F-22 Raptor info

[Guest Blue]

Will the F-22 ever have capability to carry stuff outside the internal bay (i.e. on hardpoints on the wings)?

I thought I read something to this effect early on in the program.

Like they would only use the internal bays during the first days of the war, then once we had blown up all the radar sites, and the stelath was no longer needed, they would hang weapons out on the wings to be able to bring more firepower to the fight.

[Guest Apollo]

Yes, you can hang shit on the outside. I imagine

you'll see droptanks quite often for long ferry

missions.

[Guest Pogo]

"They"'ve worked out how to make external tanks stealthy now, they're part of the F/B-22 design, allowing a few pods under the wings carrying non-stealthy munitions inside. How they actually look probably won't be revealed for 10+ years though.

[ 10. March 2005, 07:01: Message edited by: Pogo ]

[Guest jraedy]

I'm an engineer on the Raptor program at Edwards, so I've taken more than the tour. We can currently carry two external tanks. The RCS goes way up obviously since they are not stealthy, but I don't know the numbers (not my area). This configuration will be mainly for ferry missions and CAP. LO tanks are supposedly in development, but they probably won't be reality for a while. (And no pods with freaking missiles inside. Throw me a fricking bone here, Pogo.) Four tanks was someone's pipe dream circa 1992; there are currently no plans for them, but the hardpoints are there, probably quite able to carry missiles. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them, but I can't tell you anything *too* specific. I think gimmeaplane knows some stuff, too. C17wannabe, is that JB you're talking about? Good guy if so.

[Guest Pogo]

The article that mentions the external stealthy pods is here

AFA.org article

[ 11. March 2005, 06:55: Message edited by: Pogo ]

[Beaver]

Do we have any light grey guys on here? How many of your guys are trying to jump ship for the F-22? Is it every dudes goal or what?

[EvilEagle]

I don't know that the 80/20 comparison is correct though Tumbleweed. There was no doubt in my mind that I wanted ops-to-ops, and everyone that has be doing well at LN has wanted the same. In fact, I don't think we had any C-model guys ask for a 22 from the Reapers yet. Maybe it's just a base-thing? I do agree there are a lot of guys out there that want it, but I'd say it's more like 50/50 from that group you mentioned (hard charging 1st/2nd assignment guys).

For my .02, I wanted to stay in the Eagle for WIC potential and because all the guys that are flying the Raptor (one of my TY classmates is finishing the TX now) like it, but they don't love it yet. They are show-pieces still and everything they do is under a microscope -- ask Shark Garner! I just love what I do, and love where the Eagle is going right now. Tumbleweed, good luck bro -- that is an awsome jet. I got ROLLED when we fought them, so take it easy on us old light-grey guys sometimes!!! ;)

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Before anyone gets too fired up...I'm just making my own biased opinions known here.

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:

Do you feel like it will be easier to get selected for WIC since many potential Eagle WIC candidates are going to Raptor?

It may get easier to get into F-15C FWIC but it won't be any easier to get out.

I imagine there will be an entire generation of F-22 pilots that will say "I could've gone to FWIC but I chose the F-22 instead." There will be very few FWIC graduates saying they could've flown the F-22, especially since they will eventually fly it anyway and likely be the FS/DO or CC before the guys that just went right away.

In the end, making it through FWIC is a far bigger accomplishment than flying the Craptor. There will always be fewer FWIC graduates than there are F-22 pilots. JMHBAO.

Evil, did you get picked up for FWIC yet?

[EvilEagle]

Tumbleweed: I know Magic, he's a good dude, but he wanted the 22 all along. He never wanted to go to another ops assignment, but he knew he wouldn't get a 22 right out of LN. He's the only guy that ever talked about it. We kinda leave him out of the picture... ;) There are a few of our former weapons officers flying. (Spanky at Tyndall, and I think one more somewhere).

I'm going to Mountain Home when I get out of this Maxwell hell-hole. (yes, I'm at 3-letter "S-word" right now and hating life!) I'm excited about going to the goat. I've got some buds out there and I really like the area. I don't think it'll be easier to get into WIC, there are so many talented dudes in the Eagle community right now. It's still an uphill battle.

Rainman: Nope, haven't been selected yet, still a hopeful. I actually haven't been eligible to apply yet -- January will be my first board, but really more like next summer class before there's even a chance. I'm truthfully shooting for the class starting in Jan 07'. I think that timeframe is do-able. (I hope!)

[FourFans]

OK...I know we're trying to fight tomorrow's war and be ready for the future...and the F-22 is an awesome tool for that. But are we supposed to be ignoring the war that we're fighting today so we can fund the war we might fight tomorrow?

I just notice how much the F-22 and the F-35 are doing for us in Iraq and Afghanistan and I wonder if there might be a better use for that money...such as more C-17s and maybe some C-130's that aren't broken...you know, that planes that are ACTUALLY doing things in theater.

Thoughts?

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by FourFans130:

OK...I know we're trying to fight tomorrow's war and be ready for the future...and the F-22 is an awesome tool for that. But are we supposed to be ignoring the war that we're fighting today so we can fund the war we might fight tomorrow?

No, but tomorrow is closer than you think.

Originally posted by FourFans130:

I just notice how much the F-22 and the F-35 are doing for us in Iraq and Afghanistan and I wonder if there might be a better use for that money...such as more C-17s and maybe some C-130's that aren't broken...you know, that planes that are ACTUALLY doing things in theater. [/QB]

So what do you do with the money that has already been spent? If you stop production the people with the skills to make those planes will go away. Everytime you push something to the right, you add to the cost. The eye-opener is how much money it will take to keep the Eagles flying (Last one delivered to the USAF was in 1989-1990) or to purchase more F-15E’s, if you push F-22 to the right, it may cost you more.

Originally posted by FourFans130: Thoughts? [/QB]

The F-15 initial operational requirement was for a service life of 4,000 hours. Testing completed in 1973 demonstrated that the F-15 could sustain 16,000 hours of flight. Subsequently operational use was more severely stressful than the original design specification. With an average usage of 270 aircraft flight hours per year, by the early 1990s the F-15C fleet was approaching its service-design-life limit of 4,000 flight hours. Following successful airframe structural testing, the F-15C was extended to an 8,000-hour service life limit. An 8,000-hour service limit provides current levels of F-15Cs through 2010. The F-22 program was initially justified on the basis of an 8,000 flight hour life projection for the F-15. This was consistent with the projected lifespan of the most severely stressed F-15Cs, which have averaged 85% of flight hours in stressful air-to-air missions, versus the 48% in the original design specification.

Full-scale fatigue testing between 1988 and 1994 ended with a demonstration of over 7,600 flight hours for the most severely used aircraft, and in excess of 12,000 hours on the remainder of the fleet. A 10,000-hour service limit would provide F-15Cs to 2020, while a 12,000-hour service life extends the F-15Cs to the year 2030. The APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and structure upgrades are mandatory. The USAF cannot expect to fly the F-15C to 2014, or beyond, without replacing these subsystems. The total cost of the three retrofits would be under $3 billion. The upgrades would dramatically reduce the 18 percent breakrate prevalent in the mid-1990s, and extend the F-15C service life well beyond 2014.

[Guest Hoser]

F-22A IOC

Hoser

[Guest Xtndr50boom]

Hey all. I'm pretty ignorant about how F-22s will deploy overwater, so a question I shall ask: Will the 22s follow the normal procedures of today with a tanker escorting a few of them to wherever? Or will they go supercruise by themselves (22s flying form w/o tanker) and meet a tanker at a certain point for gas like the heavies?

I know it depends on more than just gas, ie, weather radar, HF, divert options, etc, but still curious what might happen.

[Hacker]

Why wouldn't they deploy just like every other Coronet East?

The supercruise, while technically "saving gas" over a Viper or Eagle while going supersonic, isn't actually a *cruise* mode at all...it takes a sh*tload of gas to get them up over the Number, and a sh*tload of gas to keep them there. It's just that when compared to a Eagle/Viper, it doesn't take the *burner* to get there.

I think you'll find that the Raptors will probably fly at 310-350 over the pond just like everyone else.

[LockheedFix]

You mean FL310-350?

[Guest f16wolf]

I think Hacker means knots. I haven't personally crossed the pond yet, but will in a few weeks. Most trips call for about 15 refuelings for the F-16 depending, of course, where you are going. I've heard the F-22 can do it in 3. It's just a matter of fuel burn and capacity.

[Bishop]

Amazing!! 3 versus 15 refuels, is the F-22 some sort of Hybrid fighter aircraft? :D

But seriously aside from not needing burners to acheive Supersonic, does the F-22 have a bigger fuel tank, or extremely better fuel efficient engines?

[Guest Hoser]

I would bet that the Raptor would need more than 3 refuelings. When I've crossed the pond in the F-15E, which, with the internal, CFT's and 2 bags gives us approx 30K, we had to refuel 7-8 times. The reason being that, when in the middle of the Atlantic, and the nearest divert is like 700 miles away, you need 20K + to get there. So everyone would cycle on the boom to top off, by the time #6 cycles thru, you wait 5 min, and then it's time for #1 to get back on becuase he approaching divert fuel. Rinse and repeat for the next 9.5 hours.

Hoser

[rcharles]

Had a capabilities brief from a Raptor driver and he said it still takes afterburner to get going supersonic. They have to accelerate to something like 1.3 mach in A/B then Mil will hold supercruise. If they just barely go mach then take it out of A/B it won't hold it. I think it has something to do with transonic drag, but what do I know I'm just a hog driver

[Guest Sniper5482]

you are correct hog driver. drag increases exponentially after about high .8s or low .9s as you approach mach speed, spikes around mach 1 and then drops off again after 1.2 or so, but is still higher than at subsonic speeds

[M2]

There is already a debate on this by our elected officials (below), and a decent discussion going on here; but I would like to get the opinions of folks on this forum...should we export the F-22? Discuss...

Cheers! M2

Showdown Brewing Over F-22 Sales

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | John T. Bennett | July 22, 2006

Senate appropriators this week moved to keep in place restrictions that prohibit the Air Force from selling its F-22A fighter to other nations, setting up a conference showdown with their House counterparts who support the idea.

During a July 18 Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee mark-up of the fiscal year 2007 Pentagon spending bill, panel Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) confirmed the measure would keep in place the so-called “Obey Amendment.”

Tacked onto the FY-98 defense spending measure by Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the provision reflected lawmakers' concerns at that time about secretive technologies planned for the F-22A being passed to potential U.S. adversaries. It prohibits the service from selling the Raptor to any other nation. Obey is now the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.

For its part, the House last month approved an FY-07 defense appropriations measure that would allow the Pentagon to export F-22As to friendly nations when the chamber adopted a provision that would nix the nearly decade-old prohibition on such transactions.

But Senate appropriators do not appear ready to hand the Raptor -- and it's top secret components -- over to even the closest U.S. allies. Because the chambers' bills -- unless the full Senate amends the measure -- differ on selling the F-22A, the matter could become a contentious conference issue. The full Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY-07 defense bill on July 20.

During this week's session, senators from both sides of the aisle signaled their opposition to the idea, which has been building steam within the Air Force for several months.

Subcommittee member Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said the United States has “spent a lot of money on this technology to create air superiority,” and hinted it would be a mistake to allow a potential foe to take away the Raptors' advertised advantages by obtaining its technologies from a potential buyer.

That sentiment was echoed by another subcommittee member, Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO). “I would agree with that -- we're [at] the forefront of technology and I would be very concerned about” selling the Raptor to other nations, he said.

The looming showdown was set up after the House, in the form of an amendment to its defense appropriations bill, agreed to terminate the Obey-backed statute. The FY-07 amendment, approved late last month, was offered by House Appropriations defense subcommittee member Kay Granger (R-TX).

“While there was merit in including this provision in 1997 when it was first enacted, the provision has become unnecessary due to comprehensive safeguards enacted into permanent law under the Arms Export Control Act, which is vigorously enforced by the” Pentagon, Granger said June 20 on the House floor. “I believe this provision of this bill is no longer necessary to safeguard our technology.”

Raptor prime contractor Lockheed Martin has F-22A production facilities in several states, including: Marietta, GA; Palmdale, CA; Meridian, MS; and Fort Worth, TX, part of which is in Granger's district, according to a company fact sheet.

ITAF first reported in February that one top Raptor suitor could be Japan. A plan is being seriously debated by several Air Force general officers. A Japanese defense official has told ITAF several times that his nation is very interested in purchasing the F-22A as a replacement for its F-4 aircraft, and confirmed the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) has contacted both Raptor-maker Lockheed Martin and the Air Force about buying the fighter. Also on Japan's fighter short list is the F-35 Lightning II, U.S. and Japanese defense officials told ITAF this spring

Obey explained during the recent floor debate his rationale behind pushing the 1997 amendment, saying: “Because we had given away so much technology by selling other high performance aircraft -- F-15s, F-16s -- we had to regain our technological edge. So I said, ‘Well, if that is the case, if we are going to build the [F-22A], at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology edge this time.'”

The veteran Democrat said he is “significantly uncomfortable with” allowing the Pentagon to export the fighter and its secret components.

[FalconXtreme]

hell no, the last thing we need to do is give isreal raptors like we gave them 16s

[Guest Wxpunk]

I never thought we should've exported the F-15.

Our nation needs to stop giving up critical technology so that we can re-widen the technological gap between us and the rest of the world.

In short, I don't ever want it to be a fair fight...with anyone. Who's to say that today's allies aren't going to be tomorrow’s enemies.

Giving up the F-22 to anybody would be a catastrophic error.

------------

Wxpunk

[Rocker]

Why, so we can have money to build more F-22s (and ? Hell no. Build a bastardized version without RAM, thrust vectoring, or any avionics and different geometry and export it all you want. But it would be just political and stupid to export our version. Nobody needs them besides us.

[FallingOsh]

I agree with everyone so far, but I did hear a pretty convincing argument in favor of selling the 22.

I'm not an engineer, but I've heard reverse engineering the jet is close to impossible. There are features supposedly designed into the system that keep it from being taken apart and tinkered with in order to figure out what makes it work.

The second thing is that the avionics are arguably the most important technological advancement. Without avionics and a targeting pod, the f-16 is just a jet. If we sell the 22, the important stuff will be left out.

The third point is something I'm not very familiar with. Apparently the F-15s we sold to Iran, i think it was, were magically unflyable when they were needed. If the 22s were used against us or in a way we didn't approve of, a little red button could disable them before they ever left the ground.

So if they are sold without avionics, can't be reverse engineered, and could "accidentally" malfuction on the ramp whenever we wished... why not export a few?

[ 28. July 2006, 14:35: Message edited by: FallingOsh ]