The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The F-22 Mud Fighter
SYSOP    7/4/2009 6:50:54 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       7/4/2009 8:40:40 AM
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. 

this is just one of the things I have been alluding to over the last few months when we've had this ongoing fanclub commentary about export rated F-22's to japan and south korea etc....  it's not going to happen.  

the doom and gloom commentary re the JSF has been blissfully ignorant of the fact that the F-22 has sustainment issues which JSF does not - and is one of the very significant lessons learnt in the program.  

Tthe US isn't in a position to release the F-22 for export even if it wanted to - inherent design issues make supporting the existing fleet a priority over any notion to get volume.  In some areas they can't get extra volume anyway - and to get around it means more than just a block upgrade - it means a redesign.  

Congressmen like Inouye can bleat till the cows come home.  Its a DNS 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    JSF doom and gloom....   7/4/2009 1:14:10 PM
GF, your comments miss the point. The JSF program's problems are not technical in nature. I'm sure it would be a very capable aircraft if it is allowed to mature into a completed platform. The problem with the JSF is it is being born during a particularly bad time to be a defense program. Our nation is broke and the current political administration will does see the JSF as a pot of money to be reallocated to other favored programs. We have already seen the rumblings of these events begin here in the US. Expect more soon.
 
The export of the F22 is not in the cards for the reasons you have presented, but the belief by many that the F22 program should be extended is based in the reality that the JSF might likely be cut so far back that it won't be procured in enough numbers to make a real difference or be still born all together. In that very likely event it would be better to have a few more F22s when the JSF is cut or vastly curtailed than not enough of either aircraft. 
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/4/2009 5:52:29 PM
In that very likely event it would be better to have a few more F22s when the JSF is cut or vastly curtailed than not enough of either aircraft. 

Rocky, my view is that the US is unable to do a volume run on the F-22 anyway - the problem being that I'm not in a position to cite my reasons in here, and that means I'm left with a hollow defence of my position (based on the need to provide open source references in public debate).

I'm happy to stand my ground that part of the reason why the F-22 won't and can't be exported in volume is a convenient relationship between Obey, ITARs, Sustainment issues and existing development issues.

IMO, the article above starts to provide some public weight to my conviction.  Again, I'm in a fragile position to defend emphatically as I can't fulfill the general public "proof of life" test by citing material to support my claims.  However, I do think that it will start to filter out.

Even if the USAF wanted 400 x F-22's, I seriously doubt that it has the critical components necessary to do not only the build, but also provide warstocks on sustainment for the remaining 30+ years of platform life.  Exporting the F-22 is good for a congressman who wants to appear tough and pro-active for his particular constituency, but I think the ability for any of them to carry the day via public appeal (as the politicians usual vehicle of debate) is a "no-win" situation.

I'm a strong advocate of the F-22 (and I do think that  they should have had at least 300) but I think its become a victim more due to some inherent design, sustainment and development issues over the argument of "watching the public purse".

Personally, I think that Gates is the US version of Duncan Sandy.  The USN is about to go through the same grief, as it's apparent that the USN is next in line as he is visibly promoting a greenwater navy for the future.

Add in reduced air transport, reduced tankerage, the shutting down of the future manned bomber program 2 weeks ago - well, I think you start to see a picture of a man who's vision of future wars is linear and not realistic.  I personally believe he has taken an overly optimistic and simplistic view of americas military future.

as an outsider, I regard him as dangerous and more of a threat to US interests than the looney Nth Koreans 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/4/2009 6:33:54 PM
'just to add,

Gates publicly evolving "procurement jihad" has some unfortunate parallels with the USN

eg, his recent and more frequent commentary  on needing to go greenwater (and he has used that term specifically) ties in with the recent proposals for the "1000 ship navy".  ie that is a navy where multiple nations commit to work co-operatively in mutual areas of interest.  As a concept it has been promoted by some in the USN, has been exposed to "industry commentary" (ie other navies chiefs of staff) and has in a number of tier 1 and tier 2 navies, been positively commented on.  a number of tier 3 navies are also enthusiastic as it gives them comfort.  The premise of the 1000 ship navy is to cut down on individual procurement costs, have commonality, have greater interoperability - and get better bang for buck.

that strategy has been articulated in a number of recent US conferences I've attended as being something that can be migrated to JSF.

I have an overwhelming view and sense that  the political vehicle of how JSF is viewed by both US political parties is being ignored or not seen by the shooters and pro-shooter lobbys.  I'd bet my sweet bippy that the JSF is not going to get killed - as far as USG is concerned, JSF is aviations "1000 ship navy" in waiting.  
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    gf   7/4/2009 6:34:25 PM
as an outsider, I regard him as dangerous and more of a threat to US interests than the looney Nth Koreans 
 
You are 100% right.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/4/2009 8:25:42 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?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/4/2009 8:48:11 PM

gf0012-aust said: > 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.

mustang22 asked > For the less technically qualified, what does this mean?

the early F-22's have a design and systems difference to their latter build sisters.  it means that there is no such thing as a single spiral development path - it means that for the F-22, there are potentially always going to be parallel development issues - and that means the cost effectiveness of any enhancement let alone the technical capacity to effectively achive it, integrate it, is going to be an ongoing problem.

add in the fact that there are other future development issues involving this platform class - then the capacity and  enthusiasm to go out and effectively develop an exprt model is even more remote

unfort its a great plane thats been screwed from within (builder and a lack of discipline in engineering issues) - and thats made it an even bigger embuggerance when beancounters in the civilian authority checks and balances get involved.

If the US was in Chinas position, it would be a different matter. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Whispering Death       7/4/2009 9:33:04 PM
Okay, I'm not that smart so I need someone to help me out here.
 
Isn't it extremely expensive to maintain the RAM on F-22s?  In order to keep the skin in perfect condition is it not expensive in both time and money to maintain its stealth?  Do we know much more $$$ it costs to maintain the aircraft per hour of flight time?  If it is, in fact, very expensive to keep in the air, why the hell are we going to send out F-22 to drop tiny SDBs?  This reminds me of the kind of cost-bennefit insanity of Vietnam where the USAF would spend millions of dollars to fly B-52 sorties to the Ho Chi Minh trail to bomb carts of rice.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/4/2009 9:47:52 PM

Okay, I'm not that smart so I need someone to help me out here.

 

Isn't it extremely expensive to maintain the RAM on F-22s?  In order to keep the skin in perfect condition is it not expensive in both time and money to maintain its stealth?  Do we know much more $$$ it costs to maintain the aircraft per hour of flight time?  If it is, in fact, very expensive to keep in the air, why the hell are we going to send out F-22 to drop tiny SDBs?  This reminds me of the kind of cost-bennefit insanity of Vietnam where the USAF would spend millions of dollars to fly B-52 sorties to the Ho Chi Minh trail to bomb carts of rice.



 
 
I can't help re: the cost of maintaining its LO coating, because I have no clue about that.  However, regarding including the capability to drop bombs, it's not so that we can routinely send them to drop a few little bombs on the Taliban, for example.  It's so we can use them the way we would have used the F-117s we recently retired.  Because of their Very Low Observable (VLO) qualities, they are our first-day-of-war assets for disabling an Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), opening up the way for the rest of the USAF/USN to drop the majority of tonnage on the majority of targets.  It's called Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD), and it's part of an overall Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) campaign that opens the way into/through an IADS and keeps it open so the rest of the force can do its thing.
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/4/2009 10:26:15 PM

Sharpening the Raptor's talons

June 18, 5:57 AM
.iconpanel a { text-decoration:none; color:#006699}; .iconpanel a:hover { text-decoration:none; color:#006699} .emailshowing { display:none}
7 comments
RSS

This F-22 Raptor, assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, was purchased as part of the Lot 6 production contract- the first Raptors to be "hardware enabled" for the Block 35 capability. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Laura Turner) 

Currently in developmental testing at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California is the new Increment 3.1 upgrade package for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. This set of upgrades will significantly increase the aircraft?s air-to-ground strike capability. When fielded in 2011, these modifications will enable Block 30 capabilities for the Air Force?s small operational fleet of Raptors. All F-22s presently flying with the United States Air Force (USAF) are fitted with the current Increment 2 package, enabling a fleet-wide Block 20 capability.

Increment 3.1, which is the first of three incremental upgrades programmed for the Raptor, is well into developmental testing and is scheduled to enter its operational test phase with the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) at Nellis AFB, Nevada, sometime next year, says Cara Miller, Deputy Director of F-22 Modernization at the USAF?s F-22 System Program Office (SPO). The completed package, tentatively scheduled to become operational in fiscal year 2011, adds a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) mapping feature along with an Electronic Attack (EA) capability to aircraft, Miller said.

The Northrop Grumman-built APG-77 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is composed of thousands of transmitter/receiver elements that replace the traditional mechanically scanned dish found in older radar systems. This new type of antenna allows the radar to scan in multiple modes simultaneously and offers precise control of the radar?s scanning beams. The addition of a SAR mapping capability will allow the Raptor to make detailed photograph-like images of the terrain below, significantly increasing the F-22?s air-to-ground strike potential. SAR mapping will also afford Raptor pilots the ability to designate their own ground targets on the fly, a capability currently not found on the F-22.

A production Lot 6 F-22 Raptor assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Laura Turner) 

The EA feature, meanwhile, will allow the F-22 to attack an enemy?s radar systems. This is made possible by the AESA?s precision radar beam focusing ability and improved threat emitter geo-location capability afforded by improved passive sensor systems. The radar would focus its energy on a threat radar emitter, either jamming it, or potentially even physically damaging the enemy hardware. The integration of additional radar processing power was required for the Increment 3.1 upgrade, said Doug Ebersole, F-22 Technical Director at the F-22 SPO.

Lastly, Increment 3.1 introduces the capability for the Raptor to carry the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), Miller said. The SDB is a small precision-guided 250 lbs glide bomb, which allows the Raptor the ability to strike targets at standoff ranges. Another benefit of the SDB, largely due its small warhead and increased precision, is the reduction in potential collateral damage. Ebersole added that under Increment 3.1, the Raptor would only be able to strike two fixed targets with the eight SDBs the aircraft will be able to carry. A more comprehensive SDB capability is slated for Increment 3.2, he said.

The second major upgrade for the Raptor will be Increment 3.2, which Miller says, is currently in the planning stages. This package is focused on improving the Raptor?s air-to-air capability as well as integrating an advanced SDB capability.

As currently envisioned, Miller said Increment 3.2 will include the integration of the new close range AIM-9X Sidewinder missile and the new long-range AIM-120D AMRAAM missile. The integration of the new AIM-9X variant will remedy the current lack of a high off-bore sight (HOBS) missile capability in the Raptor?s arsenal. HOBS capability is considered crucial in modern aerial combat as it allows an aircraft to launch a missile off-axis from its direction of travel. Many pilots have commented that with the advent of HOBS missiles, entering into a traditional visual range fight becomes an exercise in mutually assured destruction.

Two 525th Fighter Squadron Raptors fly in formation with a USAF tanker.(U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Laura Turner) 

Unfortunately, while Increment 3.2 includes a HOBS capable weapon, it does not include provisions for a helmet mounted cueing system (HMCS), which some consider as being essential. ?The JROC validated F-22 Capabilities Production Document, which defines requirements for all Increment 3 changes, does not include provisions for a HMCS. A HMCS may be considered as part of the post Increment 3 trade space?, Miller said. However, the addition of the AIM-9X will significantly increase the Raptor?s within visual range combat prowess even without such a helmet.

The AIM-120D, meanwhile, will afford the Raptor increased long-range firepower. The new missile generally offers increased performance over previous incarnations of the AMRAAM presently in service. Increment 3.2 also affords the Raptor the ability ?to dynamically retarget up to eight Small Diameter Bombs?, Ebersole said, which exponentially increases the F-22?s potential as strike aircraft.

Arguably, the most significant upgrade contained in the Increment 3.2 package is the addition of the Multi-Function Advance Data Link (MADL). The MADL is the primary data link for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, however, the system is being adopted to connect all of the USAF?s 5th generation and stealth assets, Ebersole explained. The idea, Miller adds, is to ?provide interoperability. At some point it?ll link the F-22, F-35, and the B-2 together?.

Despite the addition of the MADL, the F-22 will retain its own proprietary Intra-flight Data Link (IFDL). The one major shortcoming of the new MADL data link is that it does nothing to address the inability of the Raptor to transfer data off-board to legacy fourth generation aircraft such as the F-15s or F-16s except by means of voice communications.

Two Raptors assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron high over the mountains of Alaska. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Laura Turner) 

The addition of the new MADL data link will require the addition of new hardware to the F-22. Currently, Ebersole explains, the Raptor fleet consists of three configurations. The training aircraft at Tyndall AFB and a portion of the early operational test fleet at Nellis AFB were built to the early Block 20 standard. This group of 34 planes is capable of operating under the current Increment 2 package. However, due to their older hardware configuration, in the future they will only receive minor upgrades wherever possible, Ebersole said.

A further group of 63 aircraft, comprising the earliest production Lots of operational Raptors, were built to the later Block 30 configuration. While this group of aircraft will receive the full Increment 3.1 upgrades, these F-22s will not receive the full Increment 3.2 modifications, Ebersole said. He explained that these older aircraft are not ?hardware enabled? to receive the Increment 3.2 package. Ebersole added, however, that wherever possible, select capabilities found in Increment 3.2 would be incorporated into these machines.

?The selected capabilities from Increment 3.2 that can be immediately retrofitted into the earlier jets are software only updates, Electronic Protection, Combat ID, and Link-16 improvements?, Miller said. Retrofitting other Increment 3.2 improvements requires a ?few minor hardware changes necessary for AIM-9X and major changes are necessary to the Raptor's Stores Management System to accommodate these weapons?, Miller explained, referring to the AIM-9X and the AIM-120D. She added, ?There is a study on-going to assess the feasibility of pushing the weapons capabilities to the earlier jets?.

Captain Ryan Pelkola, assigned to the 525th Fighter Squadron, preparing for a sortie. Note the Raptor's internal weapons bays.  (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jonathan Steffen)

Ebersole, expanding on the issue, explained, ?The AIM-9X and AIM-120D are not currently programmed to be retrofitted into the Block 30 aircraft. These capabilities are enabled by the Enhanced Store Management System (ESMS) that is unique to the Block 35 aircraft. The Air Force and our industry partners are currently executing design trade studies to identify cost effective options to flow this capability back to the Block 30 aircraft without the ESMS enabler?.

The last 87 Raptors to be built for the USAF, starting with the Lot 6 aircraft stationed at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, have added processing power and are ?hardware enabled? to receive the full Block 35, Increment 3.2 configuration, Ebersole said. He emphasized that these aircraft are still Block 30 machines in terms of their current hardware configuration. ?There are no Block 35 aircraft yet?, Ebersole stated bluntly.

A total of 37 of these improved ?hardware enabled? machines have been handed over to the USAF at the time of this writing. There are 50 more planes still on order before production of the Raptor is scheduled to end in 2011. These 87 improved aircraft will still require ?some hardware retrofits? when being upgraded to the Increment 3.2 capability, Ebersole explained. The addition of the MADL data link, for example, is one such system that will require additional hardware modifications. It is important to note that all F-22s currently operational with the USAF are Increment 2 enabled aircraft operating with Block 20 level capability.

While Increment 3.2 is in the planning stages, the even more advanced Increment 3.3 is in the notional pre-planning phases. ?It?s way out there?, Miller said, explaining that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which is charged with validating capability requirements for all the services, is currently vetting the requirements for this advanced configuration. Ebersole, adds, ?There isn?t any new revolutionary technology being considered, but there are new capabilities?.
 
 
Found this article, sounds like what you are referring to.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    LockMart screwed up the infomation system architecture.   7/5/2009 1:23:43 AM

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
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    LockMart screwed up the infomation system architecture.   7/5/2009 1:28:51 AM
In the second batch, like the titanium forgings problem, they fixed that problem as well. Its not something I thought the LM idiots would let go public. Backfix is too expensive.


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/5/2009 2:45:02 AM
Found this article, sounds like what you are referring to. 
 
 It does perupherally , but as would be expected - not all of it.



 

 

 

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    oops, typo, no I'm not a kiwi...   7/5/2009 2:55:47 AM

Found this article, sounds like what you are referring to. 

Should be:

It does peripherally , but as would be expected - not all of it.








 



 



 



 



 











 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       7/5/2009 9:20:04 AM




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.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy