MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected  (Read 8056 times)

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« on: February 11, 2009, 04:58:01 AM »
F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
Feb 8, 2009

By David A. Fulghum

Hoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements.

Moreover, the U.S. Air Force is taking the fighter to the Paris air show for the first time this summer, says Larry Lawson, executive vice president and general manager of the F-22 program. The promise of additional U.S. and, possibly, foreign sales has removed any obstacles.

The problem confronting the company is that Raptor backing is splintered. Senior Pentagon acquisition officials want to shut down production to cut defense spending. Congress wants more production to keep aerospace industry jobs going. Air Force leadership is setting on a new minimum requirement for 240-250 aircraft (about another 60 F-22s) but hasn't made the new number public, apparently waiting to introduce it as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can't deploy until about 2014.

In addition, the secrecy-obscured question of just how good the F-22 is as an air-to-air combat design remains unanswered. It's a complex issue that involves the world of electronic surveillance and attack, information operations, network-centric roles and advanced radar. Right now, the F-22 is one of only two stealth fighters being flown. That may change in a decade as Russia and China introduce new designs. Advanced F-15 radars have a slightly greater range, but the F-22 can use its stealth to move closer to targets. U.S. aggressor pilots work daily to find ways to outmaneuver F-22s, but so far they've only accomplished a few kills, always by some fluke, says Lawson.

The F-22's newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as "better" than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble." By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.

Supercruise is at Mach 1.78 rather than Mach 1.5. Acceleration - although company officials would not say from what speed or at what altitude - is 3.05 sec. faster than the requirement of 54 sec. In nonafterburning, full military power, the Raptor can operate at slightly above 50,000 ft. However, it is known that the F-22 opened its aerial battles at about 65,000 ft. during its first joint exercise in Alaska, apparently using afterburner. There is also a mysterious admission that the range of the Raptor's Northrop Grumman/Raytheon active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has a range 5% greater than expected. That means a cushion of an additional 5-6 mi. of detection range against enemy aircraft and missiles.

Ranges of the new lines of AESA radars are classified. But they are estimated at about 90 mi. for the smallest (aimed at the F-16 radar-upgrade market). The F/A-18E/F and F-35 (with radar ranges of 100 mi.) are followed by the F-22 (110-115-mi.). The largest is carried by the upgraded F-15Cs and Es (125 mi.). By comparison, the range for a mechanically scanned, F-15C radar is 56 mi. according to Russian air force intelligence. U.S. aerospace officials agree that an AESA radar "at least doubles" the range over standard military radars.

When coupled with the electronic techniques generator in an aircraft, the radar can project jamming, false targets and other false information into enemy sensors. Ranges for electronic attack equal the AESA radar plus that of the enemy radar. That could allow electronic attack at ranges of 150 mi. or more. The ability to pick out small targets at a long distance also lets AESA-equipped aircraft find and attack cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and small UAVs.

Lockheed Martin also makes an economic argument for continuing Raptor production. The F-22 unit cost in a USAF multiyear purchase is $142.6 million (average unit flyaway cost). Initial unit cost of the F-35 will be around $200 million and then start dropping as production continues. In Japan, the decision to indigenously build small numbers of F-15Js and F-2s (a larger F-16 design) drove their cost to roughly $100 million each. The Eurofighter Typhoon would likely cost even more in a small production run.

"If the [U.S.] wants to do a foreign military sale or sustain those [high-tech F-22 production] jobs longer or wanted to keep its [stealth fighter] insurance policy in place longer, it would have an option" if it continued production until 2014, says Lawson. "We're hoping for a positive decision to keep production going and allow the [U.S.] administration the time it needs to study the problem further to make a decision about what the ultimate quantity is. If you build more, they cost less."

The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.

The speed of pilot training also has offered surprises. The first class of four first lieutenant F-22 pilots - with no experience in another operational fighters - has graduated from Raptor training, says David Scott, Lockheed Martin's director of F-22 business development. In addition, a second, full class of 13 pilots, just out of advanced jet training, has been selected for direct transition to the Raptor. Scott says the new pilots have far fewer habits to unlearn, and they adapted more quickly to improvising with the F-22's advanced network-centric capabilities.

Another element of the formula is that 183 Raptors - with production ending in 2011 - provide the U.S. with only 126 combat-coded (capable) aircraft, says Lawson. Of those, only about 100 would be operationally available. A fleet of 183 F-22s would require the Air Force to continue using 177 F-15s through 2025 for air superiority roles, and the end of production would kill any chance for a foreign military sale, he says.

However, if production were extended by three years to 2014, when planners hope the U.S. economy will be stronger, company analysts say the number of operational F-22s would grow to 180, says Lawson. They would be supplemented by the first 68 F-35s, and foreign military sales of the F-22 would become feasible, he adds. While Australia has definitely dropped out of the chase for F-22s, Japanese and Israeli officials say even a single squadron would provide a large boost in deterrence to other military forces.

Russian opinions of the F-22's capabilities vary from awestruck to dismissive, according to a Jan. 26 article in Pravda (english.pravda.ru/world/americas/107010-raptor-0).

The stealthy fighter poses a "great danger to any modern missile defense system," says Konstantin Sivkov, vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, with a "wide range of opportunities to defeat [air defenses]. Enormous speed . . . maneuverability and its airborne equipment . . . make it a very powerful and dangerous aircraft." However, the Raptor "should not be overestimated," says Alexander Khramchikhin, a specialist with the Institute of Military and Political Analysis. "It is radar-detectable and it is destructible." The Pravda article says the U.S. considers Russia and China as its "first and foremost threats [and] that the two countries may have "fifth-generation fighters during the upcoming 5-10 years."

Advanced air defense systems - called SA-20 and SA-21 by NATO and S-300 and S-400 by the Russians who export them - can only be penetrated by stealthy aircraft, say U.S. experts. The Russians note that their missiles are purely defensive (although that would be a tough argument to make in the Middle East) and that the S-300 is exported to a only few countries. In addition, the S-400 cannot be found outside Russia, and it equips only two divisions within the country, they assert. However, exports of such high-threat, "double-digit" surface-to-air missiles have been made to China, Vietnam and Syria, and are on order for Iran.

Lockheed Martin planners want to parlay the Raptor's operational enticements into support from the Obama administration, which would have to approve further fighter production by March. The pressure is on to find support for continued F-22 Raptor production of at least 20 more aircraft - for which Congress has approved long-lead funding - and as many as 60 total if the Air Force restates its requirement for the aircraft.

Some senior Air Force officials, while looking longingly at a larger fleet, think the odds are poor for funding beyond the next increment of 20 F-22s. They say internal Pentagon calculations are that Lockheed Martin has an adequate base with the C-130J and C-5B upgrades that will sustain their business while F-35 ramps up to a high-rate production of 110 aircraft per year.

Source
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml&headline=F-22%20Design%20Shows%20More%20Than%20Expected

Offline shawn a

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2009, 10:42:10 PM »
With the relative costs of the -22 and the-35, and the huge difference in the projected kill ratio, is there any logical reason to even produce the-35? Where can I find info on the projected weapons fit for the -35? I know the -22 can carry the SDB, and has pylons for external tanks which most likely could be used for weapons too. Is wikipedia a good source?

Offline shawn a

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2009, 11:15:26 PM »
I just got to wikipedia and one other site, and I'm still a bit surprised by the small internal load of the -35.
The Lockheed proposal for an FB-22 looks better to me than the -35, but I guess there's no chance of that now.

Offline F-111 C/C

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2009, 12:24:15 AM »
I think the two main reasons for the -35 are joint Service operations thru a common platform (Air Force, Navy, Marine versions) that the -22 doesn't offer and secondly, the Export potential of the F-35.
Wars are won by carrying the 'heavy iron' downtown!

Offline shawn a

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2009, 06:56:58 PM »
Yep, I guess the export part of it makes sense, if we don't give too much away in the process (offsets,tech transfer etc.) but when was the last time a defense program with the word joint in it developed as envisioned? I can think of JASSM, and Fat Man(it had the initials JANCFU on the nose). I bet even the tires will be different on each version.

Offline F-111 C/C

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2009, 07:15:52 PM »
The F-111 was supposed to be a joint Air Force/Navy venture. Sec of Defence Mcnamara had required the new 'TFX' be common enough to share platforms between to two services. Ultimately the F-111B Navy version didn't fit the bill for the Navy and was cancelled after 5 (and 2 partial) planes were built. I have some cool footage of an F-111B landing on a carrier and catapulting off as well. A lot of the things the Navy liked about the F-111B (wing sweep, Phoenix missile system capability) were implemented on the F-14. The 'commonality' Mcnamara required made good business sense (remember he came from Ford Motor Co.) but was pretty much impossible to execute due to the technology at the time. I think the F-35A/B/C has a much better chance of success.
Wars are won by carrying the 'heavy iron' downtown!

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2009, 08:49:36 PM »
Watch the F-35 to be used in the non stealth mode a lot you can hang plenty of goodies on that aircraft equipped with a 40,000 lbs thrust engine.  Basically going to replace the F-16/18 as a bomb trucks straight up and in the stealth mode open paths for the F-15Es that should be still flying. 

Also in the future some say the F-22 has them now stealth shape drop tanks and followed by long range stealth standoff weapons. 

Offline globemaster

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 06:34:59 PM »
did you see the show on history channel(DOGFIGHTS), when they simulated a 21st century bomb run? the f22 clears the airspace of all enemy fighters, the f35 then comes in and clears out all of the enemies ground based weapons, it seems to be an awesome pair of aircraft. can someone tell me how they project what may happen 20,30,50 years into the future?? I am not smart enough to think about those things that far into the future. :o

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 08:33:35 PM »
I missed that one but certain concepts carry over.   In basic terms if you can't see what's attacking you or at best see it very late in the attack profile, your going to take loses.   Stealth gives you that edge as well as future stealth weapons.   

Offline Cobra2

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 794
  • Country: us
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2009, 03:32:54 AM »
I saw that episode of Dogfights. Don't forget the B-1R with its 20+ long range AAM payload!

Also, the AL-1 Airborne Laser will play a large part. The Russians don't seem to be as interested in laser technology as the USA, however.

Aircraft going in to combat in waves is a smart way to do it. And the attack coordinated in that Dogfights episode was tactically excellent.
Confusion is also a key part in aerial warfare. The way the AL-1 wiped out those Su-30s was incredible, and then the F-22s finish them off. But again, you see how the F-22s had to cover the French Rafales, showing that the French are lagging behind a bit, and manoeuverability alone won't get you far in today's highly advancing technology. I think that as long as the USA keeps its tactics right, it should hold an edge in any conflicts involving air combat. But with space technology taking way, it's hard to say what will happen with that.

We even have, literally, super-weapons in their current form. Ever seen anything about HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program)? it uses high radio frequency, hitting anywhere in the world, by bouncing these concentrated waves off of the ionosphere (the higher portion of the atmosphere), creating earthquakes and other natural disasters anywhere. This could easily create high intensity environments where war, even air war, would be impossible and the areas inhabitable due to high amounts of radiation, etc.

Offline Raptor

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1388
  • Country: sg
  • What's the next big thing?
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2009, 10:08:01 AM »
Ah sweet. I always knew the designers couldn't be as stupid as so many said.  ;D

Stealth drop tanks seems a little odd, since you might be dropping stuff with stealth technology on places where it could potentially survive much of the fall and get into the enemy's hands.

Cobra-the Bones always had the capability to carry AAMs, it's only that nobody applied it very much. It seems stupid to use a BOMBER as a FIGHTER, after all, doesn't it? (i prefer to think of it as "missile-launching platform" and indeed it works well enough like that.

(supercruise at Mach 1.78. I'm RIGHT.)
-JCLim

Offline Raptor

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1388
  • Country: sg
  • What's the next big thing?
Re: F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2009, 04:38:43 PM »
Ah Webby, in view of all this, shouldn't there be just a quick fix to the F-22 section under "aircraft?"
-JCLim

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA