Forum: F-22A Raptor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Here are a few ideas I've come up with to turn the F-22 into a real strike aircraft.

First of all, modify the sidewinder to have a better motor to make it a real BVR weapon. Try to fit 2 per bay. 2-4 "super-sidewinders" would be sufficient for self defense because the F-22 has contempt of engagement ( because of its speed and stealth ). The AMRAAM could be removed from the main bays to free up space

Also, to increase the stealthy loadout, modify the doors of the main bays.

Here's a picture that shows how the doors are designed now:
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item88256.html

I think it would be possible to redesign the door to increase space in order to carry more weapons. ( Check the picture below. If you can't see the drawing, you'll have to open it from your computer ).

You can see what the new door would look like when it is closed and also in the open position.

The new space would be used to carry 4 more SDBs or 2 more AMRAAMs per bay.

From the pictures I've seen if the AMRAAM is removed, 3 SDBs could be mounted and the space between them could be increased a bit so that a pylon could fit between them.

That would enable a total of 10 SDBs to be carried per bay. Same principle for AMRAAMs.. up to 5 AMRAMMs could be carried.

The EOTS now.. Here's a description of the litening pod:
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/litening.htm

I could not find one for the sniper XR but I guess they're built pretty much the same way.

A convenient place to put an EOTS would be under the door but it would be too heavy to put it there.

However, it might be possible to split the components in 2. The forvard section containing the EO system could be mounted in front section of the door, and the rest would be re-packaged in a pod that would be carried inside the bay.

Here are the specs of the sniper XR pod:
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/sniper-xr.htm
Without the front section it would have roughly the size of an SDB.

The pod containing all the electronics would be carried inside the bay. If it's in a corner of the bay I think there would be enough space left to carry a 2000lb bomb.

The new doors would be faceted and would make use of RAM, to keep the impact on the RCS minimum.

Drag would be increased but I think it would be worth it. Supercruise would be reduced a bit, maybe by 0.1-0.2 mach, but I think that's acceptable.

Maximum loadout would be 9 SDBs + 1 targeting pod on one side, and 10 SDBs on the other side, plus 2-4 sidewinders.

With these modifications, the F-22 could even become an alternative to the F-35.

With 4 external tanks it would have a very good range. The tanks would be painted with RAM and would be jettisonned before entering enemy airpace.

The F-22 would be close to an FB-22 with a minimum of invesment.

In that configuration the F-22 is a bit worse than the F-35 for CAS mostly because the F-35 has a bigger gun, but first of all the F-22 has a gun too, and second of all the advent of laser guided rockets will render guns obsolete. (One pod of rockets could carry up to 20 rockets with a range of about 15 km launched from altitude at M0.9.. and also the advantage of a pod is that you can give it a facetted shape).

What do you think? I think that would be a inexpensive way to turn the F-22 into a real strike aircraft, while at the same time making it even better in a/a since it would carry 4-6 more AAMs in a stealthy configuration.

I'd love to see F-22s with 20 SDBs. A force of 100 F-22s could deliver 2000 SDBs in one strike..

F-16.net Sponsor

I like the -1 here myself.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

One problem, if you have the targeting pod in the weapons bay you have to have your pants around your ankles while you're in the highest threat environment. RAM is not a magical solution to having a big honking door flapping in the breeze.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The targeting pod would be separated in 2. The optical part would be attached to the front of the door. That would give it a good field of view, it would not increase drag and RCS compared to other possibilities.

The remaining of the system would be repackaged in a pod that would be carried inside the bay. That new pod would have roughly the size of an SDB, so it would be relatively small. I think there would be enough space left to carry a 2000lb bomb.

I have no idea how difficult it would be to split the sniper XR in 2 components I have to say. The connection between the 2 systems might be a problem too. Doesn't mean it's not feasable.

Well, I know this is all pure speculation, but the technology is already there for a internal targeting pod. The JSF uses EOTS and that technology could easily be adapted. With EOTS, the lens is permanently fixed and positioned in front of the NLG door.

LOL, Viperall, you gotta love these threads especially when addressed to a particular key board commando in person! Thanks for opprotunity-

Personally, I support the creativity and calculation given to your concept - especially the extended range 9x and the space-manipulated Target Pod (US DoD must think more and more in multi-dimensional terms of exploiting bold, block developments, if a particular system is proving itself a valuable asset). But man I don't know, I just hear finger nails down a chalkboard thinking of a fat-bellied stock F-22 protruding like that!

If the goal was purely adding more SDB and 2x 2000lb bombs, or 4 more AMRAAM, then maybe it's the most economical way to do it. But then you're still stuck with limited ordnance types in the 2,000'lb class, given short bay. Either way, the EO targeting aspect/capability needs to be adapted for exploiting the full range of Raptor's deterrence value. Maybe just a removable, LO conformal-fit targeting pod? I'd just have faith in the engineers to get it done however feasible, if/when the priority is given.

My personal assessment though, and Sferrin's graphic is an excellent source for comparison sake, is to allow for longer 2k lb ordnance types in main bays, including JASSM and JSOW-ER without exception. I tend to take a philosophy supporting design of the delivery vehicle around the critical weapon systems intended to accomplish various objectives. SDB however is a fine example of course, of the reverse, but I would favor a lengthened F-22 variant (perhaps not even widened as -1 in above graphic depicts) to enable that significant capability enhancement. Although I must say a 5,000lb class size main bay would present definite weapon capabilities in the future (as noted in the -1 concept).

Furthermore, trying to look out 8-10 yrs, anti-ship role will become a much more critical issue for USAF to address as proliferation of new Carrier strike-groups set sail, something which cannot be left to USN aviation alone plus a few B-52s with Harpoons, to counter. I've contemplated a 15', 1,600lb air-launched SM-2 IIIB variant (as an example) for both long-range intercept missile, but just as well as super-sonic anti-ship capability. 4-6 stretched F-22s coming out of nowhere, each carrying 3 such equivalent 200km + range missiles internally could deliver an uprecedented counter to a future hostile aircraft carrier complete w/ capable CAP. Expensive?? Sure but maybe cheaper and much sooner deployable than say some future 'hypersonic' delivery system, etc. (or cheaper than having to build more subs/destroyers alone to counter inevitable future naval cruise-missile-fleet threats)

But... here I'm going to get slammed by most.. and maybe it's indeed a dumb analysis, but given that the proposed 2018 bomber apparently won't be able to carry the Massive Ordnance penatrator, as the B-2 is capable of[citation needed] and because it will be sub-sonic and still rather large and surely high-maintenance, why not just accept perhaps 85% of the mission capabilities of 2018 bomber (and maybe execute 25-30% missions more superior) and replace the entire 2018 concept outright (before too late) for a concept similar to the -2 mod in above graphic (although perhaps tailless?). Combine the LO drop tanks idea, with close to double the organic combat range, plus 4x internal JASSM/JSOW-ER, PLUS side-bay ejected SDBs (sheesh) and operating from tactical airbases... well that's what I'm talking about. So yes, scratch the 2018 now and super-up the Raptor (at unknown billions in savings). What to do with heavy bomber replacement?? Well, maybe they'll be obsolete anyway or too insanely expensive (to lose just one even) by the mid-20s to 30s anywho! Maybe by then it will be a swarm-UCAV doctrine, save some tactical hypersonics buzzing around the edges of space!

Well thanks again for opportunity - that was fun.. and if anything, well, yes on your fat-bellied Raptor Twisted Evil

There is already space in each wing root for a EOTS type imager/designator.

The AF just decided that it did not want to pay for it.

It can be added later during a block upgrade.

If the reason that you are wanting a 2k class weapon is for deep penetration strikes... good news. They are developing a bunker-busting 1k weapon especially for/because the F-22.

SpudmanWP wrote:

There is already space in each wing root for a EOTS type imager/designator.

The AF just decided that it did not want to pay for it.

It can be added later during a block upgrade.

If the reason that you are wanting a 2k class weapon is for deep penetration strikes... good news. They are developing a bunker-busting 1k weapon especially for/because the F-22.

Yup. And on another note:ISR, there is growth space in the nose for two side looking cheek arrays ( again not put in so as to meet a target price ).

There is also an external low observable stores pod that was considered and at least made it to the wind tunnel.

elp wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

There is already space in each wing root for a EOTS type imager/designator.

The AF just decided that it did not want to pay for it.

It can be added later during a block upgrade.

If the reason that you are wanting a 2k class weapon is for deep penetration strikes... good news. They are developing a bunker-busting 1k weapon especially for/because the F-22.

Yup. And on another note:ISR, there is growth space in the nose for two side looking cheek arrays ( again not put in so as to meet a target price ).

There is also an external low observable stores pod that was considered and at least made it to the wind tunnel.

Yep, in some photos of primer-only aircraft you can see where they go. Come to think of it I think I posted a pic on the site at one time or another.

Also, while the wing hard points are rated for some heavy weight, you have to figure if you get something for nothing? Meaning... lets say you started hanging a bunch of A2G stores on the jet....

When do they go back to the depot to rebuild the wings for A2G stores related fatigue?

First of all, this will not address the F-22's biggest problem - its much higher recurring costs compared to the F-35. Already, according to manufacturer's recurring unit cost estimates the F-22 is 2.5 times (maybe 3 times) more expensive to acquire than the F-35 not counting R&D. Currently we are looking at $48.5 million vs $133 million per copy construction costs. These modifications will add to that either substantially or to some lesser degree.

Secondly, why will you want to use an F-22 for strike instead of the already better suited F-35? Adding weapons bay volume to an aircraft which doesn't have it, adding external fuel to an aircraft which has inferior range and engine fuel efficiency, adding optical sensors and laser designators, and adding radar modes not currently supported -- this sounds like a lot of change to do something you already have a platform in the pipeline to do and to do better.

elp wrote:

Also, while the wing hard points are rated for some heavy weight, you have to figure if you get something for nothing? Meaning... lets say you started hanging a bunch of A2G stores on the jet....

When do they go back to the depot to rebuild the wings for A2G stores related fatigue?

How often do they have to rebuild F-16 or F-15E wings?

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I was thinking of putting the EOTS there because field of view is good. If it's on the sides of the aircraft the EOTS would see only the left or right hemispheres.

I have nothing against putting it somewhere else as long as modifications are kept to a minimum.

I don't know what max load is for the internal bays. For 2 more AMRAAMs I don't think it would be a problem ( 5 AMRAAMs would weight about as much as a loadout of 4 SDBs + 1 AMRAAM + the SDB rack ). For 10 SDBs I dont' know.

I know that the F-22 is 9g capable with its current a/g ordnance. They would just have to limit Gs with for 10 SDBs if it's too heavy. I think that would be worth it because of the capabilities of the bomb. And also because the aircraft is stealthy and has little chances of being engaged.

Maximum loadout would not be used during training missions.

As for the external stations, the fact that they are rated at 5000lbs gives credence to the idea of converting the F/A-22 to a real strike aircraft. I like my idea because it would have minimal impact on steatlh and speed, but the idea of external stealthy pods containing 4000-5000lbs or ordnance is great too.

With 10 SDBs per external station the F-22 could carry a total of up to 60 SDBs ( with 20 interally), the equivalent of 15 F-16s with 4 PGMs each.

Larger internal bays would enable to carry almost anything except JSOWs and JASSMs while retaining supercruise and maximum stealth.

I think this modification - if it's possible - would be very cost effective. It would capitalize on many technologies:
- it is just an idea but the sidewinder could possibly be upgraded with a dual pulse rocket. It makes sense to use a dual pulse motor because the missile has thrust vecoring. The size of the fins could be reduced too because the missile would always use thrust vectoring during for the terminal phase. Small fins would be sufficient for mid course guidance. Smaller fins would reduce drag, so range would be increased a bit. Even without taking into account a reduced drag, range could be increased by 50% ( the AIM-120D range is increased by 50% thanks to its dual pulse rocket ). The missile would also be a bit smaller to it might be possible to fit 2 missiles per bay. That would be sufficient for self-protection on a strike mission.
- the EOTS already exists and is in production ( sniper XR ). They just have to find a place to put it. The sniper XR is not very expensive
- it would also capitalize on datalinks, on the lethality of the AMRAAM and SDB.

Concerning airframe modifications, they would just have to replace the doors. That would be easy to do and relatively cheap I guess.

Also, 180 aircraft would be upgraded which would result in a relatively good economy of scale.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

dwightlooi wrote:

First of all, this will not address the F-22's biggest problem - its much higher recurring costs compared to the F-35. Already, according to manufacturer's recurring unit cost estimates the F-22 is 2.5 times (maybe 3 times) more expensive to acquire than the F-35 not counting R&D. Currently we are looking at $48.5 million vs $133 million per copy construction costs. These modifications will add to that either substantially or to some lesser degree.

Secondly, why will you want to use an F-22 for strike instead of the already better suited F-35? Adding weapons bay volume to an aircraft which doesn't have it, adding external fuel to an aircraft which has inferior range and engine fuel efficiency, adding optical sensors and laser designators, and adding radar modes not currently supported -- this sounds like a lot of change to do something you already have a platform in the pipeline to do and to do better.

My proposal is not necessarily to cancel the F-35. It's rather to increase the F-22's lethality. If really I wanted to cancel the F-35 I would probably propose a improved airframe.

This being said, if what I said turned out to be possible, the F-22 would carry 2.33 times as many BVR missiles ( 10 AMRAAMs + 4 "super sidewinders" instead of 6 AMRAAMs, I'm not counting the AIM-9X as a true BVR weapon ), and 2.5 times the number of SDBs. Obviously that would change the equation when comparing it to the F-35. Especialy when taking into account that the SDB/SDBII, SMACM, etc.. will be effective against 80% of targets.

By increasing lethality in both a/a and a/g, legacy aircraft would be retired faster too. Legacy aircraft cost more and more for less and less capabilities.

The F-22 is expensive, right.. that's why it should be used to its maximum potential. Right now it's even too good. I think it would be worth it to lose a bit of performance and increase its lethality by a factor of more than 2.

And I don't think it would be so expensive. There would be no modification to the airframe, only the door would be changed. The AF is already integrating the SDB so increasing the number of weapon is not much of a problem. They just have to design a new rack, which would be a variant of the one used now. The EOTS would not be expensive because it's already in production. L-M would just have to find a place to put it.

If they can get that upgrade for 5-10 million per aircraft I'd say that's a bargain.

Here are my thoughts for the most “cost effective” way of increasing the F-22’s attack abilities (with an added benefit at the end Smile

)

First, install the EOTS-type designators in the F-22’s wing roots.

Second, finish development on the stealth wing pods seen in the wind tunnel tests. Since there is absolutely no data on these pods, here are my thoughts on them.

Make the pods hold 3 rows of either 4 SDBs or 3 SDBs. That totals 3000 lbs (or 2250 lbs for 9) . After the weight of the pod is considered, use the remaining capacity (5000 lb max) for added fuel in order to offset the drag that the pods create. These would triple (or quadruple for the 3x4 config) the capacity of the F-22.

The F-22 would use this fuel first, so that when in the combat environment, the pods will weigh less than the max 5000 lb.

Even without the EOTS designators in the F-22, these pods can be used with the SAR functions of the F-22’s radar.

Now for the “Added Benefit” that makes this the MOST “cost effective” solution….. These pods can also be used on the F-35 Smile

The F-35 will actually be able to make more use out of them as they have a laser designator, where the F-22 does not.

With a little work, the pods can be used in other ways:
1. 9-12 Brimstone missiles for a massive SEAD/DEAD, anti-tank, etc capacity.
2. Bunker buster bombs, or any other large munitions.
3. Multiple JDRADM for both Anti-Air, but also SEAD/DEAD missions

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Geogen! How to turn the F-22 into a strike aircraft