F-22 will never be produced again...or will it? Sorta, with a twist.

[Rogue Trooper]

Ta!

[SDsc0rch]

I cannot seem to find any specific information on why the USAF judged the F22 to be more Manoeuverable than the 23 but it would be interesting to know it if you got it.

 

you could do worse than watching this video hosting the two test pilots for the YF-23

 

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8]youtube[/ame]

[Rogue Trooper]

link offers no immediate answers... sorry, what does E M D mean as this means nothing to me at the moment.

[Vampyre]

link offers no immediate answers... sorry, what does E M D mean as this means nothing to me at the moment.

 

Engineering Manufacturing Development. Technical name for a prototype.

[Rogue Trooper]

thanks vampyre....

 

Will watch the vid sunday.

[ФрогФут]

If anyone thinks that those Nozzles are the reason the F-22 is Agile, they are mistaken,

It's no big deal to get to high AoA. It's guarantee, that you safely get out of there. Or you can go Super Hornet style with deflectors.

[Emu]

F-22B (Or Whatever Designation)

Surely F-22C if it's single seat?

[Dudikoff]

You are assuming the TV Nozzles are the source of it's maneuverability,

The Nozzles effect on roll Rate and Pitch performance can be replaced with coordinated control surface deflections used by an updated FCS.

 

I just referred to how TVC gave it a significant edge in flight testing during the ATF selection. The post was not meant to be taken seriously as indicated by a smiley.

 

But, replaced? I'd expect the loss of TVN effect could be somewhat offset by FCS improvements in some flight regimes but it will only get you so far, especially without some redesign.

 

You forget in the 80's, the new rage was Thrust Vectoring, in the 90s/2000's Thrust Vectoring has since been replaced by negative stability Airframes with Flight Control Computers to keep them stable.

 

"You assume", "you forget"? I like how you make assumptions about other people's posts and then answer them? :)

 

Regarding your post, wasn't the YF-22 already an unstable design kept stable by FCS? The Su-27 surely was and yet the Su-35 comes with TV Nozzles added anyway.

[SkateZilla]

80's Era FCS vs 2010+ FCS is like comparing an Apple II to a Core i7.

 

Trust me, the weight, maintenance cost and time would easily offset the use of the Nozzles.

 

yes, F-22 has a Negative Stability Design.

 

Of Course the Su-35 has TVN, it's Program started in the 80s... hello.

 

As for the SU-35, look at the Cost ($96 Mill USD to UPGRADE Airframes, Not sure how much NEW ones are),

and how many there are, RUS has 45 Operational, and China has 2 dozen, so maybe 6 Dozen total, or 1/3 of the F-22 Fleet.

Potentially more on the way, but those contracts are ify for obvious reasons (and lets not get into those, politics, etc).

 

not trying to be smug and such, just sayin', F-22 without TVN will be just fine, the Pitch Authority without them was still better than the YF-23s

Edited March 12, 2016 by SkateZilla

[ФрогФут]

There are no Su-35 upgrades, only new ones. China has 0 Su-35 at the moment.

[Seaeagle]

 

Of Course the Su-35 has TVN, it's Program started in the 80s... hello.

 

Current Su-35s have little to do with the initial prototypes from the late eighties - different airframe(e.g. no canards, no airbrake) and entirely new FCS.

 

As for the SU-35, look at the Cost ($96 Mill USD to UPGRADE Airframes, Not sure how much NEW ones are)

 

What?! :D

[Drag0nWIng]

Just let them upgrade the avionics(maybe engine?) and reopen the production line, that will save the most of money and it's still the best military aircraft of the world.

Re design a new aircraft will cost too much and using the existing tech will have the same efficiency, reopening the production line, upgrade and build more will be the best and saving choice.

[SkateZilla]

My mistake, China Ordered 2 Dz.. the rest of the details are sketchy, as they didnt translate to english very well.

[mytai01]

All we need to do is build tens of thousands of of F-20 Tigersharks. No one could defeat us!!!

[probad]

f-20 was a turkey too according to a certain aviation pundit

 

should just go back to the f-5

[tflash]

I was always puzzled by the sudden end to F-22 production. Was Robert Gates such a delusional fool? Was LM lobbying for a move to F-35 only to ditch "partner" Boeing alltogether from the fighter business? Or are there things about the F-22 that we don't know that made it obsolete?

 

Maybe its weakest point was not having a long range optical sensor, in an era where targeting pods were completely revolutionizing air warfare. It also saved many aircraft from sheer obsolescence, like A-10C, B-1, B-52, Harrier, ...

 

Here a photo of an F-15C with a sniper pod:

 

[probad]

a tgp wouldn't be much of a deal for these 4th gen aircraft but would compromise f-22's stealth. furthermore, things like f-35 eodas are not features that can simply be substituted for by a mere pod.

 

while the f-22 represents better aerodynamic specifications, we're moving past the point where aerodynamic performance alone dictates the engagement. in a sense, while the f-22 represents a 5th generation airframe, its operational paradigm is more akin to a 4th gen aircraft's. the f-35 with its unprecedented level of information collection and integration represents a more fundamental shift in turning the aircraft from the aerial unit to an aerial complex, and it was wise to invest into this more promising direction which we will see become the true hallmark of the 5th generation.

Edited March 13, 2016 by probad

[Pilotasso]

...for strike fighters.

 

Maybe because people thought A2A was a thing of the past and asymmetrical warfare with troops on the ground needing air support from planes that could not always be based on the backdoor due to political reasons was the way of the future.

 

While that is a nice to have more and more people think the global geopolitical situation will be different, along with new counters. This is why I think air superiority and new fighters will be a thing again.

[probad]

im sure we will see integration of sensor fusion complex with superlative aerodynamics platform in the future.

 

time does not stop at the f-22 and 35.

[RvETito]

To restart such a complicated manufacturing it's not all about money and logistics. Even if the tooling is still available and various vendors are still on the market it's more about the human capacity and knowledge that would drive the process. There's a vast amount of production experience and know-how that no money can buy. So whoever is thinking of resuming F-22 manufacturing they better look for where the proper (trained) people are.

 

Speaking about - where actually the F-22 assembly line has been located, Fort Worth, TX?

[Vincent90]

Speaking about - where actually the F-22 assembly line has been located, Fort Worth, TX?

Marietta, Georgia.

 

I believe the same building now makes F-35 parts :)

[Dudikoff]

80's Era FCS vs 2010+ FCS is like comparing an Apple II to a Core i7.

Of Course the Su-35 has TVN, it's Program started in the 80s... hello.

 

As others said, perhaps you think of the Su-27M and it's export designation Su-35. The new Su-35 (or more precisely Su-35S) is not the same project and it certainly doesn't use 80's electronics so that it would need TVN added just to compensate the obsolete FCS.

 

 

yes, F-22 has a Negative Stability Design.

 

Thought as much. So, care to revisit your statement that TV was all the rage in the 80's, but the designers have since moved to negative stability designs controlled by FCS? As I see it, they already had that (e.g. both F-22 and Su-27 were designed as such) and TV only adds additional capabilities in some flight regimes which can't be achieved with the standard flight controls only (e.g. at supersonic speeds/high altitudes). Whether the offset in extra maintenance cost, additional weight, etc. is worth it is up to the operators to decide.

 

not trying to be smug and such, just sayin', F-22 without TVN will be just fine, the Pitch Authority without them was still better than the YF-23s

 

I never said it won't be fine without them; just said that if the priorities are moving from the maneuvering capabilities, the YF-23 design might have been a better choice to bet on in the long term given its better RCS and faster speed (not sure about the range given that the YF-23 design was not as developed as YF-22?). It was a hypothetical remark as I understand that in that post-Cold War budget-reducing climate the USAF might have chosen the design which could be built ASAP before the whole deal gets scrapped altogether.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Dudikoff

[SkateZilla]

I dont think anyone knew the F22A would be aborted with only 25% of the original projected order.

Let alone the change in Priorities of the Airframes etc, 30 yrs after the design.

 

As for the Su35 confusion, correct, thats were I got the figures for upgrade and some other stuff, was looking at the export version by mistake.

 

I say go with the F-35 and the Slient Eagle, but thats just me.

Edited March 14, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Pilotasso]

To restart such a complicated manufacturing it's not all about money and logistics. Even if the tooling is still available and various vendors are still on the market it's more about the human capacity and knowledge that would drive the process. There's a vast amount of production experience and know-how that no money can buy. So whoever is thinking of resuming F-22 manufacturing they better look for where the proper (trained) people are.

 

Speaking about - where actually the F-22 assembly line has been located, Fort Worth, TX?

 

They want a 6th gen plane off from a 5th one. They save a ton of money right off the bat even before they start thinking about the tooling. Worst case scenario the tooling will be completely new, best case scenario there will be savings on both sides.

[SkateZilla]

They wont have to pay for Aerodynamic Models, Windtunnel testing, and Development of the Airframe, like at all.

 

Build the Prototype Airframe to test the tooling, then start integrating the new avionics.

 

Chances are there will be some tooling changes anyway, as they adapt the airframe design for new engines, and sensors.