TaiidanTomcat Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 5 hours ago, sweier said: Only in the minds of fantasists like Kopp and Goon. At no point did it meet the RAAF requirement for a multi-role fighter. We're starting to build an impressive joint force with Project Jericho. It's costing a lot and so far has buy in from both sides of parliament, but no way would we be spending the money to buy both F-22 and F-35 Shane This^ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 (edited) Okay, so we're back. Here's how this goes. Stop firing off cheap shots at other nationalities, it's political. If I find a thread that's having political squabbling/commentary/plain squabbling going on, it gets locked. I prefer that to deleting the whole thing, as it gives me the time to clean out the things people posted that maybe they didn't really mean to say. If people want to keep acting like their inner 14 year old, well, all that lovely info goes "poof". None of us really want that, do we? It's that time of year when tempers are short, patience is frayed and snarkiness is way too easy. I'd much rather see a good exchange of ideas than cheap shots fired off in anger or annoyance. This isn't a discussion. This is a lecture. Period. Al P ARC Moderation team Edited December 29, 2016 by Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 So, back to the topic: What would be a probable fit of F-35 hardware into an upgraded F-22? Would that even make sense? Would it be better to go with something specific for just the F-22? The systems in the F-22 are certainly at least a decade older than the F-35, I'm assuming a restart would entail new hardware/electronics suites? Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IAGeezer Posted December 29, 2016 Author Share Posted December 29, 2016 Wow. That one augered in quickly! I just want to say that I'm really enjoying the responses to the original question, and thanks to all who have responded constructively. Thank you Alvis 3.1 for being the grown-up.... Reminds me of the days when the First Sergeant kept two pair of boxing gloves in his desk. Got a problem? Have the platoon form a circle, then figure out your differences. Oddly, a number of friendships were formed as a result. But I digress... Isn't datalink/comms one of the big hurdles that's being worked on between F-35 and F-15? Is that being worked on with F-22? Great discussion! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 I'd be really curious how this resurrection thing would work. The German Navy recently decided to buy a second batch of K-130 corvettes. The general discussion is: How much of this second batch of systems will look and be like the "old" (= first) batch? How many things have to be made completely new, because the original parts/systems aren't available/useful anymore? What do these necessary changes mean for the whole system itself? Can it still be considered a "2nd batch", or is it already a completely new ship? How much will system integration and planning cost? How different will layout, usability turn out? Do we need new training facilities for the new systems? Just so much for the idea of "we will simply buy the same system again"... HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Hajo L. said: I'd be really curious how this resurrection thing would work. The German Navy recently decided to buy a second batch of K-130 corvettes. The general discussion is: How much of this second batch of systems will look and be like the "old" (= first) batch? How many things have to be made completely new, because the original parts/systems aren't available/useful anymore? What do these necessary changes mean for the whole system itself? Can it still be considered a "2nd batch", or is it already a completely new ship? How much will system integration and planning cost? How different will layout, usability turn out? Do we need new training facilities for the new systems? Just so much for the idea of "we will simply buy the same system again"... HAJO It's very similar to that in fact. The next big question becomes if it's going to be different anyway, how much do you tweak and improve in other areas too? It's easy for things to get out of hand Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 4 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said: The next big question becomes if it's going to be different anyway, how much do you tweak and improve in other areas too? It's easy for things to get out of hand That seems to be one of the ongoing issues with new build procurement programs. Mission creep. "Hey, we know you are pretty much finished with the design but while you are at it, we'd also like you to add X, Y & Z to it" As much as it's great fun to slag giants like LM, not everything that screws cost and schedule is on the contractor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 Heck why not re-open the B-52 line instead! B-52J model...or the EB-52 a la "Flight of the Old Dog"... ...hey General Bradley Elliott and his crew were able to do a lot of damage in the EB-52 back in the late 1980's...imagine what a slightly tweaked "modernized" RB-52 could do with 2000's tech!!! Cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 (edited) I think the AF is still kicking around re-engining the BUFF with modern turbofans. They did it with the KC-135R and by all accounts it was an extremely successful program that saved the AF millions in fuel / maintenance costs. I like the V-tail above. Should have a major impact on RCS. My goodness, if we just updated the B-52 with all that new stuff, we could cancel the B-21! Edited December 29, 2016 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 6 hours ago, 11bee said: I like the V-tail above. Should have a major impact on RCS. Not with those huge turbofan faces hanging out on the wing.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
falcon20driver Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Why haven't they re-engined the BUFF? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, falcon20driver said: Why haven't they re-engined the BUFF? They decided the money is needed elsewhere. They had a program or two that appeared to be moving forward but ended up being cancelled. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GEH737 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 First - I can't prove any of this - but it's true. A while back, I was working with an individual current on the F-22. They had a relative current on the F-35. There was a meeting of the Congressional "Science and Technology Committee" where the F-35 individual was invited to participate. Through them - my co-worker was also invited to address the committee and offer insights about the F-22. The end result wasn't about performance, requirements or needs. It was about how the F-35 could help that individual member in their respective district. The questions posed to my co-worker were ludicrous, and showed a startling lack of knowledge about either science, technology or aviation. Almost anyone here on ARC could ask more relevant questions. One of the biggest detractors of the F-22 was Lockheed itself. They stood to make much more on the F-35 program - and that's where their energy went. It was a pretty surprising conversation - and hearing it first hand was quite an insight into what goes on behind the scenes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkKnight Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 2 hours ago, GEH737 said: First - I can't prove any of this - but it's true. A while back, I was working with an individual current on the F-22. They had a relative current on the F-35. There was a meeting of the Congressional "Science and Technology Committee" where the F-35 individual was invited to participate. Through them - my co-worker was also invited to address the committee and offer insights about the F-22. The end result wasn't about performance, requirements or needs. It was about how the F-35 could help that individual member in their respective district. The questions posed to my co-worker were ludicrous, and showed a startling lack of knowledge about either science, technology or aviation. Almost anyone here on ARC could ask more relevant questions. One of the biggest detractors of the F-22 was Lockheed itself. They stood to make much more on the F-35 program - and that's where their energy went. It was a pretty surprising conversation - and hearing it first hand was quite an insight into what goes on behind the scenes. Ive always suspected this, I also agree, most politicians and news media people have a strikingly poor grasp on what this technology is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IAGeezer Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share Posted December 30, 2016 Re-reading Air Power Abandoned by the late Robert F. Dorr. Bob had some definite thoughts on the Raptor cancellation, and expresses them in the book, but backs things up with interviews of the principal players(Except SecDef Gates, who would never accept an interview). Recommended reading! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 18 hours ago, 11bee said: I think the AF is still kicking around re-engining the BUFF with modern turbofans. They did it with the KC-135R and by all accounts it was an extremely successful program that saved the AF millions in fuel / maintenance costs. I like the V-tail above. Should have a major impact on RCS. My goodness, if we just updated the B-52 with all that new stuff, we could cancel the B-21! Everytime re-enginEing the buffer comes up you run Into the same problem: the asymmetrical thrust if one of the new outboard motors goes out is too much for the tail section to work with, thus the buff would require a new tail. New tail is practically new airplane once you've messed with it, the wings, the engines throughout. In short juice isn't worth the squeeze thanks to the huge redesign beyond just engines Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 11 hours ago, GEH737 said: First - I can't prove any of this - but it's true. A while back, I was working with an individual current on the F-22. They had a relative current on the F-35. There was a meeting of the Congressional "Science and Technology Committee" where the F-35 individual was invited to participate. Through them - my co-worker was also invited to address the committee and offer insights about the F-22. The end result wasn't about performance, requirements or needs. It was about how the F-35 could help that individual member in their respective district. The questions posed to my co-worker were ludicrous, and showed a startling lack of knowledge about either science, technology or aviation. Almost anyone here on ARC could ask more relevant questions. One of the biggest detractors of the F-22 was Lockheed itself. They stood to make much more on the F-35 program - and that's where their energy went. It was a pretty surprising conversation - and hearing it first hand was quite an insight into what goes on behind the scenes. Makes you wonder about all that smoke and brimstone they spout about the A-10 amiright? ;) It would have been nice to have more F-22s but that was an uphill battle especially when sec def made up his mind. And you really need to thank the same people that are now complaining about F-35 using the same arguments. There is always some awesome future system right around the corner that will be magically cheaper, yet superior, as they spout about how 5th generation fighters aren't needed for Iraqistans. They are manipulators plain and simple. Go onto wired.come and search F-22. Watch the demonization unfold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
riffraff Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said: Everytime re-enginEing the buffer comes up you run Into the same problem: the asymmetrical thrust if one of the new outboard motors goes out is too much for the tail section to work with, thus the buff would require a new tail. New tail is practically new airplane once you've messed with it, the wings, the engines throughout. In short juice isn't worth the squeeze thanks to the huge redesign beyond just engines The last I read about re-engining the B-52 was that they were looking at using 8 engines from some type of biz jet. They were very close to the same size and thrust as they have now so here was no need to re-engineer anything.I guess some re-wiring would be required, but this seemed like a reasonable solution to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 39 minutes ago, TaiidanTomcat said: Everytime re-enginEing the buffer comes up you run Into the same problem: the asymmetrical thrust if one of the new outboard motors goes out is too much for the tail section to work with, thus the buff would require a new tail. New tail is practically new airplane once you've messed with it, the wings, the engines throughout. In short juice isn't worth the squeeze thanks to the huge redesign beyond just engines Not correct. They are still looking at replacing the engines. Some options have four turbofans but another one has 8 GE CF-34 engines. It seems like control authority was a problem in the past but they have got this resolved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, 11bee said: Not correct. They are still looking at replacing the engines. Some options have four turbofans but another one has 8 GE CF-34 engines. It seems like control authority was a problem in the past but they have got this resolved. I'm talking 4 not 8. 8 is relatively new Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.