F-16.net

I recently saw an article abou the FB-22 and how it's basically based on the same design as the Raptor except that it has a semi-delta wing and it is a bomber. Since this was a concept plane, will they ever put the FB-22 in production? The plane itself looks extremely sick.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Nah, the F-35 will most likely get the strike package, the F-22 is pretty much an air-to-air package...

The FB project is still there, just has no funding.

I don't think the FB-22 idea will survive with the later block updates of the F/A-22.

Yeah, there's no way we can afford to produce another aircraft right now, especially with the war going on in Iraq and Afganistan. Besides, this country already has its hands full with the F-22, F-35, and the F-18E/F.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

If the FB-22 is to be developped, it should be done right now, because otherwise it wouldn't be ready to be produced while the F-22 production line is open. And that's taking into account that the F-22 production would be extended to 2012-14 or something. Closing the production and restarting it would be very costly.

Also, if the AF waits too long, the concept will become less and less valuable compared to new technologies. If they wait another 5-10 years before they start developping it, they'd be better off building a bomber instead to replace current bombers.

So it's now or never.. and it will probably be never.. that's too bad because it would have been a great aircraft.

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

A great striker with the price of 500 million USD-class (Including R&D cost) per fighter...

The congress of USA: "Kill the project, no mercy!!"

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

toan wrote:

A great striker with the price of 500 million USD-class (Including R&D cost) per fighter...

The congress of USA: "Kill the project, no mercy!!!"

Completly false.

The R&D would have cost 5-7 billion, which is about 1/3 to 1/4 of what the AF is going to spend to develop the F-35.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm)

The unit cost would have been higher than the F-22, but first of all the cost of the F-22 is going to go down, and the FB-22 would have had slightly cheaper engines ( F-135 instead of F-119) and no TV, which would have saved cost.

It could probably have been produced at 150 million apiece, flyaway cost.

Taking into account that:

far less than 1760 F-35As are likely to be produced, which is going to increase unit cost.
unit cost of the F-35 is already 100 million per aircraft ( 245 billion for 2500 aircraft )
F-22s could have been retrofitted cost-effectively with the a2g avionics of the FB-22.
the FB-22 is more sleatlhy and would have carried about 4 times the internal load of the -35.
the FB-22 has much better range. It can operate from much further, and reduces the need for tankers.
that the air force usually has limited deployment abilities, which increases the need for very lethal aircraft.

... the FB-22 would have been much better than the F-35..

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

Before you make the conclusion that my previous post is a completely false one, please convince Mr. John E. Perrigo, the senior manager of combat air systems for Lockheed Martin’s business development branch, to accept your point of view at first:

https://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp

"While Lockheed declined to be specific about the cost of an FB-22 program—the figures are proprietary—Perrigo asserted that the FB-22 could be had for less than twice the cost of an F/A-22."

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

First of all if the F-22 production were to continue, the cost of the F-22 would go down to about 100 million without problem. The AF has invested 600 MILLION to improve the production line of the F-22, and this invesment has not even started to pay off.

Second of all, about 25% of the price of an aircraft is the airframe. Which means that for a 100 million F-22, 25 million is the airframe. Building an FB-22 instead of an F-22 should cost what? 10 more million? Many of the components of the F-22 airframe would be kept..

How much does it cost to turn a fighter to a fighter-bomber? look at the F-15E vs the F-15C.. with the lantirn, 10 more million.

So building an FB-22 should cost about 20 million more than buidling an F-22.

How much is the developement of the aircraft cost per aircraft? If 300 FB-22 are built and the R&D costs 6 billion, that's 20 million per aircraft.

So starting from a 100 million F-22, the FB-22 should cost in the order of 140 million, R&D included.

Bottom line.. the F-22 would never cost over 200 million with R&D. It is virtually impossible!

200 million is the cost of 2 F-35s with R&D. 1 FB-22 is MUCH BETTER than 2 F-35s. It's much more lethal in a2g, has much better range. Having FB-22s would reduce drastically the need for tankers, which would enable to deploy even more FB-22s.

Also the FB-22 would be a very good fighter. In its bay it could carry like 20 missiles! With its very high stealth - even better than the F-22 -, it would be one hell of a fighter! Especially when you consider that missile range will be over 100 miles by then and will have even better pk..

The FB-22 IS BETTER. And for shorter range missions, it could very well be complemented with new F-16s, which are REALLY cheap, unlike the F-35.

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

Bottom line.. the F-22 would never cost over 200 million with R&D. It is virtually impossible!

A:

You should prove the impossibility to the persons of GAO at first.

According to their report, the Congress believes that the total acquistion cost of F/A-22 has arisen to more than 350 million USD per fighter now, that makes the people in Congress very, very unhappy.............

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05390t.pdf

Page2

# The F/A-22 aircraft program is acquiring the Air Force’s next generation, multi-mission fighter for about $63.8 billion.
# This amount consists of $61.3 billion currently budgeted for the basic program and the initial stages of the modernization efforts, $1.3 billion for future start-up costs of a separate acquisition program for the latter stages of modernization, and $1.2 billion in costs to retrofit aircraft with enhanced capabilities and activate depot maintenance activities.

Page5
In December 2004, Program Budget Decision 753 reduced F/A-22 funding by $10.5 billion (71.8 billion - 10.5 billion = 61.3 billion USDs), further reducing in all likelihood procurement quantities from 275 to 178 aircraft. The December 2004 budget decision also ended procurement in fiscal year 2008, instead of
fiscal year 2011.

Page 6, Figure 1

# The total acquistion cost of F/A-22 has arisen to 350 million USD per fighter now.

@ 61.3 billion USD / 178 fighters = 344.4 million USD per fighter

@ 63.8 billion USD / 178 fighters = 358.4 million USD per fighter
(Including $1.3 billion for future start-up costs of a separate acquisition program for the latter stages of modernization, and $1.2 billion in costs to retrofit aircraft with enhanced capabilities and activate depot maintenance activities.)

Well, even if F-22 would never cost over 200 million with just R&D + fly-off cost, there must be something else to make its total acquistion cost of F/A-22 to be arisen to 344.4 ~ 358.4 million USD per fighter now.

344.4 million at least... and we have already crashed one... at the rate we are going we will have 1 unit of every airplane, cause they will be too damn expensive to get any more than that... Bang Head

---This 'novel' is my OPINION and should not be construed as facts, or me trying to play 'expert'. Just my two cents. Well, ok, closer to $3-$4, but anyway.....

I still don't understand how people can keep saying "just upgrade the F-16 and buy it instead". There is only so much a single airframe can do. The block 50 and block 60 aircraft have taken the basic airframe desgin much farther than it was ever intended to go. The aircraft is heavier than its designers ever intended or envisioned, and it can only go so far before it will need a complete internal redesign to be able to handle the daily stresses and loads that the airframe is being subjected too.

I am interested in seeing just how long the block 60 will be able to fly, as far as airframe time, before it begins to have fatigue problems. I know that LM has done internal redesign work to make the aircraft better able to handle its additional weight. They would have been foolish not too.

The more weight we pack on the aircraft, the less capable it is going to be. The wing/lifting area has remained unchanged at best, and actually reduced with the CFT's taking away some of the 'lifting body' effects of the fuselage design. All the while the weight has gone up, raising things such as wing loading higher and higher- too much more, and a loaded-up F-16 won't be able to maneuver worth a damn; it will be turned into a small, sleek level bomber.

So, what has to happen before people can begin to see that we do need new aircraft such as the F/A-22 and the F-35? That I don't know. However, the rest of the world hasn't seen fit to rest on their laurels, and has continued to develope newer and more capable aircraft. The debate will go back and forth about whether airplane A will go into production or if aircraft B is really as capable as it is being made out to be.

The F-15, F-16, and A-10 are all excellent aircraft, and capable of doing what they were designed to do. Unfortunatly they are also 1970's designs, with all the inherent limitations that 1970's technology and engineering carry. Their respective manufacturers have done a wonderfull job upgrading and modifying, adding capabilities, increasing reliability, and making great airplanes even better. It is similar to restoring a classic hotrod- there is alot you can do to increase performance, safety, effeciancy, etc, but there comes a point when no matter what you do, it simply can't match the standards met by a brand new car. It wasn't designed to accept the new technology. But, purists will stand by their hotrod and preach all day long about how much better their car is than that '06 model on the showroom floor.

Are there shortcomings with the current versions of the -35 and -22, that allow legacy aircraft to do some things better? Of course. Its called a teething period. I believe the same things were being seen when the F-16 and F-15 first began their developement. The F-4 continued to excell for a number of years before the Viper and Eagle began to totally dominate their respective fields. To this day there are devout Phantom fans that will maintain the F-4 is better than anything out there today.

For the next 5-10 years or so, the F-22 and F-35 are probably going to struggle to take on their new roles, as we learn how to utilize their unique capabilities, and gradually weed out the gremlins that pop up on any new aircraft. But, 10 or 15 years down the road, when the -22 and -35 are fully operational and we've learned how to use them to their best effect, the F-16 (whichever block you prefer) will be regarded as a very capable aircraft for its day, and a number will still be in use throughout the world for different missions. But, it will be regarded as the F-4 is today- an excellent aircraft, just not as good as the new stuff.

I'm just like anyone else who really likes the F-16. I think it is a great airplane, and I hate to see it fall by the wayside. However, in fifteen years I want to be able to strap my pilot into an airplane that is capable of taking on anything in the world; to go out, do its mission, win the war, and bring the pilot back home to his family at the end of the day. I think that is the end goal of anyone in the aircraft maintenance field, whether they admit it or not. I don't want to send him (or her) into combat in an airframe that was first designed 30-40+ years ago, regardless of how old the aircraft of the 'bad guys' are.

The F-22 and F-35 aren't perfect, and probably never will be, but they are a better investment for our long term future than simply upgrading what we have now. There comes a point when even the best need to be retired, and the reins passed on to the next generation, and tactical aircraft are no different. Unfortunatly costs will go up, the number of aircraft will probably come down, but in the end we'll be going to war with an aircraft that, overall, is more capable than that came before.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

toan wrote:

Bottom line.. the F-22 would never cost over 200 million with R&D. It is virtually impossible!

A:

You should prove the impossibility to the persons of GAO at first.

According to their report, the Congress believes that the total acquistion cost of F/A-22 has arisen to more than 350 million USD per fighter now, that makes the people in Congress very, very unhappy.............

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05390t.pdf

Page2

# The F/A-22 aircraft program is acquiring the Air Force’s next generation, multi-mission fighter for about $63.8 billion.
# This amount consists of $61.3 billion currently budgeted for the basic program and the initial stages of the modernization efforts, $1.3 billion for future start-up costs of a separate acquisition program for the latter stages of modernization, and $1.2 billion in costs to retrofit aircraft with enhanced capabilities and activate depot maintenance activities.

Page5
In December 2004, Program Budget Decision 753 reduced F/A-22 funding by $10.5 billion (71.8 billion - 10.5 billion = 61.3 billion USDs), further reducing in all likelihood procurement quantities from 275 to 178 aircraft. The December 2004 budget decision also ended procurement in fiscal year 2008, instead of
fiscal year 2011.

Page 6, Figure 1

# The total acquistion cost of F/A-22 has arisen to 350 million USD per fighter now.

@ 61.3 billion USD / 178 fighters = 344.4 million USD per fighter

@ 63.8 billion USD / 178 fighters = 358.4 million USD per fighter
(Including $1.3 billion for future start-up costs of a separate acquisition program for the latter stages of modernization, and $1.2 billion in costs to retrofit aircraft with enhanced capabilities and activate depot maintenance activities.)

Well, even if F-22 would never cost over 200 million with just R&D + fly-off cost, there must be something else to make its total acquistion cost of F/A-22 to be arisen to 344.4 ~ 358.4 million USD per fighter now.

If you include R&D costs it changes everything. 23 BILLION have been spent in the R&D for the F-22!!! That's the price of 7 carriers! Don't you think that MAYBE it time to buy it??? And the most expansive aircraft to build are the first ones!

Its unit flyaway cost now is about 130 million. I have posted links showing that several times. And the price COULD and SHOULD go down to 100 million.

Quote:

In December 2004, Program Budget Decision 753 reduced F/A-22 funding by $10.5 billion (71.8 billion - 10.5 billion = 61.3 billion USDs), further reducing in all likelihood procurement quantities from 275 to 178 aircraft.

Ok so buying about 100 aircraft ( 275-178 ) would cost 10.5 billion. How much is that per aircraft?

i agree, totally. the problem that i see is right now we will be out of airplanes before the 22 and especially before the 35 are fully implemented... we are out of wartime reserve and attrition reserve f-16s. done. finito. WHy do you think the thunderbirds took an f-16 from the AK ANG unit when they crashed theirs?? we dont have anymore. This is one of the problems that my dad was dealing with at the ACC office in langley. We either need to hurry along the 35 project into production, or spend a bit of money and order some more f-16s to get us some comfort. We keep upgrading and redesigning the f-16. They have gone long over there 3000 hour airframe capacity. When the f-16 was designed, they built a 9G airplane from data of the F4, but the F4 was only a 6g airplane... and as they structurally fix the f-16 to last longer they just make the stuff thats breaking stronger, but that load will go elsewhere and break something else. in other words, vprguy has it, we have found the limit of the f-16. We are taking it beyond its limit. SO there is the reason for the 22 and the 35, something with a bigger envelope.
The only reason the a-10 isnt on the books for retirement until 2030 or longer is becuase we dont have an airplane that can truly replace it. we are totallu out of a-10s. they are breaking like crazy, they require hunge amounts of repair hours per flight hour... they are like a 75 caddillac, they run great when they run, but hell, they are all 25 years old and need to be put to rest. we just dont have an airplane that can really do that one job as well. so the old addage goes, "You have the job until you either die or i find something better." well the hog aint dead and nothing really does it better. we tried with the f-16 years ago and it failed, perhaps with tech upgrades it would fair much better, i dont know, we havent truly tried again. the A-16 project was scrapped after desert storm.
I am not sure about the f-15 world, but i can only imagine similar problems with the f-16 and a-10. the f-15 and the f-22 will fight side by side for a few more years though. the 22s will go in first, use their stealth, then the cheaper f-15s will go in and finnish up the job. then one day, the last f-15 unit in the guard will convert to the 22 and we will have all 22s. but remember, they were using sandies up into vietnam...
so here we are, the f-16, a-10 and f-15 are 70s technology. we have found its limits, and it is important to keep going in generations and have the best available. the f-117 is a perfect example of that. (and that was one of the most successful projects in the military, mostly becuase it was covert...) but my biggest thing is that we are running out of airplanes now. with rising production costs of the 35, lets buys a few more 16s and at least make our fleet a bit more comfortable. but the gov would rather have 10 gold plated toys that 100 stainless steal ones...

anyway, this is my opinion, the only thing i see in the future is the lack of a really good CAS airplane. sure these multirole planes can do it ok, but i think we need a new hog, a stealthy tank killer. That role is important, and i think it is worth the money to keep developing.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Will the FB-22 Bomber go into production?