Forum: F-22A Raptor

Viperalltheway wrote:

The F-117 even used to carry bombs externaly under the fuselage, so it's exactly the same.

Um, no offense... but where did you get that from?

F-16.net Sponsor

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

And SM.. if the aircraft can't supercruise probably it can't fly as high and lower altitude means more drag.

The pods would carry more fuel than the CFT but all in all range might be roughly similar.

But the idea of using the fuel of the pod first is smart.

Quote:

Was thinking in defense of your CFT and expanded main-bay (in case of unintended gear-up belly landing)... wouldn't those add 'crumple-zones' thus actually saving airframe damage??

mmh.. possibly yes. but I think it's better not to try to figure that out lol..

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

double post.

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

aaaahhhhh....

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

gtg947h wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

The F-117 even used to carry bombs externaly under the fuselage, so it's exactly the same.

Um, no offense... but where did you get that from?

Mmmh I had always thought that theF-117 had 2 extra external pylons.

I checked and you're right it didn't carry anything externaly. My bad.

However the A/F-117X would have had external pylons:

Quote:

A derivative of and replacement for the F-117N, this proposed variant was submitted as a potential alternative to the joint advanced strike technology (JAST) aircraft. It was to be fitted with an afterburning F414 engine, LPI multimode (air-to-air and air-to-ground) radar, AIM-120 AMRAAM compatibility, expanded bomb bays (10,000 lb [4,536 kg] internal bomb load), provision for an 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) external bomb load (for "end of war" missions after an enemy's air defenses have been degraded) and three section spoilers forward of trailing edge flaps. The A/F-117X was proposed for a "silver bullet"-type strike force to augment F/A-18E/F Hornets. Lockheed hopeed to procure between 40 and 75 aircraft.

(http://www.f-117a.com/Variants.html)

I thought the F-22 is already able to be a strike aircraft.

Try to burn the lower CFT fuel all you want, you'll never pump it all out. Ever heard of un-pumpable fuel? Just 10 lb of residual fuel can cause all kinds of problems. Not saying it is a show stopper, but you'd better think about it at least.

Sure, bombs and missiles are carried under fuselages all the time, but no one lands on them - SEL JETT or EMER JETT anyone?

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

I don't understand.. the bombs would be dropped too.

As for the CFT, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a drawback. But possibly the CFT could be used only for combat mission.

Also maybe they could find a way to make the tank jettisonable. Something like that:

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

BTW apparently the fuel system goes through the bay, so maybe they wouldn't have to modify the airframe to access it. They could have access to it by the bay.

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item261962.html

VATW, maybe you'll nail the 100th post on this thread lol! Nice.

Hey, just one marketing thought that came to mind, re: FB-22xx potential. (especially given that mil branches will soon be in a new, unforgiving budget paradigm for indefinite future)..

One could code word it perhaps as: 'Tanker tempering'?

Seeing the tanker debacle has an opportunity to exploit before being contracted, perhaps a new doctrine could be devised and studied, such that future tanker force could be softened in scope, if more tactical aircraft could double the standard combat radius and therefore reduce demand of refuel?

If more tactical aircraft could operate independent, more often, of in-flight refuels, it would present compelling new operational flexibility and efficiency.

Reduced logistics and planning and coordination and basing and support, etc, etc, (not to mention fuel saved from fewer tanker sorties) lol.

Save tankers for more strategic oriented and older tactical fleet operations. Perhaps 1/3 fewer tankers might be necessary than previously calculated? $15 billion saved?

So: as alternative option to 75 +/- 2018 'stop-gap' B-3 bombers, plus full order tanker fleet, and full USAF F-35 order, maybe 200+ FB-22xx could be considered (at an offset to maybe 100 F-35A, plus 1/4 tankers and medium bombers)? That could be what, like $20 billion+ savings over 15 years? Considering an FB-22 could also have twice the range, twice the clean payload and greater cruise speed than the F-35 it would supplement, the concept should definitely come up for review, in the relevant circles.

But back to your jettisoned CFTs... I'd say just keep them fixed according to specific mission requirement - which would save some costs all around? The LO extended range could be a fair compromise to the .2 mach super-cruise too?

And then again, to extend the range of this platform, it should be absolute interest to develop extended range of air-air and stand-off attack munition variants, in time to coincide with your main-bay expansion delivery schedule..

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

Maybe they could get this FB-22 for less..

Let's say that my F/A-22 modification is doeable. They could keep the same new doors idea and lengthen the bay by 50%. Maximum loadout would be 36 SDBs. (Even more than the 30 SDB FB-22 proposal.)

They keep the CFT compatible with it.

Lengthening the aircraft would render the door/CFT even more worth it. Drag would be the same but 50% more weapons would be carried.

They could use a delta wing/tailless configuration.

That would not be too heavy also, so the aircraft would still be able to supercruise, so it would still make use of the supercruise optimized F-119s. No need to equip it with F-135s which would require an enlargement of the intakes, fuselage.. They would just have to lengthen and reinforce the current fuselage, everything else would be the same.

They could even retrofit the cockpit of the F-35 as well as the DAS if they want.

Everything that would be developped for F/A-22 modification could be taken or adapted ( the racks would be used, as well as the CFT, the doors would only have to be lengthened, the EOTS.. ). That would reduce cost because already 180 of those systems would have been built.

The side bays could be lengthened to carry AMRAAMs. The aircraft could carry one AIM-120 on one side and 2 BVR AIM-9s on the other side for instance.

It would not be much more expensive than an F-22 I guess, probably less expensive than other proposals.

Btw you can listen to that if you're interested in the FB-22..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl4_vlgfMyM

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

Quote:

The LO extended range could be a fair compromise to the .2 mach super-cruise too?

The difference would probably be more than that. The F-22 can supercruise now at M1.8 With 24 SDBs+ CFT it could do maybe M1.4 I guess ( like 25% slower ).

With external tanks drag would be much higher. It would increase range but the aircraft would only be capable of subsonic speeds, it would fly lower and RCS would be higher.

I would reserve that only to when enemy defenses have been sufficiently degraded.

M1.4/high altitude would also increase the range of the weapons, both the SDBs and the sidewinders.

Also if you send your a/c at subsonic speed/lower altitude with an higher RCS probably you'd have to escort them, so some of the F-22s would have to be used in a/a config instead of a/g.

Wow, imagine having to escort drop-tanked sub-sonic F-22s with a/a config'd F-35s! Hehe.

Hey, no offense but I'd have to recommend calling you 'Sidewinderalltheway' after this thread. Salute

Some deep thinkin on this one, indeed.. good luck.

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

Why not 2bvrsidewindersperbayalltheway.. it's a bit long but it's better!!

Forum: F-22A Raptor

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