Question about the F-22 and it's radar.

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority.

When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as
"1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can
mean less than that.

Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer
who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft
as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a
Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find
out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the
weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put
their torpedoes on the aircraft.

The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it
couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray
capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as
jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start
up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after
release, but that's all)

So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt.


I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses
reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the
correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires,
and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the
weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and
attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets).
However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could
find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'.

Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is
JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is
JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002.
You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct
minority.

When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as
"1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can
mean less than that.

Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer
who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft
as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a
Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find
out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the
weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put
their torpedoes on the aircraft.

The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it
couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray
capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as
jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start
up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after
release, but that's all)

So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt.


I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses
reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the
correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires,
and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the
weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and
attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets).
However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could
find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'.

Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF. I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery. The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying
for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the
separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the
platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 (
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted. Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy. The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to
carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st
TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them.

Brooks

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF.

I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.

I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery.

I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying
for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the
separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the
platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 (
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted.

When, where and how many, out of interest? There seems to be a paucity
of data, and nobody's either claimed clearance or projected a date when
it will be achieved.

Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy.

No.

I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to
carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st
TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them.

When was the clearance signed? If it hasn't been signed, when is it
expected?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, still have the scars. "Will be
able to carry" has been translated as "is able to carry, but not safely
drop or jettison, inert training versions" for contract acceptance in
the past when an aircraft program was under pressure.

The USAF don't seem to be saying it very clearly or very loudly: while
there's no reason to believe it impossible, neither is this blind
acceptance that the Raptor is currently a fully-capable JDAM-dropper
reasonable.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF.

I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.

I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery.

I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.


I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?


The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying
for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the
separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the
platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 (
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted.

When, where and how many, out of interest? There seems to be a paucity
of data, and nobody's either claimed clearance or projected a date when
it will be achieved.

Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy.

No.

I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?


"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

Argue it with the USAF--they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two. That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

Brooks


The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to
carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st
TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them.

When was the clearance signed? If it hasn't been signed, when is it
expected?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, still have the scars. "Will be
able to carry" has been translated as "is able to carry, but not safely
drop or jettison, inert training versions" for contract acceptance in
the past when an aircraft program was under pressure.

The USAF don't seem to be saying it very clearly or very loudly: while
there's no reason to believe it impossible, neither is this blind
acceptance that the Raptor is currently a fully-capable JDAM-dropper
reasonable.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.


That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

Argue it with the USAF-

Where would you suggest?

-they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I
know?

Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its
capabilities.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.


I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.


I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate
weapons onto airframes.

Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial
capabilities
of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.


So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...



That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

"Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in
use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests
conducted"
can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe
jettison
from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for
operational use".

Argue it with the USAF-

Where would you suggest?

Do a google.


-they appear quite confident that the "A" in the
title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime
during the next year or two.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.


That you are not is not going to cause me any
loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point. USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be. Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying. Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Brooks


Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.

And to the operators.

British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.

Based on what experience? Is this your informed opinion from experience
in the field, or a knee-jerk reflex?


I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.

So, when have they flown a warshot, or released even an inert training
round? Nothing published, nothing announced that I can find: just some
scale model wind-tunnel work.

That's not "editorial input", that's reality.

So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...

Why? It's an accepted convention that "capable" means "should be able to
accept once there's time and money to get the clearances". That you're
spinning that into a complete operational clearance is your error of
understanding, not mine.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.

In other words, again, "capable" doesn't actually mean "cleared to carry
and use".

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point.

The pilots and planners might have some views on the subject.

USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be.

It's "capable" now, it just hasn't been reported as cleared to carry and
use the weapon.

Don't you understand the difference?


"Capable" means the weapon should fit and nobody can see any good reason
why it can't be persuaded to work safely.

"Cleared" means it's been tested and confirmed that the weapon and its
interfaces fits, remains secure through the flight envelope, and can be
safely released (and jettisoned) without getting hung up or recontacting
the airframe.

Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying.

You do realise that both versions can be correct? It certainly *should*
be "capable" but that tells you very little about its actual ability to
deliver warshots.

Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Never once claimed they were lying, just that they haven't done (for
example) store separation tests yet.

Airframe 4003/91-4003 is intended to carry out the JDAM integration
testing: point being "intended", meaning that testing lies in the future
rather than the past.


Or to quote John Manclark, director of test and evaluation at US Air
Force Headquarters:
"IOT&E exercises will assess a four-ship employment of Raptors in likely
combat scenario. The 31-week evaluation will focus on four key
capabilities: global deployment; effectiveness in counter-air missions;
survivability in an air-to-air and surface-to-air environment; and
sortie-generation. It will culminate in a sortie surge demonstration.

IOT&E will identify areas for improvement before the aircraft achieves
its initial operational capability milestone that is expected before the
end of 2005. Before IOC, the service will conduct follow-on operational
test and evaluation to validate JDAM release from the Raptor."

Again, the F-22 is 'capable' - just not certified or cleared yet. That's
not my opinion, that's a current statement from the USAF.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?

Ask the USAF.

I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a
five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000.
Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap.


Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

The other issue is that the F-22 is a hardcore air-supremacy machine,
with the 'A' designation an afterthought.

The USAF is buying the F-22 because it needs a stealthy superfighter to
replace the F-15. It is certainly not short of platforms able to drop
JDAMs. If the F-22 has problems in its declared intended air-to-air
role, is anyone going to be convinced by "okay, but it can carry two
whole JDAMs!" when even the A-10 is being bruited as a JDAM-dropper?

As I said: it's "capable" because nobody's got proof it can't use them.
At some point it'll be cleared to actually fly with the weapons and use
them in action - just not yet.


Not knocking the F-22's capability in its designed role: it might be
expensive, it might have assorted problems, but it's still the best at
what it does ('A' designator accepted as a tacked-on afterthought). The
concern then is how many can be bought... doesn't matter how good your
airframes are, if there aren't enough to intercept the enemy raids.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted.

The dummy tests I saw were for models of the JDAM being dropped from
a model of the F-22 in a four foot wind tunnel.

Quote:- from
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highma...ct9/raptor.htm


"Although AEDC conducted wind tunnel tests on the F-22 Raptor in its
development stages, the center had never performed a non-proprietary
store separation test involving the aircraft until 1998. Store
separation is the release of any weapon, munition, pod or fuel tank
carried by an aircraft.

In 1998, the center employees used 1/15th scale models to conduct five
tests in AEDC’s 4-foot transonic aerodynamic wind tunnel (4T) to
obtain separation characteristics of the AIM-120C missile, AIM-9M
missile and GBU-32 JDAM. This test involved cooperation among AEDC and
multiple test customers, including the F/A-22 Program Office, the
Joint Direct Attack Munitions Program, Wright Labs, Lockheed Martin
and the Air Force Seek Eagle Office.

In 1999, the F/A-22 Raptor returned to 4T for a series of store
separation tests. During this series of tests, center testers used
seven-percent scale models of the F/A-22 aircraft, AIM-9X missile and
600 gallon-fuel tank to acquire and evaluate data to prepare a mission
summary for use in flight testing."

I also saw some 'pods' in test for the F-22 which are wing mounted
that cover the jdams to make them stealthy....

There sort of internal bomb bays for the wings, complete with bomb
doors underneath (where else would you put bomb doors:[))...

Thats a new one on me...hang on a mo I'll get the link

heres the link :-
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highmach/stories/f22.pdf


Cheers



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk