Well, there went the first Heli
F-22 Raptor Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
oh, they are just down the beach, I did see a few with F-22's last year
Eighty-percent is a very high benchmark for an aircraft as complex and difficult to maintain as the F-22. I think the mission capable rate would increase if they incorporate some of the technologies (RAM for instance) from the F-35 on the Raptor.
The RAM issues often make me wonder a lot if the whole concept isn't a bad idea except in niche applications.
I can understand the value of shaping to reduce visibility. Or materials changes even. But the RAM mats remind me of another failed vehicle: the Space Shuttle. The coating was so maintenance intensive that it proved anti-economic in the long run and as a result the vehicle has been put off to pasture.
Other vehicles also had similar issues like the Me-323 Gigant.
I suspect unless they really improve the lifetime of these RAM mats, which I doubt can ever get to what we would like, as can be seen by the horrible mission capable rates of these aircraft. In a way war is also a matter of economics. Each aircraft which is offline is an aircraft you don't have available for operations. When you add to that the cost of RAM and its maintenance it makes the whole thing quite questionable for a mainline aircraft I think.
It would be fine for a forward attack aircraft or bomber in limited numbers but not on general use.
Still how much of the mission capable rate issue is due to RAM or lack of parts is another thing quite altogether. The F-35 has parts issues and I doubt the F-22 does not suffer from the same issue not being in production even. So I would need more data to take an informed conclusion.
If the parts issues are too extreme then the Air Force will start cannibalizing other aircraft.
The Germans had the same issue in the late WW2 when Albert Speer as the armaments minister wanted to boost impressive unit production numbers and so he reduces the production of spare parts. As a result in actual combat quite often crews had to evacuate and destroy vehicles which otherwise had really minimal damage and would be easily salvageable. Add to that logistics issues with a long distance campaign and you get a disaster in action.
I can understand the value of shaping to reduce visibility. Or materials changes even. But the RAM mats remind me of another failed vehicle: the Space Shuttle. The coating was so maintenance intensive that it proved anti-economic in the long run and as a result the vehicle has been put off to pasture.
Other vehicles also had similar issues like the Me-323 Gigant.
I suspect unless they really improve the lifetime of these RAM mats, which I doubt can ever get to what we would like, as can be seen by the horrible mission capable rates of these aircraft. In a way war is also a matter of economics. Each aircraft which is offline is an aircraft you don't have available for operations. When you add to that the cost of RAM and its maintenance it makes the whole thing quite questionable for a mainline aircraft I think.
It would be fine for a forward attack aircraft or bomber in limited numbers but not on general use.
Still how much of the mission capable rate issue is due to RAM or lack of parts is another thing quite altogether. The F-35 has parts issues and I doubt the F-22 does not suffer from the same issue not being in production even. So I would need more data to take an informed conclusion.
If the parts issues are too extreme then the Air Force will start cannibalizing other aircraft.
The Germans had the same issue in the late WW2 when Albert Speer as the armaments minister wanted to boost impressive unit production numbers and so he reduces the production of spare parts. As a result in actual combat quite often crews had to evacuate and destroy vehicles which otherwise had really minimal damage and would be easily salvageable. Add to that logistics issues with a long distance campaign and you get a disaster in action.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Ram I think is over emphasized as an issue in this case. Ram is no longer unique to stealths after all degrees of Ram or Radar absorbent elements are present well beyond the Stealth fighter class. Just about the entirety of the Military has varying degrees of Stealth technologies. From Uniforms for Special operations that integrate radar and IR suppressing features, new paints and special camouflage systems used on Tanks and Armored fighting vehicles, Naval ships with low observable features and paints to even updated fourth generation fighters like the Eurofighter, F16V, J10C and VLO Drones.
It is I think simply a matter of maturity and maintenance. Until F117 shaping was the only used method of stealth. The SR71 lacked RAM but had some degree of shaped stealth. SR71 had a radar cross section of a man. But the Russians could see it in the Cold War, they fired SAMs at it all the time but it flew so high and so fast that the missiles fell away spent.
With the proliferation of Surface to air missile systems survival of assets like fighters demands small cross sections. Shaping only gets you part of the way there. non Reflecting materials helps close the gap and gets you RCS on par with small insects.
Parts issues are a common factor for all air forces not just the Germans in world war 2. Even non VLO fighters like the F18 have had issues with getting and keeping operational. The Readiness rates of F22 and F35 are often attacked but these numbers don’t bother to consider that 100% readiness is impossible, I doubt even peer level competitors can match 60% readiness of there top fighters of the fourth generation.
Less then peer level are even worse. Part of the unique issues the USAF has as well as any other US service is it’s so spread across the planet.
It is I think simply a matter of maturity and maintenance. Until F117 shaping was the only used method of stealth. The SR71 lacked RAM but had some degree of shaped stealth. SR71 had a radar cross section of a man. But the Russians could see it in the Cold War, they fired SAMs at it all the time but it flew so high and so fast that the missiles fell away spent.
With the proliferation of Surface to air missile systems survival of assets like fighters demands small cross sections. Shaping only gets you part of the way there. non Reflecting materials helps close the gap and gets you RCS on par with small insects.
Parts issues are a common factor for all air forces not just the Germans in world war 2. Even non VLO fighters like the F18 have had issues with getting and keeping operational. The Readiness rates of F22 and F35 are often attacked but these numbers don’t bother to consider that 100% readiness is impossible, I doubt even peer level competitors can match 60% readiness of there top fighters of the fourth generation.
Less then peer level are even worse. Part of the unique issues the USAF has as well as any other US service is it’s so spread across the planet.
The F-22 ×ill fly s full demo shortly
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
One of those F22 apparently let us in on something under the Skin.
The Nose and look of one of the F22 on display at Oshkosh had signs of damage and corrosion.
Interestingly it appears to be that this damage is under the surface layer as the fighter went through its full display. And that degree of damage if on the surface would cause issues in flight.
This and an excerpt in the link above let’s us in on a few facts about the F22.
First it’s skin appears to be 3-4 layers of material at least around that part of the nose.
The outer translucent layer is what the air encounters. This material is on its own translucent and likely transparent to radar.
Then you have the actual RAM materials that are of a foam like texture. The. The boot layers that prevent water from leaking into the jet. Finally the structural layer that gives it its shape.
At other points you can see rust forming indicatorIng possibility a iron base for the material. It could also be galvanic from the interaction of different metals and materials on the aircraft.
F22 has a different types of RAM coatings than F35. It’s said that the F35 simplified and “Baked in” more Ram than F22.
Jura The idiot
General
Nov 20, 2017
F-22’s Agile Developers to Deliver First Link 16 Capability Next Year
11/1/2019
and two years later
F-22’s Agile Developers to Deliver First Link 16 Capability Next Year
11/1/2019