Possibility of F-22 production re-start?
 

HASC directs USAF to look at Raptor production re-start! | Combat Aircraft

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

-RP

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.

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

-RP

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).

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

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

From the linked article:

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!

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.

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!

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...

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.

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

You just can't let it go, huh? One more time, the F-35 thread is here

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Channel 2.

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

BV

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/ejcgaller...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...43ea6726fe.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...5_schem_01.jpg

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/th...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.

Is this buffet a documented fact, or an unsubstantiated rumor? Does it apply to the current production version or the x-configuration version?

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?

Channel 2,

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

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

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0040110952.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

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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

PhilipG,

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.

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.

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.


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/ar...tional-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.

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

-RP

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.

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

...amongst our numbers ;)

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.

Then why ask this specific question?

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.

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?