Possibility of F-22 production re-start?

[Rhino power]

HASC directs USAF to look at Raptor production re-start! | Combat Aircraft (http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/04/19/hasc-directs-usaf-to-look-at-raptor-production-re-start/)

Could this be a tacit admission that someone thinks that the F-35 ain't actually gonna be 'all that'?

-RP

[GlobalNav]

Have to do some research. How much did we pay to shut the line down? The tooling was not mothballed was it? Presumably we have the drawings, but otherwise it be starting from scratch? Good luck with this.

[Rhino power]

The tooling was not mothballed was it? Presumably we have the drawings...

I remember reading several years ago that the tooling/jigs etc, were stored (very securely) at an Army(?) storage facility...

-RP

[GlobalNav]

RP. Thank you. I had heard differently, but if you are correct, great! Having experienced labor for the manufacturing process will likely be hard to find after all these years.

To further amortize the immense costs of R&D would be great for the tax payer, but adding significantly to our air power will be even better. IMHO, the F-22 and F-35, in time, would work very well together (once all the S/W issues are worked out).

[stilton]

Cancel the F35, the savings would buy hundreds of badly needed F22's

[Heathrow Harry]

But the F22 can't do the job the F35 is supposed to do.................

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

From the linked article:


Senior USAF officers have recently told CA that re-starting F-22 production would be prohibitively expensive, and some even ruled it out completely.


Do I sniff a hint of panic at the implied threat to the F-35? However expensive the production restart might be, the decision rests with industry and politicians rather than USAF officers ruling it out!

[PhilipG]

Even if the jigs etc are all available, there will be a lot of work involved in redesigning the IT systems on the F22 as the original processors etc are no longer available, yes the USAF has a stock of them for repairs etc to the present fleet.
An F22 with updated systems, borrowing some of the tech from the F35, particularly if it had a larger internal weapons bay, would I would have thought be just what the USAF, Canada, Australia and other countries would want, it does create a problem from the UK, USMC and USN though.

[MSOCS]

I think this is entirely political and would disagree it's a tacit admission of the F-35's shortcomings. I think the answer will be once again, no. Too much to re-generate production for what you will get. LM hire and fire all the time and I suspect a lot of the expertise and workforce is now long-gone elsewhere. Diminished Manufacturing Resources all play into this too so it would perhaps be a new standard compared to those jets in current service.

This leads me to conclude that this is all about congressmen getting facts to voters within their state who have been calling for more F-22 due to the negative perceptions of the F-35. I think the HASC are asking the USAF to go back and show clear working to the answer they already know or suspect they know. The F-35 is vital to the USAF and its synergy with F-22 equally so.

I'd also doubt any further F-22s built would be available to foreign buyers but they've been ironing out hose wrinkles in the F-35 Program for years, so you never know!

[cokecan]

perhaps the USAF is concerned that a restart of F-22 production - just with a little adaptation here, a slight redesign there, a piggy-backing from F-35 tech here - would morph into yet another 20 year design/test/build nightmare that would suck the budget out of F-35 and existing F-22 like F-35 sucked the budget out of everything currently in service..?

an F-22 with F-35's avionics and weapons bay isn't an F-22, its F-35D, or worse, F-40.

F-35's shortcomings, in a fighty way, all stem from the weight of the thing and the power that comes out the back - an uprated engine and weight-saving engineering and materials science is going to be a great deal cheaper and quicker than an F-22 redesign and rebuild...

[Channel 2]

The government owns the tooling, so it would be interesting to see what bids from Boeing, and Northrop Grumman would look like, in addition to LockMart's, to restart the line.

And the F-35's energy shortcomings are not all weight and power related. As pointed out in a separate thread, the F-105 could literally do everything better than a F-35 on less dry thrust (14,000 lbs) with equivalent thrust to weight ratios. The actual reason: the F-35 minimally conforms the Whitcomb area rule.

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember the F15E. Turned out a viable alternative to the F111.

If the F35 cannot execute all F22 missions then makes sense to run both types

[KenV]

the F-105 could literally do everything better than a F-35 on less dry thrust (14,000 lbs) with equivalent thrust to weight ratios.You just can't let it go, huh? One more time, the F-35 thread is here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html)

...the F-35 minimally conforms the Whitcomb area rule. Question for you: Do the F-14, F-15, F-17, F-18 F-22, Tornado, MiG 25, MiG 29, SU-27, etc etc "minimally conform to the Whitcomb area rule?" Your previous posts have made clear you understand little about air combat and what you know is largely misunderstood. You now appear to be working hard to show how little you know about aerodynamics. Clu4U, the F-35, like many other modern tactical aircraft and UNlike the F-105, has lifting body aerodynamics. Think about that.

[GlobalNav]

I disagree that it should be F-22 vs F-35.

The F-15 and F-16 (and A-10) have worked extremely well shoulder to shoulder for decades - designed for different but somewhat overlapping roles. Like many USAF F-series airplanes, over time the roles evolve and expand according to the need and capability that modifications enable. So be it with the F-22 and F-35. We need more F-22's, 170 or so just isn't enough.

But now, I don't know how the economics will pan out, so I can't honestly conclude whether it really is a good idea. And politics being what is these days, maybe, as someone already suggested, that may be all this is.

Just too d*&n bad we squandered the immense F-22 R&D costs, spreading it over so few airplanes. All presumably because the F-22 isn't the airplane for the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, as if the threats we face remain stationary.

[KenV]

I disagree that it should be F-22 vs F-35.

I agree. The F-4 and A-7 also worked side by side for a few decades. Each filled a different air combat niche. Just as the A-7 was never intended to be an F-4 replacement, the F-35 was never intended to be an F-22 replacement. (and as a reminder, a gap filler is quite different than a replacement.)

[Channel 2]

Do the F-14, F-15, F-17, F-18 F-22, Tornado, MiG 25, MiG 29, SU-27, etc etc "minimally conform to the Whitcomb area rule?" You now appear to be working hard to show how little you know about aerodynamics. Clu4U, the F-35, like many other modern tactical aircraft and UNlike the F-105, has lifting body aerodynamics.

LOL. Well, based on the above, it is YOU, KenV, who has absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. All of the above aircraft DO nominally conform to the Whitcomb area rule. Only the F-35 does not.

Question for you KenV: The F-35 is the only aircraft on your list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced, annoying vibration at transonic speeds, a vibration that sometimes results in transonic rolloff. Why is that, KenV? Answer the question, KenV, or go away.

[MSOCS]

Channel 2., you're acting like a 10 yr old who got a science book for Christmas. Stop being so tiresome. Your incessant desire to punch F-35 every chance you get is circumspect. You have a clear agenda - where I come from we call it a "wind-up artist".

When I read something credible from you, or a link that hasn't already been debunked most of those flying F-35, I'll engage you in reasoned debate. Happily.

[Evalu8ter]

GlobalNav,
Correct - the F22 wasn't the right aircraft for those wars. However, lots of people died and some would, doubtless, have been saved if there were more dedicated manned CAS, UAV ISR/CAS, SF rotary lift and tac AT - none of which were the USAF's priorities as they gorged upon 5th Gen programmes. Gates brought some balance to the force; yes, I'd agree F22 numbers look a little thin, but in the context of a real shooting war ethereal "future wars" were not the game in town. Plenty has been spent on F22 and F35 NRE - and the USAF hierarchy resisted every $ taken for more of the kit that was needed to fight the war we had, rather than the war the USAF (and Industry) wanted. Lots of capabilities atrophied during those wars, now is the time to rebuild them - but not by restarting a production line with built in obsolescence or another huge NRE bill to bring it up to date. What would the USAF trade to make it happen? Clearly the A10 and A-X in a heartbeat, but what about the new bomber? Is this the point that F35 becomes too big to fail?

[Channel 2]

Okay MSOCS, let's enjoy some reasoned debate. Question for you: The F-35 is the only aircraft on KenV's list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced and annoying buffet, a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff. Why is that, MSOCS? Here is a hint for you. Remember when Chuck Yeager encountered the exact same vibration and transonic buffet in the X-1 because the X-1 wasn't area ruled?

[sandiego89]

I think the latest version of the F-15 or F-16, or heaven forbid the Navy F/A-18 SuperHornet might be money better spent than reopening the line, and could augment the F-22 and F-35. Yes I realize they are not stealthy, but are quite capable for the majority of sceanarios- and are proven.

[Bob Viking]

Channel 2.

Are you or have you ever been a fighter pilot? I'm just curious.

BV

[KenV]

LOL. Well, based on the above, it is YOU, KenV, who has absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. All of the above aircraft DO nominally conform to the Whitcomb area rule. Only the F-35 does not.ROFL. You stepped right into it. I never said those aircraft did not conform to area rule. I asked you if they did. Of course they conform, they just go about it very differently (and MUCH less obviously) than the F-105 with its pinched waist, which is very obvious in the planview below:
http://greenairdesigns.com/ejcgallery/albums/userpics/10002/f105d_2_3v.jpg


Contrast the F-105's planview above with the F-22's planview below. You agree F-22 has area rule. Can you tell us how area rule is accomplished on F-22 which has no waist to pinch in?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/68/13/0b68131f1e54ae30ddf5b843ea6726fe.jpg


Once you've answered that, look at the F-35 and tell us again how it does not conform to area rule.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_01.jpg

[Channel 2]

Two questions for you KenV.

1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;

2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey?

I know the answer to the second question.

Because the F-35 is not area ruled like every fighter and fighter-bomber since 1952 and the F-102. The below comes from: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performan.html (FlightGlobal has deleted the Dewline blog, however this is the archived text.)

"The F-35's sustained turn rate requirements have been slashed as have its transonic acceleration requirements. Most impacted is the Navy's F-35C, which has had more than 43 seconds added to its Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 acceleration times. But this wasn't exactly unexpected, as almost exactly one year ago Lockheed's Tom Burbage told me this when I was still at Defense News:

"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.

"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics," Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"

Some of the backstory, according to an industry source is that originally the designers had intended the F-35 to be somewhat longer and more slender--in keeping with the principles of the Whitcomb area rule. Back then, the weapons bays were placed one behind the other--AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. Apparently, the tail-end of the jet started to get heavy, and Lockheed had to change the configuration as a result--which is how we got the current weapons bays. They were kinda squished together--to use a technical description."

Lockheed Martin readily admits that the F-35 minimally conforms to the area rule. Only KenV and F-35 fanboys dispute this FACT.

[KenV]

Question for you: The F-35 is the only aircraft on KenV's list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced and annoying buffet, a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff.Is this buffet a documented fact, or an unsubstantiated rumor? Does it apply to the current production version or the x-configuration version?

[Courtney Mil]

a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff

You've confused me there. Could you just explain the effect of buffet or vibration on the aerodynamics and what transonic roll off is in this sense. Please? How does buffet cause transonic roll off?

[OK465]

Channel 2,

you need to change channels, preferably with a remote.....

[Channel 2]

The JSF program has been dealing with transonic roll-off since at least 2004:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040110952.pdf

And as of 2013, they were still dealing with a different kind of it:

"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.

More F-35 Delays Predicted | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/more-f-35-delays-predicted)

Courtney Mil wrote, "You've confused me there. Could you just explain the effect of buffet or vibration on the aerodynamics and what transonic roll off is in this sense. Please?"

My apologies. You are entirely correct. That sentence was poorly worded. Transonic buffet in the F-35 is so pronounced (at certain AoA) that it is effecting the flap schedule in the control laws. The two issues are related, but distinct, not a continuum as I implied.

[Lonewolf_50]

They should never have stopped when they did.
Further comments censored.

[Courtney Mil]

Channel 2,

Area ruling was of major importance when we were designing aircraft to fly continuously in the transonic region (the speed range where it has an effect on zero lift drag) with engines that had limited power - the Buccaneer was a prime example. However, with modern fast jets, the transonic drag rise became just one of many factors affecting form and the ability to design more efficient and more powerful engines greatly reduced the significance of area ruling.

An important factor to consider is the mission for which an aircraft is designed. Take the F-14 as an example. This is its CAP to supersonic intercept requirement (not dissimilar to a number of other types):

150 miles subsonic cruise to CAP
CAP
Accel M0.7 to M1.35
4 1/2 minutes and 50nm to intercept
RTB or AAR

Time in the transonic region in that scenario would be in the region of 20-30 seconds and drag rise overcome by use of burner.

Whilst there is a degree of area ruling in many modern fighters, it is far less rigorously applied in designs than once was the case and is often only applied where its inclusion fits with other design requirements - F-18 (nearly) vertical stabilisers, for example. The degree to which area ruling is applied is very subtle these days, so much so that it is hard to see and is often only noticeable in the placement of of other features that contribute to cross section - LEX, engine housing, canopy form, even the front end of the 747.

But, where other factors override the need to mitigate transonic drag rise, it is often calculated to be of lesser importance - other sources of drag are available. Installed thrust is no longer the same limitation it was with the Buccaneer or F-105. The last two air-to-air aircraft I flew certainly did not show much evidence of area ruling, particularly behind the wing and one of those didn't have a fixed wing position on which to apply area ruling and its fuselage was basically a long, rectangular box. Transonic performance certainly wasn't a problem with either of those.

Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35), but I am interested by your use of the term "Whitcomb's area rule". Not a term I have ever heard an engineer, designer or aircrew use. More likely a phrase one would see in Wikipedia or other online resources.

As to you comments to KenV, I think you need to look again at the graphics he presented to you. The area ruling, albeit in a non-typical fuselage shaping form, is acheived to some degree by the relative placement of wings, tailplanes and fins. I think you might reconsider your somewhat unneccesary remark:

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself

when all he has done is to respond rather well to your question.

[MSOCS]

I had also been wondering why this issue has become Channel 2's latest pet rock. It's not totally irrelevant but it's small beer, that's for sure. More pronounced in the C model actually, but nothing to write home about.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, MSOCS. I look forward to a reasoned and full reply from Channel 2.

[msbbarratt]

PhilipG,

Even if the jigs etc are all available, there will be a lot of work involved in redesigning the IT systems on the F22 as the original processors etc are no longer available, yes the USAF has a stock of them for repairs etc to the present fleet.They did indeed make a lifetime buy a long time ago. I can remember reading about it at the time, marvelling how they were having to make such a purchase before the aircraft had properly entered service!

What Is a Lifetime Buy?

As to what a 'lifetime' buy of CPUs actually is is debatable. They would have purchased according to what was then their best guess at MTBF, mishap rates, etc, and then doubled or tripled that. Now a good few years later they'll be in a good position to assess their actual spares usage. Unless there's been a serious cock up I'd bet they've enough to support re-opening the line.

Use an Upgrade Program to Liberate Old Spares

Even if the spares pile isn't quite as big as all that they could still reopen the line and simultaneously kick-off an avionics update program for the whole fleet.

That way they could build and fly a new batch having pinched what they have in stock, and use the upgrade program to completely replace the diminished spares stockpile. That means running the spares pile a bit thin, but that is offset by the situation hopefully being short term.

Also as the upgrade rolls out they can put old systems from upgraded aircraft back into store. Of course, if the upgrade development program goes wrong they could have a serious shortfall!

Make the Chips Again

Yet another option is to go along to the semicon fabs who specialise in re-manufacturing old parts. It's actually quite cheap (like under $1million easy). These fabs have bought the masks for old designs and stored them, and can easily put them back into limited production should anyone ask. They can do it because whilst a 5 year old fab is no longer state of the art and so can't make modern designs, it is easily capable of making an i960 from the 1990s. Of course that assumes that the masks for all the important chips are still in existence; Intel might have been a bit more possessive of them than other manufacturers and not sold them on. I've heard this approach has been taken by some other defence equipment programs.

Just Port It Anyway!

I believe back in the early days (mid 1990s?) of Eurofighter they had the same problem, and AFAIK they did port the software to a newer CPU. Provided the operating system environment is the same there's no particular risk, just a bunch of testing. Things only get really nasty when the operating system has gone obsolete too and isn't available on a more modern CPU. Then you have to change the source code itself, and that can be very painful.

It'll be interesting to see if they do decide to restart production, and the manner in which they do it.

[Chesty Morgan]

You agree F-22 has area rule. Can you tell us how area rule is accomplished on F-22 which has no waist to pinch in?

Area rule isn't restricted to the waist area of the fuselage. It can be applied to various specific and local areas pretty much anywhere.

Specific to "lifting body" aerodynamics area ruling is used in shape and location of the canopy, among others, and this is probably the case on the F35 - it is the case on the F22.

[Channel 2]

Oh my God.

I specifically used the term, “Whitcomb area rule” so people would look it up. Intentionally. Because it’s so readily apparent that A LOT of people posting on this issue have no idea what area ruling means. (The F-105 vs F-35A thread went on for days, and days, and days. And I was leaving hint, after hint, after hint—and literally shaking my head in disbelief.) --> And regardless of how or why I used the term, "Whitcomb area rule" how does that in any way negate the FACT that Tom Burbage, Lockheed's former JSF project manager, confessed that the F-35 minimally conforms to said rule?

As to your comment: “Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35.)” Unfortunately, and most respectfully, that’s just crazy talk.

The Following Are: “Will Have a Significant Operational Impact” Issues

1. The 2012 DOT&E report notes the following about the F-35 acceleration from .8M to 1.2M:

A) A Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 8 seconds,
B) B Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 16 seconds,
C) C Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by “at least” 43 seconds.

Quoting FlightGlobal: Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way." Pilots typically make the decision to trade a very high rate of fuel consumption for supersonic airspeeds for one of two reasons. "They are either getting ready to kill something or they are trying to defend against something [that's trying to kill] them," the pilot says. "Every second counts in both of those scenarios. The longer it takes, the more compressed the battle space gets. That is not a good thing."

Why the spec change? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.

And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.

--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with acceleration performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.

2) The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:

“Turn performance for the F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from 5 to 4.5 g's, while the ‘C’ variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to 5 sustained g's.”

FlightGlobal: "Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed "double-digit" surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery."

Why? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.

And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.

--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with turn performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.

Citation for both above: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-381683/


3. The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:

"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.

Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.

And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.

--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with buffet and transonic roll-off.

4. Top speed, cruise, range, climb, payload--the whole shooting match—it’s all fundamentally compromised because this aircraft minimally conforms to area ruling. Period. It’s so blatantly obvious. And it always has been.

And Lockheed Martin has freely admited to all of this. Good grief.

[Rhino power]

Area rule isn't restricted to the waist area of the fuselage. It can be applied to various specific and local areas pretty much anywhere.

I'm pretty sure, KenV is perfectly well aware of that, his question was directed at Channel 2, not a question in general...

-RP

[Turbine D]

Visiting The Military Aviation site is becoming more and more confusing.

So you click on the Possibility of F-22 production re-start thread and you get a lecture on F-35 aerodynamics, e.g. the "Whitcomb area rule".

Then you click on the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread and you get a debate as to which tanker is better, the KDC-10, the Airbus A330 multi-role tanker or the Boeing 767 tanker.

Then you click on the A400M engine problems thread and you get a debate involving the A400M, the C-130 and the C-17.

What the hell is going on?

@ Channel 2,
Take your anti-F-35A/B/C stuff to the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread. Keep in mind that most of what you post that you think is technically brilliant, is double cancelled by the politically astute arrangement that will keep this program floating onward and upward regardless of anything you might think or post. In other words you are wasting your time. If you think differently, there are 9,202 posts that indicate reality which you can peruse in your spare time. Also, there is no need to post the same subject into two or more different threads, we will find it in one.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Visiting The Military Aviation site is becoming more and more confusing.


...and there seems to be the occasional exception to


the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


...amongst our numbers ;)

[Courtney Mil]

Channel 2,

So you completely ignored the content of my post and instead launched into your own head-shaking, exasperated lecture based mainly around stuff we've been discussing for the best part of six years now and focussed on F-35 - in a F-22 thread.

I wonder if there's any wisdom in the concept that if you ignore what is said to you and just keep posting the same thing over and over again in as many places as possible it will eventually become true.

Sorry you're so frustrated by the stupidity of everyone here, maybe it's time to change the Channel. I've lost interest in what you have to say. Bye.

[Chesty Morgan]

I'm pretty sure, KenV is perfectly well aware of that, his question was directed at Channel 2, not a question in general...

-RP

Then why ask this specific question?

You agree F-22 has area rule. Can you tell us how area rule is accomplished on F-22 which has no waist to pinch in?

I'm pretty sure he could direct his question at Channel 2 via private message, that would avoid pesky responses from anyone else who might read it.

[KenV]

Two questions for you KenV.
1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;
2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey? Since both questions are based on total fallacies, I will defer answering them.

As for transonic roll off:

You stated: "Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves..." Do you really believe area ruling affects/reduces "asymmetrical movements of shock waves". In fact, it's cause is complex, but it is not caused by a lack of area ruling nor is it fixed by adhering to area ruling. The F-18E suffered from it early in its design. One of the reasons the Super Hornet has a dog tooth leading edge is to resolve roll instabilities in the transonic region and at high AoA.

You have completely ignored two questions I asked.
1. How does the F-22 achieve area ruling when it has no waist to pinch in?
2. On what do you base your claim that F-35 suffers from severe transonic buffet?

[KenV]

Chesty asked: Area rule isn't restricted to the waist area of the fuselage. It can be applied to various specific and local areas pretty much anywhere.

Absolutely correct. And why I asked the question. The F-105's and F-106's area rule implementation are obvious with casual observation. The F-22's is much less obvious, as is the F-14's, the Su-27's, the F-18's, the Tornado's, the Typhoon, and many others.. Channel 2 has set himself up as an expert on area rule. Can this "expert" state how area rule is implemented on the F-22? Or will he continue to ignore the question?

[Courtney Mil]

KenV, I suspect you're just asking for another angry lecture on some loosely relevant topic and a further explanation of where we're all so stupid here and have no clue about military aviation. I admire your persistence in trying to get a reasoned discussion or even an answer - I lost interest long before you. Bon chance, mom ami!

[OK465]

There were three 'area rules' that applied to the F-105.

1) It took an inordinate amount of 'geographic area' to turn it around (7.33 corner was somewhere around 500 with reasonably negative SEP))

2) It was able to leave a 'geographic area' straight-ahead at an inordinately high speed in its early days (later on not so much)

3) It took quite a large 'geographic area' to build a runway long enough for it to get airborne (even with its water injection system)

back to topic

If they do restart the F-22 line, will ANG pilots still go on '60 Minutes' to complain about and refuse to fly it?

[MSOCS]

:D:D:D

Excellent, but only if they're Sprey's boys and from Burlington Airport. Good to see the USAF are now telling them what they are going to fly, not the other way around.

[Channel 2]

Channel 2 has set himself up as an expert on area rule. Can this "expert" state how area rule is implemented on the F-22? Or will he continue to ignore the question?

I do not claim to be an expert on area ruling. But these two (2) concepts are fairly straight-forward.

1) The F-22 is 62-foot long. The F-35A is 50.5-foot long. The F-22 is 11.5 foot longer. The F-22 has a 44.5-foot wide wing span. The F-35C has a 43-foot wide wing span. So which aircraft most closely conforms to the Sears-Haack body? The answer mostly explains why the F-35C struggles to accelerate in the transonic region. As for the F-35A, its wingspan is 35-foot. But the Sears--Haack equation utilizes radius, not diameter so the 9.5-foot difference is actually 4.75-foot. The F-22 is 11.5 foot longer with only a 4.75-foot R differential.

And here is the devastating part. Negate the wings on both aircraft and redo the equation. One of them ends up looking almost identical to a Greyhound bus. Guess which one?

2) Internal volume is a rusty double-edged sword when it comes to area ruling. Remember how the F-35 fanboys love to brag about, "all that enormous internal volume?" Well...as it turns out...it's impossible to area rule a 50.5-foot long aircraft with that kind of volume.

Here is the bottom line. The F-35A and C both carry the same internal cross sectional volume of the F-35B. The 'B' needed a lift fan, but from the cross section distribution point of view, it was a tragic mistake for the F-35A and C to have space for a ghost fan that is nearly as big as an Embraer 190 engine right behind the cockpit.

All My Best, Gents!

[MSOCS]

I really don't know what the relevance of your posts are any more Channel 2.

I'm looking forward to your next thinly-disguised rant-fest where you compare the F-35 to a pine cone and deduce that it's a better subterranean mining platform than a goldfish.

[Mach Two]

Channel 2,

You are very good at looking stuff up on the Internet and then regurgitating it here as if you knew it all along and as if it is even vaguely relevant to the topic. Sadly, the inconsistencies in your posts betray your lack of understanding of aviation and theory of flight. As long as you think it makes you look clever, then that's fine. Just don't expect all the aviators here to be impressed.

It is quite clear what you are and why you have suddenly appeared here. I suspect your audience will rapidly shrink; maybe then you will go away.

[Channel 2]

You are very good at looking stuff up on the Internet and then regurgitating it here as if you knew it all along and as if it is even vaguely relevant to the topic. Sadly, the inconsistencies in your posts betray your lack of understanding of aviation and theory of flight. As long as you think it makes you look clever, then that's fine. Just don't expect all the aviators here to be impressed.

Perhaps you will regale us, Mach Two, with your knowledge on this matter. Jump in and expound upon the subject. I am prepared to be dazzled.

Come to think of it, the same goes for MSOCS. Instead of the ad hominem assaults, perhaps you have a better answer to this question?

[Mach Two]

Well I hope you're also prepared for a long wait. I have no intention whatsoever of playing along with your game and I feel no need to "regale" anyone.

[MSOCS]

It's not ad hominem. It's called banter. But you wouldn't have a clue because you're not military.

[Courtney Mil]

MT, if you still have your paper on the dawn of the F-22, any chance of posting a link or sending me a copy?

[tonker]

Jesus this is boring. Can somebody post some more pics or something. Something with guns and rockets preferably.......

[APG63]

So which aircraft most closely conforms to the Sears-Haack body? The answer mostly explains why the F-35C struggles to accelerate in the transonic region

I suspect Mach Two is correct about you vomiting quickly-ingested internet material. Had you bothered to read whatever source you selected for Sears-Haack before copying and pasting it here, you should have seen that it isn't relevant to transonic flight.

I have to agree with the popular opinion here, Cannel 2. You are either attempting deliberately to disrupt this and other threads or you are trying to set yourself up as some kind of aviation expert for some reason best know to yourself.

Either way, you are only succeeding in displaying your lack of familiarity with the terms you are using and the conclusion that your purpose here is clearly neither to debate nor inform.

As others have already said, I will not engage with your rather sad attempts to create mischief here.

P.S. This is neither banter nor an ad hominem (how many times have you used that expression in your few posts here already?) attack. If it has a name, I would think "distain".

[tdracer]

At the risk of bringing this back on-topic :rolleyes: :mad:

While I have minimal first hand knowledge of the F-22 avionics, I deal with avionics parts obsolescence on a semi-regular basis (granted, on the commercial side, not military).
IMHO, the avionics parts obsolescence shouldn't be a major issue -as others have noted there are manufacturers out there that are happy to produce new versions of old chips - at a price. Even if it means upgrading to newer technology devices, so long as the computer language doesn't change it's not all that hard (or expensive) to do. Been there, done that :E.

Where it could get messy is if they decide to start upgrading the avionics and software to take advantage of the latest technology - that could quickly turn into a new multibillion dollar development program :ugh:

[Courtney Mil]

Tdr,

Porting to newer processors shouldn't be a show stopper, especially as instruction sets enjoy considerable commonality. Comparered, sadly, to the problems of resurrecting the production line I suspect CPUs would be a fairly minor problem.

To echo earlier sentiments, it is tragic that this closed down so early. And sad when one considers why.

[Lonewolf_50]

Jesus this is boring. Can somebody post some more pics or something. Something with guns and rockets preferably.......
How about this pic of F-22 from the Lafeyette Escadrille tribute? (http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/412030Lafayette2.jpg)

[RAFEngO74to09]

tonker,

Since you asked:


http://i61.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0511/92/fb44b12509721177d38b28a2cfbb5092.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22-weapons-2006.gif

[chopper2004]

You are all aware of the recent deployment over here to our sunny shores (my photos of the last lot which arrived last weekend below) en masse

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger075/IMG_1808_zpsymksus3j.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger074/IMG_1854_zpsybk0qiwc.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger074/IMG_1861_zpshmoxmpef.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger074/IMG_1839_zpsu1vgbj21.jpg



If they can re open the production line, after several years, how much would it cost to say for avionics, airframe, materials / tooling inc. bare basics of the then manufacturing to be up to speed today and for tomorrow.

I have understanding of airframe maufatcure a (limited experience of working with aerospace composites / tooling mainly in support of the Sikorsky S-76 production line for S-76A/C/C+ plus carried out quality audit I.AW Part 21G/J) so can see the complexities of the manufacturing process even on the small scale we were.

If it happens, then great, but being mindful of a change of government after the elections so will the next politicians in power go for F-22 production line opening?

Cheers

[RAFEngO74to09]

http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s553/RAFEngO74to09/Nellis%20AFB/031_zpsq2mt89r5.jpg

[RAFEngO74to09]

Pictures + Noise !

Aviation Nation 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0myH5LjC7c8

[Courtney Mil]

Nice one, RAREng.

[Channel 2]

I suspect Mach Two is correct about you vomiting quickly-ingested internet material. Had you bothered to read whatever source you selected for Sears-Haack before copying and pasting it here, you should have seen that it isn't relevant to transonic flight.

I hear what you're saying APG63. Unfortunately, it's complete tosh.

The question pertained to the .8 m to 1.2 m acceleration ability of the F-35. Here is a 'chosen for it's simplicity' paragraph. Do try to get through it.

"In aeronautics, transonic refers to the condition of flight in which a range of velocities of airflow exist surrounding and flowing past an air vehicle or an airfoil that are concurrently below, at, and above the speed of sound in the range of Mach 0.8 to 1.0, i.e. 965–1,236 km/h (600–768 mph) at sea level. This condition depends not only on the travel speed of the craft, but also on the temperature of the airflow in the vehicle's local environment. It is formally defined as the range of speeds between the critical Mach number, when some parts of the airflow over an air vehicle or airfoil are supersonic, and a higher speed, typically near Mach 1.2, when the vast majority of the airflow is supersonic. Between these speeds some of the airflow is supersonic, but a significant fraction is not."

Embarrassing, I know. But try and cobble up a reply and get back to me.

All my Best!

[AutoBit]

Channel (or should I say Admin Guru),

Did you really come onto a military aviation website and attempt to explain to us what transonic is, and that speed of sound is linked to temperature?

No one is impressed. Please stop posting these unnecessarily aggressive posts.

[Rhino power]

Channel 0, notwithstanding the utter bilge you keep spouting, do you seriously expect anyone to take anything you 'cut & paste' seriously given the patronising, arrogant tone of your replies? You do realise a large number of the folks who reply and make valuable and worthwhile contributions to these topics, have actually flown/fly military aircraft or, actually work, or have worked in the aircraft industry?

-RP

[APG63]

I'm terribly sorry, Channel 2. I thought I had been completely clean in my statement. Which part of this didn't you get?

As others have already said, I will not engage with your rather sad attempts to create mischief here.

I thank you for your refresher on high performance aerodynamics, which may have been useful had I managed to forget everything I learnt during my 20 years of flying fast jets.

Don't bother trying to include me in your trolling in future.

[Courtney Mil]

APG63, I seem to recall you exploring some of the extreme corners of the high speed envelope. The fastest passing VID on record?

[Channel 2]

My apologies, APG63, if I offended you. It was not my intention.

In my defense, I was taken aback by your statement, which as evidenced by your 20 years of flying fast jets, you obviously didn’t mean, and it’s now clear that you merely misspoke.

Because I’m certain, based on your experience, you would agree that, “Had you bothered to read whatever source you selected for Sears-Haack before copying and pasting it here, you should have seen that it isn't relevant to transonic flight,” is quite literally: the most-wrong statement made on the planet Earth in the last three (3) years.

Because as you obviously know, based on your experience: Sears-Haack shaping makes a radical improvement in the performance of soap box derby cars rolling down a hill at 15-miles per hour. Right? We all know that. All things being equal, a Sears-Haack shaped soap box derby car will win every time over, say, a soap box derby car shaped like a box, or a F-35. (I kid! I kid!) But isn't that right? Human powered cars, salt flat cars, aircraft, submarines, all projectiles: subsonic, transonic, supersonic, being self-propelled or not, ALL benefit from Sears-Haack shaping—regardless of the speed. It’s a pretty fundamental concept. So I know that you merely misspoke or had a brain fart or something.

So please accept my apology, and lets laugh this off.

Based on your experience, you would also know that .8 m to 1.2 m is the ‘transonic’ specification in military programs. Literally. The “.8 m to 1.2 m acceleration spec” is always equivalent to the "transonic acceleration spec.” So yes, perhaps I was a bit defensive, because I didn't know you misspoke or had a brain fart, and again, I apologize.

Below are the original specs.

The baseline transonic acceleration specifications for the three variants prior to the spec change were:

A) A Model: The original “threshold” KPP specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 55 seconds at 30Kft Altitude. (Add 8 seconds)
B) B Model: The original “threshold” KPP specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 65 seconds at 30Kft Altitude. (Add 16 seconds)
C) C Model: The original “threshold” KPP specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 65 seconds at 30Kft Altitude. (Add at least 43 seconds)

[Buster Hyman]

This is how it's done...
http://www.ghantafun.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/1f561a3870_Cut-n-Paste.jpg

Now, can we pleasstay on topic? You know, restarting the F-22 line...

[barnstormer1968]

I've just been reading a thread on a different site that had a link to the Wikipedia entry for the B21. Wiki states that the B21 will be a ble to carry a heavy load, it also says that the B21 could be used as an interceptor. If we bear in mind the accuracy of Wikipedia could the B21 be used as a stealthy missileer to act as an F22 force multiplier?

[Turbine D]

Rand Corporation did a paper in 2010 on the cost to restart the F-22 in the future:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR831.sum.pdf

It would seem an improvement item for the F-22, if it were to be restarted, is the stealth cladding that has been used. I believe it contributes the most to overall maintenance costs for the aircraft. Perhaps that used on the F-35 would be better.

[AutoBit]

Channel,


Even when you copy and paste from the internet, you still get it wrong. Your explanations are too simple, and fail to take into account a thorough understanding of the subject.

Im with APG63. I don't think you understand Sears-Haack in relation to transonic and supersonic aircraft.

[KenV]

these two (2) concepts are fairly straight-forward.
1) The F-22 is 62-foot long. The F-35A is 50.5-foot long. The F-22 is 11.5 foot longer. The F-22 has a 44.5-foot wide wing span. The F-35C has a 43-foot wide wing span. So which aircraft most closely conforms to the Sears-Haack body? The answer mostly explains why the F-35C struggles to accelerate in the transonic region. Wow!!!! You’ve changed your story! First you were arguing about Whitcomb area rule. When that argument fell apart you changed it to Sears-Haack body. FYI, those are two very different subjects, both of which you totally misunderstand. The Sears-Haack body derivation is based on the Prandtl-Glauert equation which is not remotely valid in transonic flow, and area rule applies essentially only in transonic flow. Indeed the Prandtl-Glauert equation contains a singularity! Where? At mach 1 where the flow resistance asymptotically approaches infinity. That was the source of the “sound barrier” term in the late 40’s and why people thought that mach 1 was impenetrable. The Sears Haack body was first derived in 1941, long before the Bell X-1 and long before Whitcomb’s area rule. Or to put it more simply so hopefully even you understand, the two concepts are only superficially related, with area rule applying only in the transonic region of flight, and Sears-Haack appling only in the supersonic region of flight. You mixing and equating these two concepts pretty much confirms what we all suspect: you know how to do google searches and can cut and paste, but you have no idea what it is you are cutting and pasting.


Further, the Sears-Haack body applies ONLY on the limit of a slender, axisymmetric body, like a missile or artillery projectile and is why the V2 had the shape it had. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are slender nor axisymmetric. For non-axisymmetric (but still slender) bodies one must use the Robert Jones extension. But again, neither the F-22 nor F-35 are slender, where slender means a fineness ratio of at least 4.5. F-22 has a fineness ratio of about 1.4 and the F-35A about 1.5. To put this in perspective the F-104 fineness ratio=2.5, Concorde=2.4, SR-71=1.9 and V-2=8.5. So none of these aircraft are even candidates for a Prandtl-Glauert, a Sears-Haack or even a Robert Jones body analysis. Only the V-2’s shape and dimensions are applicable. So not only are you barking up the wrong tree, you’re in the wrong forest.

Sears-Haack shaping makes a radical improvement in the performance of soap box derby cars rolling down a hill at 15-miles per hour. Right? We all know that. All things being equal, a Sears-Haack shaped soap box derby car will win every time...Oh. My. Goodness. A Sears-Haack body is axisymmetric, has a fineness ratio greater than 4.5 and is pointed at both ends. Let's see you use your google skills to find a soap box derby car with that shape. Kids have been doing soap box races since 1914 when Charlie Chaplin popularized it in a movie. They've been using streamlining principles basically from day one. Streamlining (of cars, locomotives, ships, and even soap box and pinewood racers) predates by several decades the Prandtl-Glauert equation and the Sears-Haack body. In case you missed the implication, lets be clear: such streamlining has NOTHING to do with Sears-Haack or area rule. But nice try at obfuscation.

Come to think of it, the same goes for MSOCS. Instead of the ad hominem assaults, perhaps you have a better answer to this question? Oh my. Now you've displayed your gross misunderstanding on an entirely different subject. You’ve discovered the fancy term ad hominem, but completely misunderstand its meaning. The folks on this forum have described the contents of your posts here as turds. They have not called you a turd. The latter is ad hominem, the former is not. You on the other hand have called folks "fanboys" as well as hurling multiple personal insults. Look up the term “hypocrisy”. Sadly, it does not apply in your case. Hypocrisy is willful. Your posts indicate you are too ignorant for your actions to be willful. But they certainly are embarrassing, assuming of course embarrassment is even possible for you. That remains doubtful.

[Snafu351]

Can't help but idly wonder whether one of the more excessive F35 ahem "fans" (jsffan for example) has got bored of incessantly shouting that the F35 is the bestest ever and is now exploring the "it the worstest" angle for their kicks.
There are similarities in the copy and paste posting style...

[KenV]

It would seem an improvement item for the F-22, if it were to be restarted, is the stealth cladding that has been used. I believe it contributes the most to overall maintenance costs for the aircraft. Perhaps that used on the F-35 would be better. My understanding is that a lot of the F-35 stealth cladding tech is being applied to F-22 right now. I'm confident that that tech will continue to improve. For example the B-21 program will very likely make strides in that area and I'd venture that at least some of that tech will be incorporated in F-35 as they come off the assembly line, and likely be back fitted to ones already in service.

Further on the subject of an F-22 line re-open: I would think that an F-22N (for "new") would leverage far more than F-35 stealth cladding tech. I would think they would leverage F-35 avionics tech and maybe even engine tech. Both are superior in the F-35 relative to the F-22. And if done right, they could be back fitted to the F-22As and maybe even give the F-22 a much better air-to-ground capability in much the same way that F/A-18 tech applied to the F-15C/D resulted in the F-15E.

[ORAC]

KenV,

Recent web posts would seem to indicate a USAF black program for a new interim short-term fighter. The reason being both the USAF and USN both abandoning a longer term fighter replacement with a "family" of drones/links/platforms.

The indications are a choice between a F-22 and F-35 derivative - the decisive factor being a requirement for an open-architecture software system allowing the customer to modify it and add the weapons they like off of it - without the incredibly costly and protracted issues with the current platforms.

With either seeming to cut the throat of the legacy models/manufacturers, I await any developments with interest.....

[Rhino power]

It's gone awfully quiet in here, has someone changed the Channel?

-RP

[Heathrow Harry]

ORAC - if they intend to sell them overseas it means the F-35 - as there is no way they're going to allow anyone to access the F-22...................... The Israelis would love to gettheir hands on some F-22's but..............

[Channel 2]

It's gone awfully quiet in here, has someone changed the Channel?

-RP
Just resting my copying and pasting hand. And waiting for the usual suspects to say something F-35 fanboyish, so I can document in the PPRuNe thread archives once again how fanboyishly wrong they are.

Channel 2 is always watching, and waiting...

[barnstormer1968]

Channel 2
As you were very positive that your opinions are correct in post #78 are you part of the F35 programme in some way?
I'm only asking as my knowledge of this, and most other programmes has been very limited or incorrect due to me only having access to public/internet info. What I did learn when. I had 'inside' knowledge of various programmes or aircraft was just how wide of the mark public info was, and often even for aircraft that had been in service for a number of years.

As an aside, did I miss your answer as to whether you are or have been a fighter pilot?

[KenV]

And waiting for the usual suspects to say something F-35 fanboyish, so I can document in the PPRuNe thread archives once again how fanboyishly wrong they are.Fanboys? Fanboyish? I'm no fan of the F-35. I am however a fan of pointing out absurd claims made by clueless cut and paste artists who equate wave drag and parasitic drag.

[KenV]

Recent web posts would seem to indicate a USAF black program for a new interim short-term fighter. The reason being both the USAF and USN both abandoning a longer term fighter replacement with a "family" of drones/links/platforms.

The indications are a choice between a F-22 and F-35 derivative...If USAF and USN are developing an "optionally manned" platform, it would seem the F-35 would be the superior starting point. The F-22 is highly optimized for air-to-air and it seems to me that an "optionally manned" platform would need to be more multi-role with a much greater emphasis on air-to-ground.

[PhilipG]

In very broad terms there are similarities between the developmental histories of the Rafale and the F22. In both cases the first requirement was for an air to air fighter for use over the central German plain etc. The timelines are not that dissimilar, both entering service in the early/ mid 2000s.

My point is would the French now wish to build F1 standard Rafales, when the initial squadron's planes are being rebuilt to the latest F3 standard, that is as I understand it is a far more capable aircraft than the Air to Air only F1. I would have thought no.

So is it reasonable to assume that the USAF / US Congress or whoever would want to reopen the F22 line to make the aircraft the same as those that had been made over 10 years ago, I would have thought not.

So IF the F22 line was to reopen I would hope that it reopened building aircraft that has benefited from some of the developments made in the F35 project, RAM Coatings etc, to reduce maintenance costs, SA systems, thinking of Moores Law, that besides improving AtA SA might bring in far more Air to Ground capability.

So IF the line was to open again, it in my view only makes sense to do so with an updated product.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, PhilipG. Make the most of every development since the last F-22 standard.

It would be an excellent move for capability, but hard to achieve - more's the pitty - because there is a growing potential for an air-to-air capability gap.

[riff_raff]

The F-22 is an awesome aircraft, similar to the B-2, from a period in US history when cost was not a major concern. There is no way funding will be approved for producing more F-22's. The USAF will continue to purchase F-35's as planned.

[Heathrow Harry]

so we're going to take an aircraft that was horrendously expensive to start with and then spend a zillion or two "upgrading" it ????

It'll never happen

[Argonautical]

Short clip of a couple of them in the "Loop", followed by an F-15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCF1trDfN0A

[tdracer]

HH
According to at least one news article on the subject, the last batch of F-22s cost ~$150 million per copy, which would compare rather favorably with what we're spending per copy for the F-35 (especially since the commonly quoted prices for the F-35 don't include the engine :rolleyes:).
However the cost of re-starting the line, along with the inevitable desire to 'upgrade' would likely double the per copy price - and again make it 'unaffordable'. :ugh: