Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

We’ve talked about this point on the Ares blog earlier. I don’t think you’ll see jump in technology such as to hypersonics or exoatmospherics and from what I’ve been reading it appears to me that this jet will still be manned though with perhaps an option for unmanned operation depending the on mission set. To define the jet you have to determine the requirements and that means defining the threat.

Since we are protected by two oceans and we use our military to project power we will be facing sophisticated anti-access threats in the form of IRBM, air launched cruise missiles and perhaps medium bombers. Those threats combined with dwindling basing rights means long range. The threats themselves will be populated by low frequency radars, passive ELS, multi or bistatic radars etc. so improved signature management is a must.

Finally the primary driver in overall performance will be the threat fighters, those being 5th generation being rough analogues to the F-22. To kill an F-22 you’d need obviously superior performance, better sensors and as previously mentioned better signature management. I think the days of the low speed one/two circle fights will be more in the past and transonic/supersonic agility will be more important for BVR engagements. Better sensors include probably large next gen AESA; probably with a larger bandwidth possibly getting into the lower bands such as L-band. Next generation IRST and improved ESM systems round out the list. Overall avionic and sensor architecture will probably be similar to what’s on the F-35 but better in overall performance.

So my guess is an YF-23 sized airframe with an empty weight in the 45,000lb class. A GTOW in the 85,000lb class with a huge internal fuel fraction (40%). Large weapons bays for carriage of 2,000lb class munitions or future Mach 6 aeroballistics plus smaller bays for additional AAMs or miniature munitions such as GBU-39s. Probably more flexible bay main bay configuration such as in the B-1 and YF-23 and much larger internal A-A payload.

Overall planform would probably be mostly wing and fuselage with no vertical stabs. Probably along the lines of the STAV concepts being researched at AEDC :

Additional Pics

Fighter requirements are different though and it’s possible that a conventional horizontal stab will still be required; possibly blended more into the very large main wing as is done on the F-22. Higher wing sweep for is probable too as the low speed agility is probably of lesser importance.

So here’s my guess of the cardinal parameters:

OEW:

Dimensions:

Internal fuel

Radius of action:

Superior supercruise envelope:

Superior or equal transonic and superonic agility

Superior or equal thrust:weight ratio

Improved supercruise specific range:

Much larger A-A loadout

Wide band all aspect VLO signature:

Improved IR signature management:

The USAF expects to IOC the notional “F-X” in 2027 or 2028 but I think that if they don’t aim for the sky too much and start now and I mean NOW they can reduce the development cycle down to maybe 15 years for IOC in 2024. The only way for them to realistically do that though is flying the prototype(s) in 5-7 years and/or reduce SDD testing. I’m a little pessimistic that they could reach those goals but perhaps they can start the ball rolling in the black world working more along the lines of the F-117 program. The real crux of the USAF’s recapitalization problems is they need new fighters and a new bomber all about the same timeframe. They’re going to have to find a better way of developing and buying new equipment because the cycle is too long.

BDF

F-16.net Sponsor

/edited/

I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA

DA, maybe you're camp of analysis will be right, maybe wrong.. better cross fingers (2013-2014 time frame could be a climactic doozie, if there was a peak-air combat deterrence).

But in response to your hypotheticals with more hypotheticals... What if: (1) you needed to make a 'forced entry' style engagement some day against a future Taliban (whether based primarily in Afghanistan or elsewhere, (however with no regional support and in fact direct opposition).. (2) Your hypothetical cyber-warrior based, ballistic missile/cruise missile/bomber/submarine offensive threat(s) you speak of needed to be countered-balanced with sufficient tactical deterrence... and the air-dominance/retaliatory deterrence was a few high-speed trains short of a stimulus rail system!

Re: perplexing Pirates... agreed. A couple remote controlled .50 cal (or a couple snipers), backed up by a theater high altitude radar/ISR blimp would suffice in backing off majority of the row boats.. (Hey, add a helo pad onto these freighters and you basically have an LCS - free advice to DoD!)

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Air Wing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its MiGs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA

DarthAmerica, you have broken one critical rule: Never underestimate your enemies!

Better to intentionally overestimate their actual capabilities to reduce the likelihood of mass casualties.

Remember how the British Army was busy fighting colonial wars in Africa and India?

By World War I, it had taken a heavy beating from the well-trained Imperial German Army (Reichsheer), whose troops mastered greatly in conventional warfare, and had to radically switch to conventional warfare tactics and fight in tandem with colonial armies, and the armies of France and the United States to defeat the German Empire.

A modern IADS comprising double digits SAMs, e.g. SA-20, SA-21, SA-15 and SA-17 SAM batteries can blow a Carrier Air Wing out of the sky because of their greater launching and detection range.

This is not Cold War technology your daddy must have experienced (sarcasm). It's 21st century technology you must learn to master.

Only if the LockMart plant at Marietta, GA, can churn out sufficient numbers of F-22 Raptors to eliminate an enemy's air force in A2A combat and punch holes in an enemy's IADS.

Sapping our conventional warfighting capability can be a deadly mistake, in the amount of U.S. lives, especially that to their combat aviators, because they are expensive to train and hard to replace.

Remember how in early WWII, in the Pacific Theater, Jap Zero pilots flew like honchos? Later on, when most of their top aces where killed off, less experienced combat aviators came on the scene and helped your side. Then the Japs resorted to quickly trained pilots for the kamikaze role until war's end.

Just to let you know what fighting a conventional war is all about. It's better to fight a conventional war armed to the teeth so that we don't be the first ones to use chem / bio weapons or nukes.

And by the mid to late 2020s, no more legacy F-15s and F-16s will be on the aerial battlefronts, but Gen 5.5 F-22 Block 50/60/70, FB-22 Strike Raptors, F-22N Sea Raptors (for Navy and Marine Corps) and some Gen 6 fighters.

geogen wrote:

Re: perplexing Pirates... agreed. A couple remote controlled .50 cal (or a couple snipers), backed up by a theater high altitude radar/ISR blimp would suffice in backing off majority of the row boats.. (Hey, add a helo pad onto these freighters and you basically have an LCS - free advice to DoD!)

"Parley", "Parley"

OL

Are we not heading into key publishing levels of forum sillyness when Ace Combat fighters start being posted as possible 6th gen fighters.

shep1978 wrote:

Are we not heading into key publishing levels of forum sillyness when Ace Combat fighters start being posted as possible 6th gen fighters.

They do look sweet though.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

shep1978 wrote:

Are we not heading into key publishing levels of forum sillyness when Ace Combat fighters start being posted as possible 6th gen fighters.

A-yup.

shep1978 wrote:

Are we not heading into key publishing levels of forum sillyness when Ace Combat fighters start being posted as possible 6th gen fighters.

The aircraft engineers at Boeing, NG or LockMart could use these Gen 6 fighter designs as templates to come up with fighter designs of their own or at least adapt those designs into prototyping and possible full production, if the funding allowed it.

Since we're talking about hardware that is currently out of reach, and most likely won't get approved. Skip 6th gen, let's move on to space fighters.

geogen wrote:

DA, maybe you're camp of analysis will be right, maybe wrong.. better cross fingers (2013-2014 time frame could be a climactic doozie, if there was a peak-air combat deterrence).

But in response to your hypotheticals with more hypotheticals... What if: (1) you needed to make a 'forced entry' style engagement some day against a future Taliban (whether based primarily in Afghanistan or elsewhere, (however with no regional support and in fact direct opposition).. (2) Your hypothetical cyber-warrior based, ballistic missile/cruise missile/bomber/submarine offensive threat(s) you speak of needed to be countered-balanced with sufficient tactical deterrence... and the air-dominance/retaliatory deterrence was a few high-speed trains short of a stimulus rail system!

Re: perplexing Pirates... agreed. A couple remote controlled .50 cal (or a couple snipers), backed up by a theater high altitude radar/ISR blimp would suffice in backing off majority of the row boats.. (Hey, add a helo pad onto these freighters and you basically have an LCS - free advice to DoD!)

The force we have and will get is sufficient for forced entry within the timeframe of this decisions effects. If you disagree, please explain to me what threats specifically. Otherwise, so longs as we have the capability, our defense needs are met and by definition we don't NEED more F-22's beyond 187.

-DA

How many combat coded jets does 187 give you? Can you specificy how Ao and MC rates effect said force's ability to conduct the mission sets assigned or required by the JCC? You mention China, can you elaborate on daily sortie generation rates with the various available basing in the PacRim? How does that compare to China's capabilities?

While amusing, the video game, model and anime fighter designs are mostly useless- especially the ones with variable geometry wings and tails. Variable geometry is a step backwards in technology for the most part- it certainly makes aircraft anything BUT more stealthy. However, it will definitely increase price tags and maintaining costs.

Might as well fly giant pinatas for the Mexican Air Force, since their squadron of F-5 Tiger IIs are pretty worn out now.

So, back to realistic air combat of the present and the future eh? Rolling Eyes

BDF wrote:

How many combat coded jets does 187 give you? Can you specificy how Ao and MC rates effect said force's ability to conduct the mission sets assigned or required by the JCC? You mention China, can you elaborate on daily sortie generation rates with the various available basing in the PacRim? How does that compare to China's capabilities?

About 120 roughly. With the rest assigned to training, test, spare and back up. With an F-22? I wouldn't count on having the MC any greater than about 80%~85%(I know they get much higher in training like at Kadena recently). So I'd plan on a paltry 96 to 100 actually ready to fight an any given time. The F-22 being designed around Cold War European range requirement means its got short legs considering the size of the Pacific. I'd skip Guam and go for FWD basing out of Japan. That Depending on the mission and reasons for being there I'd go with anywhere between 48 to 96 in the AO. For instance show of force rapid deployment to deter some aggression. Depending on how many actually deployed, and I can't arbitrarily tell you how many without knowing specifics about the reason for a conflict, I'd guestimate being able to generate 70 to 120 sorties a day MAX using 1.5 average sortie rate to factor in murphy and rounding down. Of course I'd supplement my F-22's with legacy platforms such as the F-15 and USN Superbugs and eventually F-35s.

Considering the PRC has about 200 to 250 late model 4th Gen aircraft out of the 600 to 1000 PLAAF/PLANAF they could cram into basing close enough to operate in the same AO, say Taiwan for instance, I think 48 to 96 F-22's would be enough of a silver bullet force to augment the legacy platforms such that the Chinese would not want to squander their PLAAF. Also, the PRC has limited ability to operate beyond GCI, little in the way of AEW and almost no tangible tanking to speak of. So unless I was going to operate over PRC proper, I don't think the ratio of F-22's to bad guys is bad at all.

-DA

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 vs. Congress