Warplanes Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The F-22 Mud Fighter

July 4, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is upgrading all of its F-22s to better handle ground attack missions. This will include modifying the aircraft radar to do ground mapping and act as an electronic weapon. The AN/APG-77 radar on the F-22 has been tweaked so that it can produce photo-realistic images of what's on the ground. The AN/APG-77 is an AESA type radar, which consist of thousands of tiny radars that can be independently aimed in different directions. With sufficiently powerful computers on board, the AESA radar signals bounced back to the transmitter can be reassembled to provide a very realistic looking picture of what's out there.

AESA type radars have been around a long time, popular mainly for their ability deal with lots of targets simultaneously. But AESA is also able to focus a concentrated beam of radio energy that could scramble electronic components of a distant target. Sort of like the EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) put out (in all directions) by nuclear weapons. AESA has demonstrated that it can disable missiles and aircraft. Ballistic missiles are another story, as they are sturdier (to handle re-entry stress) and have fewer electronics to mess with.

An F-22 with the ability to use its radar to identify vehicles on the ground is not a real big deal. That's because many less expensive aircraft can do the same thing. Targeting pods are used for this all the time, although the AESA radar approach cuts through clouds, fog and sand storms. But if this approach were important enough, an AESA radar and computers could be mounted in, say, a B-52, that could then drop missiles or smart bombs on targets it found.

Recently, an F-22 successfully dropped a SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) for the first time. An F-22 can carry eight SDBs internally. It was only three years ago that the 250 pound SDB into service, when an F-15E fighter bomber used one in Iraq. SDB is not just another "dumb bomb" with a GPS guidance kit attached. The SDB had a more effective warhead design and guidance system. It's shape is more like that of a missile than a bomb (70 inches long, 190 millimeters in diameter), with the guidance system built in. The smaller blast from the SDB will result in fewer civilian casualties when used in an urban area. Friendly troops can be closer to the target when an SDB explodes. While the 500, 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs have a spectacular effect when they go off, they are often overkill. The troops on the ground would rather have more, smaller, GPS bombs available. This caused the 500 pound JDAM to get developed quickly and put into service.

The SDB is basically an unpowered missile, which can also glide long distances. This makes the SDB even more compact, capable and expensive (about $70,000 each.) JDAM (a guidance kit attached to a dumb bomb) only cost about $26,000. The small wings allow the SDB to glide up to 70-80 kilometers (from high altitude.) SDB also has a hard front end that can punch through several feet of rock or concrete, and a warhead that does more damage than the usual dumb bomb (explosives in a metal casing.) The SDB is thus the next generation of smart bombs.

There was never any point in building a 250 pound dumb bomb, as they would be too inaccurate to be useful. So it made sense to merge the guidance kit and the bomb itself. But the superiority of guided bombs is such that the next generation of heavier (500-2000 pound) smart bombs will probably be like the SDB.

The air force sees the F-22, using AESA for finding a target for its SDBs, as a formidable ground attack system. One reason for doing this is that first 63 F-22s built are not able to handle another upgrade that will enhance air-to-air performance. Thus these F-22 "mud fighters" will be useful for ground attack missions, especially those that require some stealth.

Next Article → SUBMARINES: Yasen The Carrier Killer
  

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Herald12345       7/6/2009 5:37:50 PM










One reason for doing this is that first 63 F-22s






built are not able to handle another upgrade that will enhance






air-to-air performance.







 







For the less technically qualified, what does this mean?

















Its not upgradeable.










Herald




Herald,

 

I kind of figured that part out, what I would like to know is why. What sets it apart from F-15/16/18 series upgrades and will those first 63 be training/research aircraft. I really can't see the AF getting their moneys worth out an non-upgradeable aircraft. Sounds like another reason why 60-80 more would extend the fleet's capabilities.

The Block 30s are still better than anything else out there for the air dominance role. What you read here is that the computer networks for the first 60 or so birds are not easy to REWIRE to take the software and coding changes that the new telemetry and weapon interfaces require. That was a design BLUNDER. Newer avionics are supposed to be able to take the coding changes, inside the distributed computer network as SOFTWARE UPGRADES and simple card change-outs.
 
1970s solutions run into the 21st Century headon.
 
Blame LOCKMART solidly for this one.
.
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/6/2009 7:34:20 PM
The Block 30's also have an identical hardware problem to the earlier batch. 

The software issue is over and above the existing system hardware delimiters 
 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/7/2009 6:09:51 AM

As far as I can tell the only thing we really disagree about is the JSF program. We both seem to think more F22s would be a good idea for the US and that exports of the F22 are not going to happen. Where as I believe the JSF program will be cut and you seem to believe it is too important to cut significantly, owing to the international participation the program is supposed to be based upon. The very reasons you and I dislike Gates (and by extension his masters in the White House and Congress) is why I have every confidence the JSF program will be functionally destroyed within 12 months. They will make it look like our partners pulled out or find another excuse to justify the termination, but terminate it they will, IMV.

 

A political administration whom would turn on its international partners like these have will consider themselves to be under no obligation to live up to the JSF program's agreements. We will see as it plays out. I can tell you it looks an awful lot like 1976 right now with a socialist US Congress and White house utterly gutting the US military because they don't like them and they believe the use of force is always the problem and not ever the solution.

 

Allot of good work will be rolled back and allot of people around the world will die or be enslaved because of this.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


What's so bad about 1976? Had Congress become Democrat-dominated? I just checked and Gerald Ford was still president, and he was Republican.
 
Thnx
- cw
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/7/2009 6:11:13 AM

rocky,




I fundamentally agree with youm except for as you say, which way JSF will go.  From a partners perspective,  and from what we see from the USAF overall program manager, they're fully committed. UAS is a golden mile away from fulfilling core missions, and the integration issues are not trivial.  getting UAS to operate in prescriptive sanitised space is not the same as effecting potitive prosecution in complex battlespace.  Manned is here for a while.  IMO, JSF will be 2015-2030's F-16, F15, F/A-18 etc....




at the human level, I can't but help thinking that we're looking at an updated version of Carter.  I'd like to be wrong, as I have personal high hopes that Obama can rebuild some of the relationship malaise that has occurred over time with other countries.  But, people, like countries have motive, and political intent is often far removed from public portrayal.


I'm under the impression that he's Carter, but slightly more intelligent.
 
Quote    Reply

neiyold    Legacy F22 Issues   7/7/2009 7:18:25 AM
I have been, for some time, under the impression that the processor obsolescence issue was never fully solved.  That would seem to me to be related to a fundamental rewiring issue.  Bus limitations...  Though, now I wonder if it does not also have to do with a polytape if it is a *hardware* design problem, as I believe Herald said it was a 1970's solution...
 
And, the other legacy issue that I do not have any recollection of being backfitted to all units was the plumbing which shoved the bombs out at speeds above mach 1 or high AoA.  
 
Either of these solutions could be rolled back into the older airframes, but at a tremendous cost (especially a bus issue).  So there is my two cents and open curiousity.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/7/2009 8:25:39 AM

I have been, for some time, under the impression that the processor obsolescence issue was never fully solved.  That would seem to me to be related to a fundamental rewiring issue.  Bus limitations...  Though, now I wonder if it does not also have to do with a polytape if it is a *hardware* design problem, as I believe Herald said it was a 1970's solution...

The hardware problem that all of the F-22's is due to an 80's architecture that can't be modified - unless as I said before it basically is a new build.  ie looks like an F-22 on the outside, but on the inside is a completely different beast.  Those pushing for more F-22's either are oblivious as to the very real probems that this platform will have in sustainment at through life points, or they're ignoring it.  Eitehr way, you just can't do a component upgrade, its a systems issue 

And, the other legacy issue that I do not have any recollection of being backfitted to all units was the plumbing which shoved the bombs out at speeds above mach 1 or high AoA.  

If they can't effectively fix the core hardware issues, then the legacy plumbing and harnessing issues won't go away.  My view, is that a great plane was screwed from the start.  70's interfaces, 80's core architecture and married to 21st century digitised weapons systems.  The fact that it can clean up anything in its path says much about how good it could have been if it wasn't saddled with the core problems.  Lockmart screwed the pooch.  I suspect that the Executive  are more than aware of it and hence their rush to cap future builds.  Sustaining the existing fleet is fine, building extras in volume, having proper through life support  and critical warstocks of critical components is another story.  Again, JSF learnt some very very serious lessons about how not to get caught with architecture and interface obsolesence.  The irony is that the very testing processes that some in the old engineering fraternity have been subcutaneously contemptuous of - are some of the very reasons why JSF has a future and why F-22 will always have development limitations.  A few Defence Journos in "big name" publications should be hanging their collective heads in shame - as they obviously didn't pay too much attention over the last few years.  The tail coat draggers who have almost biblically parroted the same tosh on blogs and fan sites are even worse off. (it shows that they couldn't think for themselves and swallowed the spin a little too quickly


Either of these solutions could be rolled back into the older airframes, but at a tremendous cost (especially a bus issue).  So there is my two cents and open curiousity.

I seriously doubt it.  There are at least 3 variants running around now, and the cost to make them all sing and dance from the same page would have to be regarded as cost negative. The unfortunate irony is that this is a first rate platform that has had its wings clipped due to poor engineering.  As a rough parallel, its suffering from the same architecture problems that some submarine classes have gone through.

Add in this silly emotional hysteria coming from east asia about pretending to insist on getting access to it, well, you then have a 4th variant which would effectively render the existing platform classes "redundant"  Nobody is going to be redoing the architecture on the F-22, nobody is going to redesign he core as it means a full build.  We're not talking about board swapouts and new busses and a reharness.  It would be such a radical redesign  that it would effectively be another type.

again, the very processes that are being decried by some in the GAO and in the fan club open source debate are the very processes that are ensuring that JSF doesn't inherit the same development flaws.  The F-22 has paid big time for this.  No amount of spin changes that fact.

its a damn shame, as even with all these legacy engineering probs,  it still is the big dog.  imagine what it could have been if they hadn't stuffed up - I'd suggest that the original order stream would be alive and kicking.

Funnily enough the pseudo experts such as Sweetman and GAO has never picked up on this, but "we've" known for 5 years.  Another reason why trusting GAO's contribution to pr
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/7/2009 3:19:17 PM

This is preposterous and sounds like LM should be redesigning at their cost. Thanks for the post, if this is in fact the reality of the situation and the decision to not move forward with production is a result, I would be more supportive of the decision. I still feel that keeping the line open with another order of 20 planes would allow the option of forcing LM to find a solution. I can only imagine that the AF is less than pleased that their 350 million per plane, future air superiority fighter cannot be upgraded to take advantage of current technology. I am appalled at this information and the AF should demand a resolution.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/7/2009 3:31:02 PM

This is preposterous and sounds like LM should be redesigning at their cost. Thanks for the post, if this is in fact the reality of the situation and the decision to not move forward with production is a result, I would be more supportive of the decision. I still feel that keeping the line open with another order of 20 planes would allow the option of forcing LM to find a solution. I can only imagine that the AF is less than pleased that their 350 million per plane, future air superiority fighter cannot be upgraded to take advantage of current technology. I am appalled at this information and the AF should demand a resolution.


It did. Didn't you find it curious that LM wasn't lobbying for more F-22's and publicly shifted emphasis to the F-35? Remember when we discussed that before?

-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Mustang   7/7/2009 3:35:17 PM

This is preposterous and sounds like LM should be redesigning at their cost. Thanks for the post, if this is in fact the reality of the situation and the decision to not move forward with production is a result, I would be more supportive of the decision. I still feel that keeping the line open with another order of 20 planes would allow the option of forcing LM to find a solution. I can only imagine that the AF is less than pleased that their 350 million per plane, future air superiority fighter cannot be upgraded to take advantage of current technology. I am appalled at this information and the AF should demand a resolution.


Lockheed Martin stops lobbying for F-22

Bob CoxThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram

last updated: June 19, 2009 05:04:57 AM

Lockheed Martin will not spend any more time and effort trying to overturn Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision to halt production of F-22 Raptor fighter jets, a top company official said Tuesday.

After making a vigorous case for the F-22 with Gates, other senior Pentagon officials and Congress in recent months, Lockheed plans to move on and meet its commitments for other major defense programs such as the F-35 joint strike fighter.

"We had our chance to lobby this matter," Bruce Tanner, executive vice president and chief financial officer, said in a quarterly conference call with financial analysts.

"We think we had a full hearing of that discussion," Tanner said. "We are disappointed by the decisions, but we will accept those and go on."

Lockheed had lobbied the Pentagon and Congress for months to counter public statements by Gates and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that the Air Force did not need to buy more F-22s after pending orders for 187 planes are filled.

The company even bought ads in Washington newspapers and on bus-stop benches extolling the F-22's virtues.

 

...remember? 


-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/7/2009 4:01:53 PM
I have seen the article and remember vividly about our discussions, never would I have believed it was a backdoor admission of guilt. They should be held accountable, bottom line.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT