Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

knowan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 14:05

Anti-aircraft Laser weapons will likely be around before hypersonic aircraft, and at that point their speed isn't going to make them harder to hit.
Online

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 524
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:15

What will be the effective range of these laser weapons and good luck on trying to achieving this effective distance with a plane twice as fast as you.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:22

"To get high speed and good maneuverability is not something you can do with F-22 airframe, you need clean sheet design."

This really struck me as odd. The Raptor defines high speed and good maneuverability. Did you mean something else, vs. say the more literal translation?

I think the point here about destroying aircraft on the ground (as part of air dominance) an excellent one. Lots of people are envisioning PCA as the ultimate super-cruising, sensor packed, long range, VLO BVR killer. When you add an air to ground component, the formula changes. You'll need an even bigger airframe to carry sufficient numbers of air to air and air to ground weapons. Yet, isn't the F-35 ideally suited to the air to ground mission? There are going to be thousands of them, so one would think they'll be tasked with that mission.

And just think of the added cost, not to mention qualifying of the air to ground stuff on PCA.

In the end though, we're all just speculating. As was mentioned prior, we don't know what formal requirements the Air Force is going to issue. Tough to design an aircraft the customer hasn't set specifications for yet. I hope I live to see it, or at least the prototypes. The F-22 truncated order was hard to stomach, although it is exciting to see the F-35 come online.

There will be no hybrid however, of that much I am certain..
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:51

^^
Yeah I think he meat range.
Admittedly Range isn't one of the F-22's strong suits. Even though it's Combat Radius of ~500 NM is pretty respectable in the fighter community. I like the idea of having an F-22/35 Hybrid but I agree that answering the Range problem will be the biggest hurdle.

Here's what I think, if an ADVENT version of the F-119 can be made, doh wait, that already exist, albeit in prototype stage ( YF-120) and using F-35 avionics which take up far less space than than the current F-22 hardware, I believe the F-22 can be made to carry substantially more fuel. ADVENT alone is said to increase range by 25 - 30% so we're looking at a combat radius of around 700 NM. With more Fuel maybe we can punch up to 800 NM.

Yes I know its not enough for the Pacific Theater. As I posted many times above, both LM and the USAF think that fighter combat maneuverability still has it's place in the future network centric battlefield. My problem is I don't believe you can combine Extreme Bomber class range with Extreme fighter class maneuverability.

You will still need Tankers, so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate the need for tankers but simply to minimize the reliance on tankers.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 580
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 17:59

Yes I mean range. Combine long range with high speed and maneuverability will need clean sheet design. Something with a lot more fuel in the design. ADVENT itself isn’t enough to make up for the lack of range. There’s also problem of small weapon bay. With F-22 there is not much space left.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 572
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 01:27

Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 02:57

zerion wrote:Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/


The key words are "at the current moment". Where PCA is concerned, its going to be a long time before it happens.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 03:52

zero-one wrote:^^
Yeah I think he meat range.
Admittedly Range isn't one of the F-22's strong suits. Even though it's Combat Radius of ~500 NM is pretty respectable in the fighter community. I like the idea of having an F-22/35 Hybrid but I agree that answering the Range problem will be the biggest hurdle.

Here's what I think, if an ADVENT version of the F-119 can be made, doh wait, that already exist, albeit in prototype stage ( YF-120) and using F-35 avionics which take up far less space than than the current F-22 hardware, I believe the F-22 can be made to carry substantially more fuel. ADVENT alone is said to increase range by 25 - 30% so we're looking at a combat radius of around 700 NM. With more Fuel maybe we can punch up to 800 NM.

Yes I know its not enough for the Pacific Theater. As I posted many times above, both LM and the USAF think that fighter combat maneuverability still has it's place in the future network centric battlefield. My problem is I don't believe you can combine Extreme Bomber class range with Extreme fighter class maneuverability.

You will still need Tankers, so the goal shouldn't be to eliminate the need for tankers but simply to minimize the reliance on tankers.



The easy (easier), faster and much cheaper option is F-35'D', with variable-cycle engine which especially emphasizes gains at high-speed and high-altitude (for range purposes, not just for fighting, as such) plus F-35C's wing on the D for better high-alt stability loaded, plus a conformal tank over the upper wing blended 'roots', and further evolved sensors and software-defined capabilities (as will develop anyway). A few countries would certainly be interested in operating that sort of variant (Japan and Australia for two).

Most of the need for some faster deeper VLO Strike/BVR is thus covered.

Or at least it's a good interim compromise (with respect to a PCA type jet role) as a maturing of other tech/propulsion to make the PCA type option work occurs (given today's remarks indicate PCA development may be on the back-burner for the time being, as the F-35 build occupies the prime focus ... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54447&p=401667#p401667 ).

If an F-35D did that well enough, a PCA may remain on the back-burner for longer, which is also a good thing, why go early to crystallizing a capability or platform, if you don't need to yet? Plus better F-35 weapons may be able to take up the PCA strike slack in the interim, at far cheaper cost, and fielded sooner.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 04:02

lrrpf52 wrote:The idea that these are incremental 5th generation technologies is really a stretch.


The PCA conception was sold from the beginning as a rapid-prototype airframe that's an evolution of existing tech in order to speed the rate of development and production with an eye on 2029 service entry.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 06:50

I think its good to relook at how PCA unfolded. 2017 PCA study was actually done by USAF scientific advisory board (SAB) which studied the possibility of a PCA aircraft to be implemented by 2030. What the SAB does is to advise and provide information/options to the USAF. It is not the USAF that is selling or planning to implement the PCA for a 2029 service entry.

The current statement by the USAF should be read in that context.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4652
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 06:57

zerion wrote:Well the AF isn’t interested

Air Force not considering new F-15 or hybrid F-22/F-35, top civilian says

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/



I've been saying this about both the F-15X and the so-called F-22/F-35 Hybrid for sometime now. Yet, the local expert know more!

:lmao:
Offline

knowan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 08:07

marsavian wrote:What will be the effective range of these laser weapons and good luck on trying to achieving this effective distance with a plane twice as fast as you.


Specific distances are unknown, but charts I posted some pages back say 'long-range' for anti-aircraft usage with a few hundred kW lasers, while megawatt range lasers are capable against ballistic missiles and other hypersonic targets at long range.
Lasers of that power are unlikely to be used onboard tactical aircraft anytime soon, but Navy ships and land installations will likely have weapons of that power in the coming decades.

Given such lasers are effective anti-missile weapons too, there might be some significant changes to air and missile warfare when such weapons become widespread.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Sep 2018, 15:41

knowan wrote:
marsavian wrote:What will be the effective range of these laser weapons and good luck on trying to achieving this effective distance with a plane twice as fast as you.


Specific distances are unknown, but charts I posted some pages back say 'long-range' for anti-aircraft usage with a few hundred kW lasers, while megawatt range lasers are capable against ballistic missiles and other hypersonic targets at long range.
Lasers of that power are unlikely to be used onboard tactical aircraft anytime soon, but Navy ships and land installations will likely have weapons of that power in the coming decades.

Given such lasers are effective anti-missile weapons too, there might be some significant changes to air and missile warfare when such weapons become widespread.



It does not have to be individual lasers. It's a mistake to think about this in terms of single-laser performances. If multiple aircraft or multiple ships or ground lasers are d/l connected to a target's precision-data track in real-time, there's nothing to stop them auto-coordinating a kill, using multiple lasers, to overcome degradation or range attenuation factors. Those factors can be measured by the lasers, and the system could prioritize and schedule the targets for lasing, and the number of lasers needed to get the required effects auto-determined given the prevailing conditions and range. Done and communicated in under a second. Such a system could hand-off a target to another network of lasers (if a target moves out of range) to complete the engagement.

Lasers will be coming and their range-depleted energy will SUM to a NET-amount that will be effective.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Sep 2018, 08:27

Corsair1963 wrote:I've been saying this about both the F-15X and the so-called F-22/F-35 Hybrid for sometime now. Yet, the local expert know more!

:lmao:

Well I'd rather believe the experts on the article itself

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... lian-says/
Experts who spoke with Defense News said it’s very likely that the Air Force intends to keep its focus on ramping up F-35 production for the time being, but that alternative platforms could very well be considered in future years.

However, it is the F-22/F-35 hybrid, not the F-15X, that they believe stands a better chance of being adopted by the Air Force.

Defense One, which broke the story about Lockheed’s hybrid offer, wrote that the proposed jet would involve taking the F-22 airframe and outfitting it with some of the F-35’s more advanced mission systems, though some structural changes could also be involved.

“Every F-22 hybrid or derivative I’ve seen has been great,” said Rebecca Grant, a defense analyst with IRIS independent Research.

The Air Force is in great need of such a stealthy air superiority aircraft because it only procured 183 F-22s, she said. Its other plane that specializes in the air-to-air fight, the F-15C/D, was originally fielded in the 1970s.


Grant said she interprets Wilson’s dismissal of the F-22/F-35 hybrid as a reflection of near-term requirements and priorities, noting that “job one is acquiring the F-35.” But in the future, that jet could be what the service decides it needs to contend with current and future threats.

David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Power Studies and a retired Air Force lieutenant general, agreed that the service should continue buying F-35s for the time being.

However, the F-22/F-35 hybrid might be a good option for the service in the future, when it begins looking for a next-generation air superiority jet, which the Air Force has variously called Penetrating Counter Air and Next Generation Air Dominance.


It ain't over :nono: :nono: :nono:
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 09:31

Reposting this from another Japan-specific thread.

The Japanese F-22/F-35 hybrid seems to be dead because of cost reasons. So are advanced F-15s and Typhoons.Japan will seek to collaborate on either the UK or the French-German projects.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20 ... na/001000c

As many as 92 F-2s are owned by the Air Self-Defense Force, and will begin to reach the end of their service life in the 2030s. The quick adoption of a replacement plan is necessary as developing a fighter jet can take 10 years or more. In response to a government call for proposals, three American and British manufacturers made offers to upgrade their existing models -- Lockheed Martin for its F-22, Boeing for its F-15, and BAE for its Eurofighter Typhoon.

However, refurbishing the stealthy, state-of-the-art F-22 is expensive, and "no clear explanation was given about the possibility of the U.S. government lifting the export ban" on the aircraft, according to a senior ministry official. The two other proposals also failed to meet the ministry's requirements.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests