F-22 Thread

[Pilotasso]

I do know what your thinking of... falcon Star, but this is an augmentation, doesnt bring back life to the airframe when you reached the end of its service life. ;)

 

So what I think what Antartis meant was to replace bulkheads and longerons of the aircraft all over its criticaly stressed structure to basicaly ressurrect the airframe. This operations should account a much bigger percentage of the total of the aiframe. The only ones recieving structural modifications and upgrades to my knowlege are low G aircraft such as P-3 and C-130 wich have much higher service lives, but these are aimed at bringing other fucntions instead.

 

This would require to basicaly empty all the innards of the fighter and reinstall everything back to place once the structure was checked and new elements installed. You would also have to overhaul all accesories, avionics engines etc, not just install new ones as it hapens with new planes. Should have more complex intervention planning, material requirements (variable for each plane) hence more man hours even if less investiment with overhauled components versus new. However you would get a plane similarly or even higher priced than a new one but of course not as good.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Pilotasso

[hitman]

I'm sure they can preserve the planes or log less flight hours...I mean if we're talking about structural stress via flight to the frame and needing to replace it right?

 

Unless it's made out of some material that decays in a matter of 10 years or it could be an excuse to build another fighter...all I'm saying is that it's a tremendous waste of cash if it's gonna be retired 15 years later and is way ahead of any a-a fighter jet right now

 

things break when they go unused. things corrode, fluids break down and bond to metal, metal fatigues when sitting for long times, and things have a bad way of settling in when left unused. ever hear a mechanic tell someone that if they store a vehicle for a while you should still drive it once a month? theres a reason why...

[mvsgas]

Ok, Well F-16 have received certain structural upgrades over the years. If you look at older models/blocks (20 to 42) you can see patches on the skin. Since many fighters skin is stress loading (skins actually provides some of the support as bulkheads and longerons, etc)So fighter can recive structural upgrades, to a point.

 

Besides all this based on a Air Force Times report? The same guys that said that our new uniform would be the Blue BDU back in 2005?

[mvsgas]

This and other internal patches or repair allow the airframe to carry new weapons like TGP and other missiles that the aircraft was not originally intended to carry. Same can happen to any aircraft including the F-22. Just saying that I would not try to guess when the F-22 would be retired, look at the F-16 block 20, who know they would be still around? How about the B-52 or TU-95? On the other side of that, other aircraft just don't last long, Look at the B-58, B-1B. Good aircraft but B-58 only served 9 years, how much did they cost back then? B-1B, many retired already or crashed, how long has it been in service?

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.152457,-110.830958&spn=0.003565,0.0103&t=h&z=18

Edited March 8, 2010 by mvsgas

[Pilotasso]

I edited my message just before you mentioned falcon star. ;) But as I said it augments service life, doesnt bring it back after reaching its end as antartis seemingly suggested for the F-22, nor would the Raptor RCS react well to it :D

[mvsgas]

No RCS expert and have no idea if 22 could be upgraded, but it does extend service life, I thought that is what you guys where talking about.

 

Here is something on long term storage, a post here about long term storage on Mig-29

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=453544&postcount=28

I guess it can be done

[Pilotasso]

Well our aircraft were modified after just 2000h of service. Im not aware of any other fighter getting similar much less any better augmentations. AFAIK F-15 didnt, F-18 all it got were new tail stiffeners. But I could be wrong I dont work with them.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Pilotasso

[mvsgas]

These upgrades also improve system reliability and supportability. Together with this upgrade this package also includes Falcon UP and Falcon STAR structural upgrades. These structural upgrades will extend the service life to 8,000 flight hours with these aircraft being able to remain in service for another 20 years.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article11.html

[mvsgas]

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091217-F-5040D-0465.jpg

Steve Cook works on the inner web of an A-10 Thunderbolt II wing Dec. 17, 2009. A-10s are

undergoing a wing upgrade at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The upgrade process, affectionately called the "Hog Up,"

will make the wings of the tank killer thicker and stronger while increasing the service life of

the aircraft another 8,000 hours in the air. Mr. Cook is an aircraft structural mechanic at the

309th AMARG. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III)

[Downey Jr.]

let me get this straight...so basically my Scion xB has a chance of lasting longer than a 143 million dollar super jet fighter?

 

[GGTharos]

Is your scion capable of accelerating to a speed of over two times the speed of sound and pulling 9.5g's?

 

I doubt it. Your Scion doesn't get anywhere NEAR as much abuse as an F-22 will over its lifetime, and an F-22 pilot isn't well trained if he doesn't put that F-22 through its paces often.

 

These aircraft have a built-in lifetime. Even flying straight and level they experience tremendous forces, no less than that of their own weight in fact. They constantly flex. If you just leave'em sitting out there, you have an expensive fighter doing NOTHING, and now THAT is a waste of money.

 

Why do you think a super-complex piece of machinery needs to outlive your much simpler car?

[hitman]

let me get this straight...so basically my Scion xB has a chance of lasting longer than a 143 million dollar super jet fighter?

 

 

lets see that modern age pinto drive 15 million miles in the harshest environment. seriously!! its -53f at altitude that these modern aircraft fly. your car would be so lucky to get 250k in 20 years in hawaii.

Edited March 9, 2010 by hitman

[Downey Jr.]

a) my car pulled a G once...

b) it's cold up here in the east coast

c) it was obviously a flimsy comparison

d) ARE YOU ACTUALLY DEFENDING...sorry caps...are you actually defending the US military and govt for that matter of fabricating and funding a 143 million dollar fighter that lasted from 2009 to 2025??!?!?!?! do the math that's about 15 years...I'm sick of seeing the F-16 and F-15 hell the F-14 just got retired a couple years back.

 

on top of that they are going back on their word of not selling to other countries ...oh and the F-35...well at least it's cheaper but there seems to be some major overlap...looks like the Lightning II is looking better and better in this recession ;)

 

one more thing...this just confirms that the Raptor is just another failed experiment...as awesome as it is we've barely seen any action out of it.

[GGTharos]

Maybe you don't understand ... in these times where budget cuts are required, something needs to get axed.

 

The F-35 immediately offers more capability over the F-22. The F-22 will own anything in the sky, but the real fight happens on the ground. Economical needs dictate that the F-22 has to go. No one likes it, but that's the way it is.

Finally, does that make the F-14 a failed experiment? It's not like it has seen a whole lot of action. F-22's are already intercepting Tu-95's and making them go WTF is that? UFO? It is a very successful and powerful aircraft, but currently the USAF simply cannot afford it. Financial reality, period, end of story. They need this money for other things.

[Ramstein]

carrying you and yours to shopping and work doesn't actually equate to war..

 

unless you live in a bad part of town.. :doh:

plus mititary aircraft are not full of cheap plastic parts..

 

let me get this straight...so basically my Scion xB has a chance of lasting longer than a 143 million dollar super jet fighter?

 

Edited March 9, 2010 by Ramstein

[Downey Jr.]

Maybe you don't understand ... in these times where budget cuts are required, something needs to get axed.

 

The F-35 immediately offers more capability over the F-22. The F-22 will own anything in the sky, but the real fight happens on the ground. Economical needs dictate that the F-22 has to go. No one likes it, but that's the way it is.

Finally, does that make the F-14 a failed experiment? It's not like it has seen a whole lot of action. F-22's are already intercepting Tu-95's and making them go WTF is that? UFO? It is a very successful and powerful aircraft, but currently the USAF simply cannot afford it. Financial reality, period, end of story. They need this money for other things.

 

well ... let's see

F-14

Introduction: September 1974

Retired September 2006

 

F-16

Introduced: Aug. 1978

ACTIVE

 

F-15

Introduced: Jan. 1976

ACTIVE

 

F-18

Introduced: Jan. 1983

ACTIVE

 

so if my terrible math serves me correctly that's way over 15 years each...they are also around 30 mil a piece (well the new hornets are doubled but still less than 150mil)

 

now if we're talking about war here...as I assume the purpose of these jets... nothing really surpasses the F-16, F-18 etc. matches yes, Mig 29 so forth...now F-35? well since it looks like everyone and their grandmother is getting one then you can add that to the mix but it's no A-A fighter...(you still need A-A obviously)

 

That leaves us with the F-22...without a doubt the most advanced air superiority fighter that can take control of the skies...and remember the famous saying something along the lines of you take control of the skies first then you control the war or something...

 

anyways so that gets retired in practically no time...while you have the Russians with the new FA T-50 to match the Raptor and it costs about 100mil close to Raptor cost.

 

so what will the US do now? obviously build a 6th gen a-a fighter to outmatch the russians...if they don't have the money now to fund the F-22 program I guess they said **** it let's make the newest and best shit out there to beat everyone else mainly the russians and release it by 2025 and by then everyone will forget how much more money we'll spend.

 

I assume that's the plan...

[GGTharos]

Yes, your math does serve pretty terribly.

 

Do you think the same eagles that were produced in '76 are still in service? The reason their service lives appear so long is because the production runs are so long and the airframes numerous enough that they are replacing retired airframes.

 

The F-22 is NOT getting that type of production run. They have to make do with airframes that they have NOW.

And make no mistake about the F-35's A2A capability. It might not match a Raptor, but any 4/4.5 gen planes likely won't know what hit'em anyway.

[Maximus_G]

F-15C designed service life is 4000 hours. The fleet would be grounded in mid-90s, with an average 270 flight hours per year. But the service life was extended twice, to 8000 hours. A new Service Life Extension Program could push it even further. And I don't think this is a unique story.

[mvsgas]

well ... let's see

F-14

Introduction: September 1974

Retired September 2006

 

F-16

Introduced: Aug. 1978

ACTIVE

 

F-15

Introduced: Jan. 1976

ACTIVE

 

F-18

Introduced: Jan. 1983

ACTIVE

 

 

All this aircraft have more than one model like GG said.

F-16

A/B= block 5/10/15/20

C/D=block 25/30/32/40/42/50/52/52+

E/F=block 60

not to mention the plethora of test models

 

The same goes for the rest of them.

 

First F-22, Raptor 01, I believe flew back in 1997, and raptors were consider operational in 2006, not 2009.

Many other great aircraft were retired after short service life

B-36

B-58

F-8F

F-7F

F-82

P-61

And if you just look at most first production models, from many aircraft, they only last about ten years in average. We don't even know if they will retire the F-22 in 2025. At least not because of a single newspaper report.

[Pilotasso]

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091217-F-5040D-0465.jpg

Steve Cook works on the inner web of an A-10 Thunderbolt II wing Dec. 17, 2009. A-10s are

undergoing a wing upgrade at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The upgrade process, affectionately called the "Hog Up,"

will make the wings of the tank killer thicker and stronger while increasing the service life of

the aircraft another 8,000 hours in the air. Mr. Cook is an aircraft structural mechanic at the

309th AMARG. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III)

 

Thats cool didnt know that.

[Downey Jr.]

I think we can all agree that this means the US is gonna blow another couple of billion on a new A-A fighter to match the Russian FA T-50

[Pilotasso]

They already have it...whats your point?

 

The other F-X fighter is a long term program and will give the US the first of its kind in the world, by that time the PAk-Fa will be old.

[GGTharos]

Match? Heh. There's no need to match the PAK-FA.

 

I think we can all agree that this means the US is gonna blow another couple of billion on a new A-A fighter to match the Russian FA T-50

[Lucas_From_Hell]

F-35 might not be as good as an F-22 in air-to-air engagements (specially CAC, when it comes to pure aircraft performance), but here's the thought:

 

You still have a stealth fighter with excellent avionics and missiles yet to be matched (at least in active service).

 

You don't need to pull sustained 9G, do 120º AoA or fly backwards when all it takes is to find, lock and shoot.

 

When you can do this before getting close enough to be in disadvantage, you don't need to worry about it.

 

About the "Dima and Vova got PAK-FA from Ded Moroz, I want new toy too" thingy, Cold War is over. If by chance things go hot (or Cold, for that matter) again, I wouldn't doubt that there might be more F-22s, possibly upgraded to cover any disadvantage with operational PAK-FA (hopefully with a new official designation by then), coming out.

 

But as Bulwer-Lytton pointed out quite some time ago, "the pen is mightier than the sword"...

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Not to mention 360 deg coverage by AIM-9X.