Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[JWCook]

I have been keeping a close watch on the F-22 af.mil factsheet for the last few years, the numbers have been changed intentionally (several times). A year ago that page presented the "Clean weight" of the Raptor as being in the "18 Tons class", six months ago the same number was changed to less than 10 Tons (!!) and now the "clean weight" disappeared and was substituted by this: "Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)".
The same happened for several other items like the internal fuel... This page should be called "The CIA interpretation of the F-22 Raptor statistics for the next six months".

Cheers

Looks like Shinanigins!

I've seen an even lower figure for fuel @17,000lbs, so does the two or more f-22 versions of fuel load stand up to scrutiny?. are the TO for the F-22 <> than the 18,000lbs.

Or do we believe the F-22 test director Mike Wosje 59 TES, Nellis AFB who has given a briefing with written confirmation its 18,448lbs and orally stating its 18,000+.

Who is Mike Wosje:- http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123039911

Hmmm does anyone else have any different figures from quotable sources, (I know it a bugger if you have the actual info and can't say)..

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Looks like Shinanigins!

I've seen an even lower figure for fuel @17,000lbs, so does the two or more f-22 versions of fuel load stand up to scrutiny?. are the TO for the F-22 <> than the 18,000lbs.

Or do we believe the F-22 test director Mike Wosje 59 TES, Nellis AFB who has given a briefing with written confirmation its 18,448lbs and orally stating its 18,000+.

Who is Mike Wosje:- http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123039911

Hmmm does anyone else have any different figures from quotable sources, (I know it a bugger if you have the actual info and can't say)..

Cheers

You've been pointed in the right direction. Just consider that just about every parameter about the F-22, Radar Range/Capability, Range, Speed, Thrust, Altitude, Avionics, ect have been significantly higher than whats on the Fact File. Pilots from Gen Jumper to Australian exchange pilots have been simply awe struck by what it does. I'll let people draw their own conclusions...

-DA

 

[Feanor]

autonomous SHORAD/MANPADS/AAA which have historically been more dangerous and cannot be "kicked down".

Even S-300/400 class systems can operate autonomously, using ambush tactics and such. The fact that most third world airforces don't use theater-level SAM's to their full potential, doesn't mean that the potential isn't there which is what you seem to imply with the "kicked down" reference. Forgive me for overstating the obvious, but one S-300 (or PAC-3) is still dangerous.

What we do know is that unlike last century, individuals and NGO's have the ability to start wars. There are a lot of people and NGOs with grievances against various European nations. I had a little chuckle when you mentioned Iran. If you draw on a map the threat radius of Irans latest missiles. They threaten Europe more than the USA. So are the things I brought up so far fetched? I dont think so so we agree to disagree.

It's the willingness of European nations to act that comes up as a question, especially given their public aversion to casualties and military budgets.

 

[JWCook]

You've been pointed in the right direction. Just consider that just about every parameter about the F-22, Radar Range/Capability, Range, Speed, Thrust, Altitude, Avionics, ect have been significantly higher than whats on the Fact File. Pilots from Gen Jumper to Australian exchange pilots have been simply awe struck by what it does. I'll let people draw their own conclusions...

-DA

Hmm. "pointed in the right direction"!!... that not very substantive.

I guess we will have to pencil in 18.448lbs as the officially stated internal fuel load (with a small caveat that it may be higher or lower in real life due to OPSEC).

Hmmmm it could be Lockheed Martin have 'redefined' the lb to something else??, they do have a history of this sort of thing.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hmm. "pointed in the right direction"!!... that not very substantive.

I guess we will have to pencil in 18.448lbs as the officially stated internal fuel load (with a small caveat that it may be higher or lower in real life due to OPSEC).

Hmmmm it could be Lockheed Martin have 'redefined' the lb to something else??, they do have a history of this sort of thing.

Cheers

Pointed you in the right direction is an understatement. You've been told and shown almost literally. "Choose" to believe whatever you like. If you wish to go with inaccurate data then thats your right. Go to the USN Fact File for a 688 Class Submarine and see what it officially says then get back to us.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Even S-300/400 class systems can operate autonomously, using ambush tactics and such. The fact that most third world airforces don't use theater-level SAM's to their full potential, doesn't mean that the potential isn't there which is what you seem to imply with the "kicked down" reference. Forgive me for overstating the obvious, but one S-300 (or PAC-3) is still dangerous.

You are misunderstanding me. By autonomous I mean that SA-16s can exist outside the IADS infrastructure and are stealthy. An S-300/400 requires much more extensive logistics support and has an electronic footprint that makes it much easier to locate. An S-300/400 would be assigned much more ISR/ELINT/EW coverage and would be a priority target and literally hunted with extreme prejudice by multiple platforms of various types to include space assets looking in the visual/RF/IR spectrums.

A MANPAD can be put into the back of a civilian/military vehicle, slung over a shoulder or carried by animal and used by trained soldier or insurgent/guerilla and are almost impossible to track prior to use making them a threat throughout a conflict. Moreover, they can be procured on the black market so they are also hard to interdict.


-DA

EDIT: S-300s are mobile but they take a bit of time to set up. ~30+ min IIRC. These are dangerous SAMs but we should be careful not to create "urban legends" about them.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Lets just say I'm having connectivity issues trying to use the internet in a "developing" nation. Please Delete. MODs bear with me not much longer now

 

[JWCook]

Pointed you in the right direction is an understatement. You've been told and shown almost literally. "Choose" to believe whatever you like. If you wish to go with inaccurate data then thats your right. Go to the USN Fact File for a 688 Class Submarine and see what it officially says then get back to us.


-DA

Hmm must of missed the 'literally' bit.

You have shown me a safety sheet from before 2005, I have shown you a briefing from 2007 written and oral - by the guy who's testing the Raptor who asserts its 18,488lbs.

The briefing is more up to date than the safety sheet.

Others have mentioned TO for the Raptor disagreeing with the AF.MIL 18.000lbs figure, not up or down but disagreeing, it would be useful to get a date of those TO's


Bear in mind the huge changes to the Raptors internal structure.

What changes you may ask?
The first ~28 produced are different due to engine inlet bleed doors which are deleted on subsequent F-22's, take a look at the picture of early build to late build f-22's

The first 60 are different due to tail boom modifications and inserted plates due to structural weakness.

And other later build f-22 with the overheating problem modifications.

All these required changes to production and the the exterior shape had to remain the same, the densely packed interior of the Raptor had to change.. which do you think is easier to change - fuel tanks or a redesign the surrounding equipment.

Now I'm trying to lead you gently into the possibility that you may be wrong and to point out there are differing fuel loads because there are differing F-22's.

It would be interesting to me if you think that all Raptors are the same, or if your just asserting the later variants/blocks/mod levels have the same fuel load as was published several years ago.


Open question to everyone does anyone know how many variants there are now, or is the statement still true that 'no two Raptors are built the same'

Cheers

 

[JWCook]

Seems the site is up and down like a brides nighty...

First with no dns then the server was missing... its not just those in far flung places having trouble.

cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hmm must of missed the 'literally' bit.

You have shown me a safety sheet from before 2005, I have shown you a briefing from 2007 written and oral - by the guy who's testing the Raptor who asserts its 18,488lbs.

The briefing is more up to date than the safety sheet.

Others have mentioned TO for the Raptor disagreeing with the AF.MIL 18.000lbs figure, not up or down but disagreeing, it would be useful to get a date of those TO's


Bear in mind the huge changes to the Raptors internal structure.

What changes you may ask?
The first ~28 produced are different due to engine inlet bleed doors which are deleted on subsequent F-22's, take a look at the picture of early build to late build f-22's

The first 60 are different due to tail boom modifications and inserted plates due to structural weakness.

And other later build f-22 with the overheating problem modifications.

All these required changes to production and the the exterior shape had to remain the same, the densely packed interior of the Raptor had to change.. which do you think is easier to change - fuel tanks or a redesign the surrounding equipment.

Now I'm trying to lead you gently into the possibility that you may be wrong and to point out there are differing fuel loads because there are differing F-22's.

It would be interesting to me if you think that all Raptors are the same, or if your just asserting the later variants/blocks/mod levels have the same fuel load as was published several years ago.


Open question to everyone does anyone know how many variants there are now, or is the statement still true that 'no two Raptors are built the same'

Cheers

JWCook,

The info I'm referring to is current. The Raptor is no different from a Humvee in that none are the same. Also, I'm not asserting anything. I'm telling you how it is. Choose to believe whatever makes you comfortable or take as much time as you need debating it with yourself. As far as I'm concerned this is minutea because the F-22 is stated to exceed it's range requirements which is what matters.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

Others have mentioned TO for the Raptor disagreeing with the AF.MIL 18.000lbs figure, not up or down but disagreeing, it would be useful to get a date of those TO's

The TO's are schematics as well as stats. They are specifically used as references by the recovery and snatch teams so that they can deal with emergency events.

They include physical dimensions, detailed drawings as to what parts of the aircraft have to be opened, sequence of access to the aircraft and access points.

They're far more accurate than what any pilot who has flown the aircraft may think as they deal specifically with recovery and security of the aircraft in a negative situation.

 

[Fritz]

USAF claim 18,000 lbs here /www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Whats correct?

I have the Official TO for the F-22 fuel capacity and it is different to the af.mil factsheets.

Or do we believe the F-22 test director Mike Wosje 59 TES, Nellis AFB who has given a briefing with written confirmation its 18,448lbs and orally stating its 18,000+.

None of this is contradicting.
1)When you round 18448 lbs to the nearest 1000, as the af.mil factsheets did, what do you get ? -> 18000

2) The Official TO for the F-22 fuel capacity is different to the af.mil factsheets. Yes, the correct number is slightly higher.

3) Yes again, 18.448 is in fact 18.000+, and is in fact not exactly 18.000.

This hair-splitting makes less difference then the speed uncertainty for the two planes ~2%, and is therefore negleglible. It was good to get it clarified tho.

 

[JWCook]

The TO's are schematics as well as stats. They are specifically used as references by the recovery and snatch teams so that they can deal with emergency events.

They include physical dimensions, detailed drawings as to what parts of the aircraft have to be opened, sequence of access to the aircraft and access points.

They're far more accurate than what any pilot who has flown the aircraft may think as they deal specifically with recovery and security of the aircraft in a negative situation.

I hope were not talking about the same technical orders then..

Is it 00-105e-9.. because It seems to me the data is wrong, they seem to have mixed up the the fuel loads..

Take a look at page 11 and tell me if 5450 US gallons = 23,043 Litres or any of the other figures where gallons are converted into Litres, I think they may have mixed up how many Litres in a US gallon with how many Cups (8fl oz) in a Litre.... (4.228 is the conversion)

If this is incorrect someones life may depend on 'accurate' figures and I suggest they get changed.

The Litre figures all seem to be inflated by 10% ish, how could that happen?? they wouldn't have inflated the F-22 figures first by 10% then converted them to Litres and then done the 10% inflation again , thats one possible explanation remote as it may be.

So excuse me If I believe what the test pilot thinks he's got over this particular document for now.

BTW the Raptor has gained an extra 600-800lbs in extra weight since this document was produced, where do you think they put all that extra weight, it was pretty tight in there.???.
Notes

JP 8 weighs ~6.8 pounds per gallon.
1 US Gallon = 3.78541178 litres

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I hope were not talking about the same technical orders then..

Is it 00-105e-9.. because It seems to me the data is wrong, they seem to have mixed up the the fuel loads..

That TO was rejected years ago - and for the very reason stated because some couldn't tell the difference between US and Imperial gallons as well as Litres.

The official TO's were pulled some time ago for security reasons. None of the current ones are on the net anymore.

No offence, I'll take a document used by the recovery teams over a pilot any day of the week. - No matter how damn good the pilot is, they don't need to or get to play in that detail space.

It's why pilots are pilots and snatch teams are not.....

 

[JWCook]

<sigh> Then exactly which current TO are you talking about? or is that classified?.

BTW the 2007 briefing claiming 18,000lbs fuel load wasn't from just a pilot he is the F-22 Test director for the 59th Test and Evaluation, in addition to being a damed good pilot.


Cheers

 

[Fritz]

Lets just take F-22 test director Mike Wosje 59 TES, Nellis AFB word for it, who has given a briefing with written confirmation its 18,448lbs.

Let him who has an even more credible source speak up now and link, or forever be silent.
(-at least until there is an even more credible source avaliable.)

 

[DarthAmerica]

Lets just take F-22 test director Mike Wosje 59 TES, Nellis AFB word for it, who has given a briefing with written confirmation its 18,448lbs.

Let him who has an even more credible source speak up now and link, or forever be silent.
(-at least until there is an even more credible source avaliable.)

Just consider some of the posters here aren't discussing this as a hobby or enthusiasm. Consider the sources of disagreement...

FYI: TO's, TM's and PAM's are much more credible than the operators for a whole host of reasons. That's from over a decade of experience.

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Just consider some of the posters here aren't discussing this as a hobby or enthusiasm. Consider the sources of disagreement...

FYI: TO's, TM's and PAM's are much more credible than the operators for a whole host of reasons. That's from over a decade of experience.

-DA

That may be true as a generalization but the TO Revision 11 is riddled with simple mistakes which has dented what seemed at first glance to be quite a good source.

All I'm asking is what is the current one, and what are the current figures, If they are not classified numbers, take a look at the document are the figures actually classified, if they are then I'll stop asking?.

More to the point have they changed??? I have good reason to ask - because the F-22 has had 600 to 800lbs of extras crammed into an already densely packed airframe in the last few years, some of which impinges on fuel capacity, if the figures are the same as Rev 11 something is obviously screwed..

Cheers

 

[JWCook]

That TO was rejected years ago - and for the very reason stated because some couldn't tell the difference between US and Imperial gallons as well as Litres.

Its not that some couldn't tell the difference, the figures were all wrong, the conversion from US Gallons to litres on all figures were wrong by the same factor!, I don't know what conversion factor they used but its not US gal to Litres or Old imperial, or anything else sensible, the only conversion that fits the figures is US cups (8oz) into litres!!.

Now that's really odd...:eek

 

[gf0012-aust]

All I'm asking is what is the current one, and what are the current figures, If they are not classified numbers, take a look at the document are the figures actually classified, if they are then I'll stop asking?.

I say again. The proper stats were pulled some time ago.

It's irrelevant to me whether you believe the ones you have or not. I know what we have.

As for claiming the TP (no matter what his rank) has a better knowledge of the detail about the aircraft than a snatch team manual, then that's just ridiculous.

I've dealt with signature management systems where the AWO would have no idea of the mechanics of the system - they're the user, the operator. Their knowledge is specific to their task.

This is going round and around the mulberry bush and serves no damn purpose except to have people defend their own position and with no capacity to state things in the open even if they wanted to.

If you believe that your calcs are right then so be it.

I'm not going to get dragged into some whacky jousting competition just to satiate personal opinions.

Perhaps it's time to gently remind all about the number of times that Janes Publications printed bogus data that was fed to them by the manufacturer or the host country and was subsequently found out to be polluted. It's happened as early as 1911 - and has happened ever since.

Public data needs to be used judiciously - and anyone who seeks to defend their position by the use of it (esp with fielded contemp systems) is naive at best..... Sure you can take external dimensions as a vector of absolutes - but "what's inside the box"? AGF'A.