miles316 Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 Can any one explain what kind of machine tools are being used on the F-22 Assembly line that are specialized and cant be used on other Assembly lines. Are we talking about Jigs used to hold the jets while they are being built? I here talk of lock-mart storing the equipment to be used at a later date if the government changes their minds.
buddhafabio Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 i toured the f-18 line one time and what i can remember is a huge pres with a die mole for pressing metal. i would imagine there is way more then this.
mechaninac Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 To my understanding, specialized tooling is a catch all term. To build something as complex as an F/A-22 you require an assembly facility dedicated to its construction (that once retooled for another purpose would be unsuited to its current one), with Raptor specific jigs, pressed, molds, tools, as well as other support equipment that may or may not be suitable for any other manufacturing/assembly functions other than the F/A-22. Add to that the hundreds/thousands of suppliers who also posses very Raptor-centric equipment tailor made to the manufacture of parts for this specific fighter jet; equipment that may be prohibitively expensive to keep and maintain if the parts they produce are no longer needed because the plane is no longer in production. And to top it all off you've got the expertise of those who make those parts and assemble them... once they're gone, they're gone. Canceling the production of further Raptors would, therefore, have a far deeper impact than just the tooling involved. Once that infrastructure is dismantled, putting Humpty Dumpty back together would be a monumental undertaking almost as complex as devising that infrastructure in the first place.
miles316 Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 To my understanding, specialized tooling is a catch all term. To build something as complex as an F/A-22 you require an assembly facility dedicated to its construction (that once retooled for another purpose would be unsuited to its current one), with Raptor specific jigs, pressed, molds, tools, as well as other support equipment that may or may not be suitable for any other manufacturing/assembly functions other than the F/A-22. Add to that the hundreds/thousands of suppliers who also posses very Raptor-centric equipment tailor made to the manufacture of parts for this specific fighter jet; equipment that may be prohibitively expensive to keep and maintain if the parts they produce are no longer needed because the plane is no longer in production. And to top it all off you've got the expertise of those who make those parts and assemble them... once they're gone, they're gone. Canceling the production of further Raptors would, therefore, have a far deeper impact than just the tooling involved. Once that infrastructure is dismantled, putting Humpty Dumpty back together would be a monumental undertaking almost as complex as devising that infrastructure in the first place. Thanks.
shiroikaze Posted April 12, 2009 Posted April 12, 2009 Yeah, if you look head-on, you'll see how few planes the F-22 has. When you REALLY look, both the YF-23 and F-22 are pretty amazing in how everything lines up--especially compare "trailing edge of A to leading edge of B"---basically, EVERYTHING lines up with something else--it just may not be near or associated or obvious--but there are overall *very* few skew lines---everything's parallel. When I saw this pic on 4chan, I just couldn't help but remember that post. and here's another for kicks:
Bluemaxx Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Hi guys i see this thread has been inactive for awhile so i thought i would post something i've found in my travels on the net. I'm not sure if this has already been posted before but i couldn't find it when i performed a search, if it has then sorry about that otherwise....enjoy! Russian plasma stealth systems This looks like a real world version of the active stealth systems they talk about in Macross.
edwin3060 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I'm not sure how much credit you should give to that blog post. Plasma stealth, while theoretically possible, faces tremendous practical difficulties, not the least of which is the ability to generate and sustain a plasma around an airframe taking into account the complex airflow (and how to prevent that plasma from being ingested by the engines, which would not be good, to say the least). Also, all you gotta do to defeat it is to switch to IR sensors Moving on: Predator C-- the future of air warfare? General Atomics is really making it big in the UAV arena, beating out or at least competing equally with established firms like NG, LM and Boeing.
Bowen Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Predator C-- the future of air warfare? General Atomics is really making it big in the UAV arena, beating out or at least competing equally with established firms like NG, LM and Boeing. So, what new features does the C-model have exactly?
F-ZeroOne Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Well, one clue is that the C model doesn't appear to have a propeller...
F-ZeroOne Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Sorry, couldn't resist. Payload is meant to be the same as a Reaper, but its faster and - er - obviously more stealthy. The way the company builds them is interesting - apparently, they build what they think the military will want, rather than what the military says that it needs. Keeps the cost overruns down quite a bit... Edited April 20, 2009 by F-ZeroOne
edwin3060 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 That's actually a pretty smart move since military requirements (and budget) are always changing--but this is venturing into politics again. Most successful military acquisitions that come in ahead of time and under budget are black programs like the F-117, free from uninformed interference. OTOH most black programs fail as well Anyway, Pred-C is faster, stealthier and has longer range than the Reaper with the same payload. And it is adaptable to carrier deployment as well, allowing the navy to take one giant leap-- into VLO aircraft and unmanned aircraft at the same time, if it gets deployed before the F-35C.
Bowen Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) VLO aircraft and unmanned aircraft at the same time Why does that sound so familiar? Can't we just call the inevitable Predator D "UCAV-EDI" instead just to get this over with? Edited April 21, 2009 by Bowen
eugimon Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 JSF project hacked... http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090421/wr_...gon_cyberspying
edwin3060 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Heh... I'm pretty sure I know the country behind this-- the same country that already stole Titan II ICBM, B-2, F-22, ship propellers etc data-- and managed to reverse engineer the CFM-56 into a military jet engine. But again... politics. So I shall refrain :X Bowen I don't think operational UCAVs will have anthropomorphic AIs like UCAV-EDI-- there's really no point. But yea, Stealth was an OK adaptation of Macross, IMO. Even if it did bomb (pun intended ). It's interesting how Hollywood drew inspiration from Macross---which drew inspiration from Hollywood (Top Gun) Edited April 21, 2009 by edwin3060
Bowen Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 One wonders why they keep all that data on computers hooked up to the internet. I've read that the newest and most secret stuff and whatnot was kept on separate computers not connected to the internet in any way, so why not do that with all data for such projects? By the way, a quick question that I've always been wondering about, but never got around to asking. Why is the F-117 called the F-117 and not the B-117 or something?
F-ZeroOne Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 Apparently, fighter pilots - especially top class ones - are more attracted to "sexy" F-planes, rather than (presumably) knuckle-dragging A-planes or, even worse, B-planes - they have yokes like airliners for heavens sake!
Bri Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) One wonders why they keep all that data on computers hooked up to the internet. I've read that the newest and most secret stuff and whatnot was kept on separate computers not connected to the internet in any way, so why not do that with all data for such projects? You literally have hunderds of companies working on a single aerospace project. It's not realistic to expect data streams between those companies to run over networks that are physically separate from the internet. Edited April 21, 2009 by Bri
Knight26 Posted April 21, 2009 Posted April 21, 2009 like Bri said when you have mulitple contractors and even government entities needing to access the data on a daily basis they are usually kept on a machine that is online but secured requiring passwords and other authentication. Which, unfortunately can be hacked if people don't protect their passwords. Usually though an individual will only have access to certain folders though on that web drive, so whoever's acct got hacked had, and I do me had as in no longer has, access to the JSF folders.
F-ZeroOne Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 Little bit off-topic, but Warthog fans might be interested to know that planned downloadable content for the game "Saints Row 2" will feature an aircraft that bears a bit of a resemblance to an A-10 Thunderbolt 2.
David Hingtgen Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 and managed to reverse engineer the CFM-56 into a military jet engine. ???? More info please, never heard anything about that. (and very confused as to what could possibly use a CFM56 in a fighter jet etc application---did they totally redo the entire fan section and make it into a low-bypass engine or something?---the core alone is still far larger than any fighter engine though)
David Hingtgen Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 By the way, a quick question that I've always been wondering about, but never got around to asking. Why is the F-117 called the F-117 and not the B-117 or something? Because it's a fake, intentionally nonsense designation that somehow eventually became the official designation. In short, it's a mistake, and that shouldn't be the official number but they're not going to change it now. (much like the JSF should be F-24, not F-35)
anime52k8 Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 By the way, a quick question that I've always been wondering about, but never got around to asking. Why is the F-117 called the F-117 and not the B-117 or something? http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0082.shtml
edwin3060 Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 ???? More info please, never heard anything about that. (and very confused as to what could possibly use a CFM56 in a fighter jet etc application---did they totally redo the entire fan section and make it into a low-bypass engine or something?---the core alone is still far larger than any fighter engine though) I can't remember the original article where I got that, but lo and behold wiki has some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-10 I've no idea how they did it but apparently they did. This might also explain the reports about them having problems with the responsiveness of the WS-10 to throttle inputs (it being a civilian turbofan and all).
David Hingtgen Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Awesome F-22 pic: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/pho...F-9497Y-902.jpg
Dante74 Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Awesome F-22 pic: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/pho...F-9497Y-902.jpg Great pic, but what's up with all the patchwork on the upper fuselage?
Phyrox Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Awesome F-22 pic: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/pho...F-9497Y-902.jpg Yah, good photo, just wish it wasn't such a boring looking plane. Oh, I gotta a question for fellow aviation historians and/or model builders: about ten years ago IPMS-France published a book in english and french on the Breguet 693. I've been looking everywhere for it, anyone have any idea where one might search for such a limited production/obscure book?
shiroikaze Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Great pic, but what's up with all the patchwork on the upper fuselage? *psst* It can transform But anyway, that is an awesome pic. Of the "patchwork", is it because it's a test model?
edwin3060 Posted May 2, 2009 Posted May 2, 2009 Haha David did you get it off F-16.net? IIRC one of the posters there said tt it looked like patchwork because it was not painted-- either that, or the maintenance for the F-22 is even poorer than I've read
miles316 Posted May 2, 2009 Posted May 2, 2009 I thought that was because of the angle of the camera to the F-22 and the light accentuated the panels on the skin of the air craft.
David Hingtgen Posted May 2, 2009 Posted May 2, 2009 The pic's originally from the Air Force, I saw it at ARC.
edwin3060 Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 I thought I just read last week that they were delayed due to a lack of parts from overseas? Anyway, this is great news!
Nied Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 I can't remember the original article where I got that, but lo and behold wiki has some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-10 I've no idea how they did it but apparently they did. This might also explain the reports about them having problems with the responsiveness of the WS-10 to throttle inputs (it being a civilian turbofan and all). Expanding on this, the core of the CFM56 is heavily based on the F101 and F110. From what I can tell the Chinese took apart some of their CFM-56s and worked backwards to their own F110ish analogue. I suppose if you're going to copy something it wouldn't hurt to copy one of the best fighter engines in the world.
miles316 Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 Expanding on this, the core of the CFM56 is heavily based on the F101 and F110. From what I can tell the Chinese took apart some of their CFM-56s and worked backwards to their own F110ish analogue. I suppose if you're going to copy something it wouldn't hurt to copy one of the best fighter engines in the world. Do the chines have a manufacturing license for the CFM-56?
Recommended Posts