FB-22 Strike Raptor

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post28 Feb 2009, 14:24

This is the FB-22 Strike Raptor, a fighter-bomber variant of the F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter.

The Strike Raptor will carry up to 30 SDBs as opposed to the Raptor's 8, while it will feature a delta wing planform.

Take a look.
Attachments
xinsrc_5604011514436062225280.jpg
fb-22_p02_1_0001.jpg
PS_FB_22.gif
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post28 Feb 2009, 22:12

skyhigh wrote:This is the FB-22 Strike Raptor, a fighter-bomber variant of the F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter.

The Strike Raptor will carry up to 30 SDBs as opposed to the Raptor's 8, while it will feature a delta wing planform.

Take a look.


You say that as if there's an actual funded project. Has that changed recently? Last info I saw on the "2018 Bomber" was nothing has been decided.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 952
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post01 Mar 2009, 07:47

There's already at least two other threads that have beat this subject nearly to death, can we please merge this with one of them?
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post01 Mar 2009, 08:25

LoL, Prinz, I hear ya man..

But nice graphic anyway, 'Skyhigh'... thanks for sharing that one.

Maybe the same/similar wing could also be adapted for those F-15s identified to complement strategic air combat deterrence until the suggested 2025 date? Hmmm.. That wing, CFT, the upgraded AESA radars, plus new power (??), e.g. GE-132, with 2-D vectoring and Thrust reversing (for Short/roadway landings) could put the F-15's currently expected long-term mission, on par over the next 15 yrs perhaps, with most of the best counter-part platforms in the Air-superiority/Multi-role arena?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post07 Mar 2009, 06:05

Here are four additional conjectural images of the Strike Raptor.

Tell me your opinions about the Raptor variant.
Attachments
fb22_header.jpg
FB-22 Strike Raptor
FB-22.jpg
FB-22 Strike Raptor
FB-22_06.jpg
Top orthogonal view of FB-22
fb_22_1.jpg
Plan spec view of FB-22
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post07 Mar 2009, 08:22

Skyhigh, let's hope the DoD is open to a sincere and comprehensive strategic evaluation vis-a-vis future 'stop-gap' bomber alternatives, beyond a fixated, pre-conceived B-3 agenda. And I'd hope Congress is even aware of such a thing before any big dollars are sunk.

Best case scenario: I'd propose the longest ranged, best-performing, Lowest Obersable, heaviest payloaded, stretched variant FB- possible.

Realistically, as a last ditch, I'd even support and favor a simple delta winged, Vertical stabbed, 64 footer with modified payload/avionics as a stop-gap alternative. Regardless; a sufficient, competent model design could be the most economical, reliable and overall capable 'stop-gap' option the DoD/Congress could pursue.

A most recent proposal to USAF and Congress also: re: F-22 line continuation plan (which could potentially adapt FB-22 development) is to contemplate USAF F-22 'Lease' orders, for 20-60 additional Raptors as an economical compromise?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post07 Mar 2009, 09:40

Only if Congress can spew out the funds for this B-X 2018 Bomber from R&D phase to full production. It's better if FB-22 Strike Raptors were built, in larger numbers, owing to their supercruise capability than a squadron of "high-cost boondoggle" B-Xs, owing to their vulnerability to Russian-made S-400 (SA-21 Growler) SAMs equipped with ELF "counter-stealth" radar sets.
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post07 Mar 2009, 17:42

Look at what they did with the air intakes in the drawings above.. they changed them to DSI and at the same time they lengthened the bay for an AMRAAM. Good idea!

But here's the thing.. if they do that there is enough box size in the side bay for a BRU-61 with 4 SDBs.

They could to that on the F-22A. The side weapon stations would have to be reinforced for the ~1500lbs.

LM has extensive experience now for DSI intake. The new intake would be based on the F-35 design.

At the same time they could change one of the panels of the main bays to deepen the bay and be able to carry a 2000lbs JDAM or any other weapon. That station now can carry a BRU-61 which weights 1500lbs. It shouldn't be too difficult to increase that to 2000lbs.

I also read on a forum not long ago a post from a guy who said he was working at PW ON THE F119-PW-200.

If it's really true that such a new variant exists, the weight increase would be compensated by the increased thrust and the aircraft would still be able to supercruise at like Mach 1.8 in strike configuration. Even faster with only an a/a ordnance.

The increase of drag would be marginal so even with the F119-PW-100 the reduction of speed would not be much.

With the modifications to the side bays, later they can make a dual JDRARM ejector. Possibly even the BRU-61 could be adapted for that. A/a ordnance would be increased by 2 missiles.

16 SDBs + 2 AMRAAMs or 2x2000lbs JDAMs + 8 SDBs + 2 AMRAAMs at M1.8 supercruise or 10 AAMs at M2 supercruise..

Maybe that new version could be had for not much development cost.

The range of the aircraft would not be increased but the F-22 would retain almost the same a/a capabilities with twice the ordnance and a larger variety of weapon.
Offline

r2d2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 193
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 04:52

Unread post07 Mar 2009, 18:34

Same wing shape was given for an F-16X proposal, posted by johnwill in another topic
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

Perhaps it is scaled up and there are also some differences on the control surfaces.

It seems to me that LM finds this wing shape promising.
Offline

Viperalltheway

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 01:18

Maybe they could just enlarge the existing wing.. keep the same leading edge, trailing edge, wingtip, wing root, change only the dimensions. If it's possible that would reduce development cost and changes to the production line.

large wing on this one.
Attachments
FB22_largewing.PNG
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2102
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 07:56

All you have left from the original airframe is the forward fuselage. Everything else is totally different.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2310
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 08:12

johnwill wrote:All you have left from the original airframe is the forward fuselage. Everything else is totally different.


Yes; even the engine mounts would be different.

You can't just add a larger wing to a fighter and expect it to work. The entire body would need to be redesigned around the added weight. Thrust mounts relocated, structure changed, landing gear strengthened, actuators enlarged, flight logic reprogrammed, flight testing accomplished, etc...

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 17:32

Not to mention the center of gravity, center of lift and center of pressure. And the shaping requirements for LO. Aerospace engineering isn't a simple X/Y plot, there are just a mind boggling (to ME anyway) number of variables.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4183
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 17:45

Adding a huge wing like the picture above would also make drag ENORMOUS!! That is the first thing that jumped out at me, kiss supercruise goodbye!
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2310
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post08 Mar 2009, 18:43

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Adding a huge wing like the picture above would also make drag ENORMOUS!! That is the first thing that jumped out at me, kiss supercruise goodbye!


Even more reason for PW to pursue an F119-PW-200 model with increased thrust! :twisted:

"In thrust we trust!" :cheers:

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests