Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

wrightwing wrote:

Why do you think it'd be preferable to have a 6 missile load out. I'd rather utilize unused space within the airframe for upgrades, rather than lose 2 missiles. You're not even sure how much range that you'd gain from doing, so, but you're certain it'd be worth losing 25% of your offensive capability.

I don't find it preferable; I find it acceptable in exchange for any number of things that could fit in the side-bay's footprint. When was the last time an American fighter expended more than 6 missiles on a single combat mission?

F-16.net Sponsor

SpudmanWP wrote:

An ejector launched Aim-9 would require a lot of redesign of the 9x (as it was not intended for that amount of lateral thrust).

Ask any F-22 pilot: Would you give up your Aim-9s for 50nm?

By modular racks I mean a way to use different weapons/systems in the side bays as needed.
1. Aim-9
2. Twin JAGM/Brimstone
3. Large cheek AESA arrays to act as VLO forward AWACS
4. EW equipment
5. Future Aim-9x follow-on weapons
6. Fuel pod

My point is to make it modular so that no capability is lost and more flexibility is introduced.

Am I the only person who sees the Raptor replacing just about all of our EC-whatever airframes? If the USAF can convince CONgress to grant funding, the F-22 could be partially re-roled into an electronic support aircraft.

Needs a second seat which will not fit in the cheek Aim-9 bay Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

Needs a second seat which will not fit in the cheek Aim-9 bay Wink

Grumbling: "Make Bender take a nap in a tube."

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... oId=162842 Twisted Evil

1st503rdsgt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

Why do you think it'd be preferable to have a 6 missile load out. I'd rather utilize unused space within the airframe for upgrades, rather than lose 2 missiles. You're not even sure how much range that you'd gain from doing, so, but you're certain it'd be worth losing 25% of your offensive capability.

I don't find it preferable; I find it acceptable in exchange for any number of things that could fit in the side-bay's footprint. When was the last time an American fighter expended more than 6 missiles on a single combat mission?

Why not go my route, and have upgrades + 8 missiles?

fighterfanboy wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

If you did that you would forever remove that capability. For the SEAD role, how about a new trapeze/rail combo that would allow twin JAGMs (side by side)?

The thing is Raptor needs more missiles, not less. Raptors run out of missiles before they run out of fuel or targets. Raython is working on a software upgrade that will let the Aim-9 hit ground targets. Better Idea I think. Do more with what you have.

Already been tried. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-87_Focus It would probably work, but other weapons serve better. I like Spud's JAGM arrangement better.

JAGM can take out helos without wasting an AMRAAM Smile

btw, AIM-9X has been demonstrated in an A2G role with current software (ala AGM-87).

SpudmanWP wrote:

JAGM can take out helos without wasting an AMRAAM Smile

btw, AIM-9X has been demonstrated in an A2G role with current software (ala AGM-87).

Kick... A$$. Now... is this new weapon as economical as the JAGM, and can 2 really fit in the side-bay?

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Here's a fun question. Assuming that knife fights with IR missiles could be a thing of the past (when was the last US Sidewinder kill anyways?), would it not make sense to delete the side bays altogether and use the space/weight savings for more fuel/SEAD avionics? Please, don't freak out on me. I'm just brainstorming ways to make the F-22 more useful and versatile.

One real possibility to put passive sensors (side/forward/downward) to give the Raptor (like a "B" variant) the same ground attack capability of the F-35. But of course Congress scrapped the 22

@1st503rdsgt: The AIM-9X is the latest version of the Sidewinder and only fits one per bay, sorry Wink

@sewerrat: There is space left in the wing roots for an IRST/FLIR (like EOTS) if they ever wanted to pay for it.

SpudmanWP wrote:

@sewerrat: There is space left in the wing roots for an IRST/FLIR (like EOTS) if they ever wanted to pay for it.

I know, I've been following the ATF program since late 1980 (yes I'm that old, and yes I know the official date the ATF was organized into a program). But there are far more than IR sensors that can be stored in those bays... far more than simple IR/IRST. I know that officially the F-117 was replaced by the F-22, so *maybe* it's already been done.

Welcome to the old geezer club Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

@1st503rdsgt: The AIM-9X is the latest version of the Sidewinder and only fits one per bay, sorry Wink

I know that. Was actually wondering if JAGM X 2 would fit. Sorry if the pronouns and antecedents weren't clear.

With a new rail two JAGMs would easily fit side by side.

Those who suggest that the F-22 would lose 25% of its offensive capabilities really are overestimating the importance of those sidewinder missiles. If this were sacrificing two long-range AIM-120's, then it would most definitely be a great loss. However the F-22's primary role is as an air superiority fighter with an emphasis on long range weaponry. Those sidewinders aren't intended as a primary weapon of the F-22... almost relegated as a last ditch weapon like its cannon. At the ranges of the AIM-9X to be effective, the F-22 will be detected by the enemy.

Certainly they're beneficial to the aircraft's overall capabilities, but I'd hardly consider two AIM-9's to be of any value if the idea is not to get your $150 million aircraft into a knife fight to begin with. Those bays would be far better used for other weapons or electronic warfare equipment.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Side Bay Question