.

I'm guessing that will use the existing AN/AAR-56 and improve some of its hardware and software to make it more "DAS-ish" like the F-35. Rather than superimposing an image on a HMD, it will be used for cueing, tracking, and ID at certain ranges.

More things for the F-22 as well.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/10/1 ... rnization/

Then I wonder, what happened to that empty bay under the chin? Multiple sources, including AvWeek, Aronstein's ATF book, pointed to extra space designed for IRST in the future.

I know giving DAS capabilities to MLD was always something planned but it won't have the resolution of dedicated IRST at long range because of FOV.

Also, looking at Lockheed's NATF design, it also had IRST under the nose.