F-22 Raptor info

[Guest JLUCB]

Well there is a difference between now and later. Sure, they might not be able to reverse engineer our tech now, but sooner or later they will find a way around it if they are persistent enough. Think about it. Technology is ALWAYS advancing, look at computer operating systems. They need to be constantly upgraded in order to protect our computers from new malicious software. Maybe I am arguing on a false analogy, but if someone wants to figure out the technology, they'll eventually find a way to get what they want. It's fine if we export things not necessary for national defense. Keep our military tech OUR military tech.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

A couple thoughts on why this is even up for debate in DC...

Money talks and bullshit walks in the business world.

Money drives politics.

Lots of money at stake here.

Lockheed Martin is the Devil.

Lockheed Martin wants the rest of the world to have the technology because it prepares the argument for the need for a follow on to the Craptor.

My bet, we'll sell as many of these things as we can.

[Guest JLUCB]

Rainman is correct. I'm merely voicing my own opinion on the matter... Beerman continued, in that it is all about money. It's all about corporate America and the pork barrel, and how much can the company make now. I guess by exporting technology and proliferating a "balance of power" they can also gain profit. That and the fact that war is good for business...

[Cooter]

Do I think it should be exported...No and Yes. Would I give it to the UK, hell yes I would. Besides that whole Revolution/War of 1812 fiasco they've been our best supporters in the world. And being they're only real friend with any sack/strength in Europe I say yes. Perhaps Canada/Australia as well but they kind of fall into the same lump.

Israel...ehhh not so much. For them it's not a question of avionics becasue the first thing they do is replace everything with their components or variations there of. Israel has also known to be quite frindly in sharing technology with the "bad guys" ie India/China. Not that India is "bad" but they're not exactly our best friends. Remember too that the IAF was desiging an IDF but we convinced them to buy the 16 and save themselves the development costs.

Screw everybody else IMHO. France is pushing the Rafale (so they can make money and build more) and the Germans the Eurofighter (Like they'll go to war ever again in their current state of affairs) and Saab(Sweden) the Gripen. All capable aircraft but very few in number. The other aspect is piloting, we have the best as far the score goes with the current generation fighters and most guys at least have Combat experience in the multirole aircraft.

Bottom line the F-22 should be reserved for the most deserving (us/US) and our closest Allies. Interoperability will increase and commonality can only help. If you disagree with that fine but work with the Brits and other nations enough and you really begin to see who's on "our team".

Cooters .02 from CAOC hell...I mean heaven

[asdf]

I was wondering if anyone knew any details on the F-22 B-Course. The word on the street is that if everything goes right then it can be in place as early as March 08. The word is that if you go to it out of pilot training then you might be required to go to some type of advanced IFF or (AIFF) where you will fly F-16s for a few hours to get the idea of communicating as a fighter pilot and the ability to be task saturated while still not blacking out at 9g's. This is all speculation and rumor so I was wondering if anyone else out there has any new or more interesting details on the situation.

The first B-Courser could already be in pilot training!

[Guest CrewDawg1]

Last rumor was four being dropped UPT wide this year around the july-august time frame. I'll believe it when I see it, but talking with buds at other bases they have all heard the same thing from up the chain.

This link was sent to me a few days ago. Story below.

March 21, 2007 (by Lieven Dewitte) - The US Air Force is to modify its training program for the F-22A Raptor. Pilots who are in their very first stage of flight training will receive interim instruction on the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Twelve students will go through the new course from January 2008, and perform their first of 160 F-22 conversion flights in March.

USAF training system assets include pilot and maintenance trainers (simulators), instructor-led and student-paced courseware, and electronic classrooms.

A pilot training system developed by Boeing supports all F-22 pilot training. It employs three sophisticated simulators:

* The Full Mission Trainer (FMT)

* The Weapons and Tactics Trainer (WTT)

* The Egress Procedures Trainer

The full-mission trainers allow the pilot to practice the entire mission from engine start-up to engine shut down. It supports formation flight training, air refueling, takeoff and landing, emergency procedures, and visual-range combat.

The system features a high resolution, full 360-degree visual system, and is not be motion based.

The weapons and tactics trainers allow the pilot to practice weapons employment and combat tactics only in a desktop environment. The 37 WTTs to be built will be less complex than the FMT, as the pilot will only be able to fly a portion of the mission. The WTTs will have a throttle and stick, a limited visual system, and a PC-type computer to operate the scenarios.

Pilots can practice individual and flight weapons employment. The system can also be used the WTT for mission planning.

The egress procedures trainers allow the pilots to practice cockpit safety procedures and ejection seat inspections and train for ejection and canopy separation procedures.

The 43rd Fighter Squadron of the Air Education and Training Command was the first USAF squadron to operate F-22A. The 43rd was re-established at Tyndall AFB, Florida in 2002, and, in 2003, with a corps of 15 Raptor Instructor Pilots, began training student Raptor pilots for the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB, Virginia.

The 43rd continues to produce new Raptor pilots, and will continually serve as the focal point for all F-22 training of combat USAF Raptor pilots and maintainers.

Edited March 29, 2007 by CrewDawg1

[brabus]

So why exactly would they do this interim f-16 training? Doesn't it seem like a waste of time/resources to teach them all the shit-ton of stuff they need to know for flying the viper, only to just turn around in 5 months and go to another airframe? I understand wanting some type of "fighter" experience, but is all that really worth it? But, that might make too much sense.

[HuggyU2]

I'm guessing they are concerned about putting a 2Lt into a $220M fighter that has no two-seat training option.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Huggyu2

[asdf]

it makes sense why they want do get you some training in an F-16. While you are going through intense training at IFF you still aren't nearly task saturated as you are when you are going on an air-to-air mission in a F-15 or F-16 and for that reason you are more amped up and excited. All it takes is for one dumb Lt to forget to do his g-strain and there goes a 200 million dollar airplane. That is what the few hr. in an F-16 will give that young Lt. My understanding is that the emphasis is not to teach that Lt to fly an F-16 but rather to use that F-16 to get a young pilot in a situation that will task saturate him/her and test their ability to handle high g's and still have someone in that back seat to take over if they black out.... from my understanding this is a common problem in the FTU of F-16s and F-15s.... It sure seems logical to me and who wouldn't want to make sure our best fighter is in the hands of a competent pilot!

[HerkDerka]

I think Huggy's closer.

HD

[Hacker]

to get the idea of communicating as a fighter pilot and the ability to be task saturated while still not blacking out at 9g's.

Well....not really. Has a lot more to do with avionics use while still being able to fly fast and turn tight.

I think Huggy's closer.

HD

Has nothing to do with the lack of a 2-seat trainer.

The fact of the matter is that T-38 based IFF just doesn't produce a product that the Raptor community can use. The skillset that the current IFF program produces -- e.g. a wingman -- is not what the Raptor needs. The biggest complaint was that the way the F-22 employs is not like how standard fighters operate, and that every pilot needed to have at LEAST 2-ship flight lead kinds of skills, and they'd prefer something on the order of Mission Commander skills.

If you look at the requirements they had for who they were accepting from the CAF -- 2-ship FL min and current in a radar-equipped fighter -- that is some hint as to what they are looking for their basic qualifications.

This is an issue that was being worked on the entire three years I was at IFF, and the last I heard was that there was going to be an interim solution prior to a major overhaul of the IFF program. The major overhaul would include replacing the T-38 with a different aircraft that has performance and avionics which can accomplish the required training.

Looks like this is the interim solution.

[Guest rumblefish_2]

Just sat thru the Raptor brief from the 422 at Nellis when I was at FECOC. The whole B-course topic was brought up and the pilot (who was quick to point out that he is just in the community and does not make policy) stated that the current UPT pipeline does not produce a Raptor-ready pilot and neither does IFF. He also stated that putting brand new punks in a $220M jet with no back seat is not something the community is ready to do yet. He did say that the most recent Raptor converts are much younger and less experienced than the first Raptor dudes, but all still have experience flying high-G, task-saturating airplanes. He did mention the notion of doing some F-16 time for brand new dudes just coming out of AETC, but to expect those experimental B-coursers to be FAIPs, not recent UPT grads. Again, just one Raptor dude's perspective, not policy...

[Guest Blu4]

From talking with the guys at the 43rd building this thing, some of the stuff posted here is accurate. The current plan is to start a class in Mar of 08, and yes, the first pilots are already in SUPT somewhere. It won't be 12 guys though, the current plan is to do a SGTO course of 4 pilots, only one of which will be a FAIP. Those 4 won't even know they're the 4 going to Raptors though. At assignment, pilots will be able to select the "Air Dominance" track, with their assignment night being to "F-15C/F-22 to Tyndall." They'll then go to IFF and the centrifuge. IFF will have a new "Air Dominance Track" that will incorporate most of the stuff from the F-15C track, plus add in 2 (3?) ACM sorties. Once they arrive at Tyndall, there will be a records review, and based on their total performance to date, including IFF and the 'fuge, they'll pick which of the 12-16 guys on the AD track will be the 4 Raptor studs.

Once THOSE 4 are identified, they go to Luke for the pre-Raptor course, which will be 8-10 rides in a D-model Viper, with the primary emphasis being on task saturating them while pulling G's. Basically, they're most concerned about a dude G-LOCing and putting a Raptor into the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally though, since they've got no 2-seaters, they're focusing on teaching them sidestick, DFLCS issues, and air refueling. I guess one of the big struggles is trying to determine what the "Pass" criteria is for that course and whether or not they can be washed out at that phase of the game or if its "fam only."

I think the final B-course is still being written, but its way less than 160 sorties....something like 48-50 maybe. However, they will get sims out the azz, something like 250-300. Again, first concern seems to be of a dude G-LOCing, based on trends from the -15 and -16 FTUs from the last couple years. Next seems to be the inability to have somebody in the back seat to teach basic skill sets on the first ride of each phase, a-la F-16 and F-15C, and finally, they're trying to figure out how to teach their tactics to a new kid who doesn't have a clue. I guess "follow me" from 3-6K foot offset trail isn't really an option for how the Raptor employs.

At any rate, seems like some kid in pilot training is currently holding a golden ticket and doesn't know it. Better than those of us who don't fly titanium tennis courts, I guess. Apparently you have to be a C-model driver to get picked up for the Raptor transition....apparently us -16 and -15E punks aren't good enough to get stuck in a cockpit or lose all our nav data when we cross the dateline.

[Guest Rage]

For all you stalkers out there (yeah, you know who you are) here is the latest on the new Raptor B-coursers. They should be arriving down here at Tyndall in a few months.

Rage

1/16/2008 - LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. -- The first pilots ever selected to fly the F-22 Raptor without previous fighter experience started preparing for that day Jan. 14, when they entered the 63rd Fighter Squadron here for the Raptor Lead-in course.

The Raptor Lead-in course is a five-week opportunity for the four new pilots to experience flying a high-G, high performance aircraft with an instructor in the back seat before taking the stick of the $169 million, single-seat Raptor by themselves, according to Maj. Daniel Munter, 56th Training Squadron instructor pilot.

"This course is designed to be an intermediate step to (the pilots) taking the F-22 up for the first time and being successful," Major Munter said.

Pilots and other instructors from the 56th Fighter Wing have been working since early 2007 on this course, which is not necessarily designed to teach the pilots how to fly the F-16, but rather to give them experience in a high-G environment while familiarizing them with other aspects of fighter aviation which were unavailable to them during their previous training.

Prior to arriving at Luke, the four were part of a pool of eight candidates hoping to be selected as the first students to go directly to the F-22. Raptor pilots currently flying the airframe had previous flying experience in other fighter aircraft.

After undergraduate pilot training, the eight newly-graduated pilots were sent to Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, for the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals course. That course familiarized them with fighters via the T-38 Talon trainer aircraft. By the end of IFF, the final four were selected to become F-22 pilots.

The four pilots are:

-- 1st Lt. Austin Skelley;

-- 1st Lt. Ryan Shelhorse;

-- 1st Lt. Marcus McGinn; and

-- 1st Lt. Dan Dickinson.

Major Munter said by learning to push the envelope in the F-16, the Raptor Lead-in course is designed to help them be successful in the maneuvering dynamics of the F-22.

One of the major benefits to their F-16 familiarization is the similarities of the two aircraft, specifically the side-stick controls. Other aircraft in the Air Force inventory are controlled with the controls between the pilot's legs. The fly-by-wire system is unique to these two fighter aircraft.

Other items the students will learn more about while at Luke include night flying, day and night landing, air-to-air refueling and increasing their ability to perform the anti-G straining maneuver. This last item is key, Major Munter said. While the T-38 Talon is quick and maneuverable, it may have pushed the pilots to experience six Gs, or six times the force of gravity. While flying the F-16, the pilots will experience up to nine Gs, making their transition to the most advanced fighter in the world, the Raptor, easier to handle.

During the pilots' in-brief, Brig. Gen. Tom Jones, 56th Fighter Wing commander, said that this course is exactly what instructors at Luke are used to doing.

"You will get a lot of experience here from a fighter perspective and an intelligence perspective that's very transferable to the F-22," he said.

For the new pilots, the opportunity to fly the high-performance F-16 before going on to the Air Force's most advanced fighter is something to which they all look forward.

"Learning to fly an advanced fighter from world-class instructors is going to be a great opportunity for our class as we transition to the F-22," said Lieutenant Skelley, a Casa Grande, Ariz., native.

After completing the course here the pilots will go on to the 43rd Fighter Squadron at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., where after more than two years of training, they will take on the F-22.

[drewpey]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...22a-mishap.html

Lockheed Martin delivered the first 30 F-22As with an inadequate adhesive -- dubbed C493 -- for low observable (LO) coatings.

The manufacturer has since fixed the problem, but the first 30 airframes are stuck with the bad glue.

There's a reason we now know this bit of F-22A arcana. On November 1, a small patch of LO material sheared off the inlet for the right engine on takeoff. The material was sucked into the engine, causing more than $1.2 million in damage.

I reported about the mishap on this blog on Monday, a few days before the Air Combat Command released the accident investigation report. The report attirbutes the Class A mishap mainly to the poor adhesive used to attach the LO to the engine inlet.

That's one mystery solved.

Article about the Class A:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...orted-f22a.html

A Lockheed Martin F-22A on November 1 experienced an "in-flight emergency" and landed safely at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, but the previously undisclosed incident caused more than $1 million of damage to the aircraft, the US Air Force confirmed to me this morning.

No details of the so-called "Class A" mishap are being released pending a report by the Accident Investigation Board (AIB). Any incident that causes at least $1 million is classified as a Class A mishap and prompts an investigation by the AIB.

The first notice of the new F-22A mishap appeared on the AIB's official web site, which was recently updated with the new information.

The F-22A incident occured on November 1, not on November 2 as reported on the AIB site, says a spokesman for the Air Combat Command.

More details to follow ...

Plus an interesting site with reports from the AIB

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/

[Guest Boom]

Name an airframe that didn't have problems when it first came out.

[hindsight2020]

True, but composite materials and construction pose a different set of problems for maintenance, requires a lot of baby-sitting, and it is in relative infancy within the context of military employment. Only time will tell how these airframes will fare long-term, as the new generation of F-22/35 type airplanes begin replacing your metal alloy garden variety airframes.

From my experience studying aircraft structure life issues, IMO the AF underestimates and ultimately downplays the operating reality of composite material-based airframes, and that will become evident in a decade. Adding the AF's trend of being 90 degrees off-phase in anything (personnel, retention, cyber you name it) it's not too much of a warm fuzzy as to how they'll deal with the paradigm shift of composites, not from an engineering point of view, but from an application angle (i.e MX group hyper-cycled Amn snuffy issues).

[Wolf424]

Thread Revival...

AF ready for F-22 export version

By Sam LaGrone - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday Jun 14, 2009 12:00:45 EDT

The Air Force is prepared to create a version of the F-22 Raptor that the U.S. could sell to foreign countries if it gets the go-ahead from Congress and the State Department, according to one of the service’s top acquisition officers.

Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford told the Senate Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee that the Air Force would follow established practices to ensure the export model did not jeopardize U.S. military secrets.

“We would go into the process dealing with the State Department policy crowd and using normal foreign military sales processes,” Shackelford, military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said June 9 in response to remarks by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

It was the second time in less than a week the question of foreign sales came up at a Senate hearing. Five days earlier, at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, asked the Air Force’s top two leaders — Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Secretary Michael Donley — what it would take to sell the stealth fighter abroad. After the hearing, Inouye said Japanese officials had asked him about the possibility of creating an F-22 export version. Australia also has expressed interest in buying the F-22.

Currently, a federal law enacted to keep sensitive military technology from hostile governments prevents both countries from acquiring the Raptor.

Japan has said it would pay the estimated $1 billion it would cost to develop an F-22 export model. The $140 million F-22 is one of six potential contenders to replace Japan’s aging fleet of F-4s. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is another possibility.

In May, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended Japan go with the F-35 instead of the F-22. A month earlier, in his 2010 budget recommendation, Gates made clear his vision for the fifth-generation fighter fleet: the F-35 with a helping hand from the F-22. His plan calls for capping Raptor production at 187 aircraft — the goal once had been 381 — and bringing on 513 F-35s over the next five years. The last F-22 will roll off the production line in 2011.

Shackelford told Thune a foreign nation interested in acquiring the fighter would have to foot the bill to convert it.

“The F-22 that the United States flies would not be the same F-22 country ‘X’ flies,” Shackelford said.

“Keeping the F-22 line hot” with a foreign sales market could mitigate problems with bringing the F-35 online, Thune said.

The South Dakota senator and other observers say they worry that Gates is committing to the F-35 too early in its test program and that the U.S. will be left with a fighter gap if the Joint Strike Fighter fails to live up to expectations. The F-35s are replacing more than 800 of the Air Force’s oldest F-15s and F-16s, slated for decommissioning by 2024.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/06/...actical_061409/

Thoughts?

[Guest Krabs]

The U.S. should export the Raptor.

I believe that giving a measure of trust to Japan and Australia will pay greater dividends in the long run than trying to think that LO technology will save us, hand us air superiority, or allow IADS penetration for any comparable amount of time. The risk exists that the Russians/Chinese/Indians could reverse engineer/improve/copy some exported LO technology. However, none of those countries are dumb. Lockheed's Denys Overholser picked up the necessary tools to develop "stealth" from an obscure e-mag paper by a RUSSIAN after all; they can certainly figure that stuff out eventually. We might as well try and have the Japanese as an ally in a time where we seem to have few of those, and have an American company make some money in the current economy as a bonus.

The additional force projection via Japan wouldn't hurt either.

Just one dude's opinion.

EDIT: The F-35 sucks.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Krabs

[brabus]

I'm guessing that the F-35 will not preform well in combat testing to the point where the F-22 gets an increase in production numbers.

And that's based on what?

EDIT: The F-35 sucks.

Never had a capes brief, have you?

[summe32c]

Although they have cut the production numbers significantly, I am curious to know if technology currently supporting the F-35 variants will make transition to F-22. Loosing the hud and transitioning the HMD to obtain 360 SA (if not already obtained??) would be just one of the advantages to a block mod. Is there any raptor dudes on here to comment on how this may or may not be something you would like to see happen. There is a ton of goodies in the F-35 that I am surprised havent already made it to the raptor.

-summers

[Steve Davies]

Although they have cut the production numbers significantly, I am curious to know if technology currently supporting the F-35 variants will make transition to F-22. Loosing the hud and transitioning the HMD to obtain 360 SA (if not already obtained??) would be just one of the advantages to a block mod. Is there any raptor dudes on here to comment on how this may or may not be something you would like to see happen. There is a ton of goodies in the F-35 that I am surprised havent already made it to the raptor.

-summers

There's at least one F-22 pilot on here... perhaps he will chime in.

In the meantime, based off of talking to the 90FS guys at Elmendorf late last year, the problem is money. There are lots of things that they want - even 'simple', low cost things like JHMCS - but there is not enough money for them all, and the list gets longer not shorter. Remember that the Raptor is still waiting to get AIM-9X (or at least it was late last year)!

So, the likelihood of them getting the F-35's DAS and associated HMD is pretty remote. Perhaps the best opportunity for something as significant and complex as this to work its way into USAF airframes would be if the jet is sold to Japan or another FMS customer that specifies they want it and can therefore fund its integration. But even that still leaves considerable costs to pay for the hardware and depot level modifications that would be required...

Plus, you have to ask the question as to whether the F-22 community actually need it. The guys I spoke to said that something like JHMCS would be great for letting them put a TD box over a BVR target, but it would be something of a luxury, for example. There might be an argument that, while no pilot is going to turn his nose up at something that gives additional SA, the Raptor pilot already has an excellent suite of sensors that would make something like DAS another 'luxury'.

[MKopack]

I've heard the same, a lot of plans, but no budget to put them into place. A lot of things might be added 'piecemeal' when smaller amounts of $$'s might come available, rather than as a fleet upgrade. The costs of operating and maintaining such a small fleet of F-22's is going to be extraordinary in the future I'm afraid (even when compared to the current costs) and I can see ten / twelve years from now somebody making the decision to start retiring them.

I just wonder what the F-22C might have looked like had the program continued with the technology that was developed for the 35.

Mike

[nsplayr]

House Committee Adds $369 million for 12 more F-22s

A late amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill slipped in $369 million for advance procurement of a dozen more F-22 Raptor stealth fighters.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, offered an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee authorization bill that would take the money from a Defense Department environmental clean-up fund to pay for advance procurement for 12 more of the fifth-generation aircraft.

Bishop’s stance is in direct opposition to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who announced in April that the F-22 program would stop at 187 aircraft.

“There is no study or analysis we have been able to see at the committee in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion that 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats to our homeland a decade from now,” Bishop said during the bill’s mark-up. “To the contrary, Air Force Chief of Staff [Norton] Schwartz has testified in front of our committee in disagreement with the Secretary that he believes that 243 F-22s would represent moderate risk.

“We at least must work towards getting to that 243 number.”

The amendment would not fully fund the aircraft, which cost $141 million a copy, but provide money to purchase long-lead materials.

The last-minute addition narrowly squeaked into the House Armed Services Committee authorization bill by a 31-30 vote.

The bill headed for a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives also contains language that runs counter to the administration’s budget.

Those amendments include:

* A prohibition forbidding the Air Force from retiring 250 aging fighter aircraft.

* A request for the Defense Department to study the sale of the F-22 to Japan.

* A request for a Pentagon study into cost savings to buy new upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F-18s, so-called 4.5-generation fighters.

First off, it's not enough to actually buy the jets, just to keep the lines hotter than ice cold shut down. More interesting to me is the prohibition on retiring the -15s and -16s that are on the chopping block down the road. Big props though for making the amount of money authorized end in 69

[busdriver]

Beerman, you touched very nicely on my problem with Blackstang's posts. I know your community wants many more F-22s, as you should as an advocate for air dominance.

That said,

He hasn't really touched on the ultimate course of his argument. For the sake of argument and to play devil's advocate: what would be the cost to dump the AF version of the F-35 and leverage the R&D to develop a multi-role version of the F-22? Would it be a net gain having less 5th gen fighters overall but a more robust air dominance fleet, possibly backed with less expensive OA-X type aircraft for the permissive environment?

I'm not an expert in this realm, but playing who can beat who is dumb argument.