Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Wild Monkey Guesses for what changes are needed for the F-22B, which would be a post-restart new build F-22, with lessons learned from F-22A and F-35.

(Needless to say that The Force has already decided that it is far more sensible to go straight to sixth gen instead of mucking around with yet another fifth gen, but assume that BHO2 is replaced with an idiot or something.)

So my baseline is the F-22A moldline, with F-35 style materials built up to F-22A robustness, new CPUs, a pair of F135 thrust class engines with the thrust vectoring, the chin radars, SAIRST (if not the laser pointer), and general stealth improvements.

The change I'd ask for is two seats, so we don't ask another Capt. Haney to be a superman all by himself. Oh and removable stealthy conformal fuel tanks for when range trumps agility.

F-16.net Sponsor

Nothing wrong - or idiotic - with evolving the 5th gen baseline. The failure to not sufficiently evolve the 4th gen platforms and instead force a rush into an 'all 5th gen with IOC by 2012' is half the reason the USAF is in the problem it faces with F-35 and recap in general today. Also, 5th gen is relative. There's plenty of space to push and grow.

Likewise, an evolved 5th gen would obviously be quicker to develop and done at less cost. Besides, nothing wrong with integrating the first couple of 6th gen technologies as they mature into such a 5+ gen platform of tomorrow, whereas the flawed concept some might imagine would be in trying to make a wholly 6th gen aircraft from scratch.

As far as replacing an updated F119 (or F120?) engine with twin F135 for your F-22B mold-line, I'm not quite sure that makes a helluva lot of sense?? imho...

Quote:

(Needless to say that The Force has already decided that it is far more sensible to go straight to sixth gen instead of mucking around with yet another fifth gen, but assume that BHO2 is replaced with an idiot or something.)

What was the point of typing this?

Quote:

So my baseline is the F-22A moldline, with F-35 style materials built up to F-22A robustness, new CPUs, a pair of F135 thrust class engines with the thrust vectoring, the chin radars, SAIRST (if not the laser pointer), and general stealth improvements.

I don't think the F-22A moldline can accept F135 engines. Aside from materials, I think you've postulated some upgrades that are already going to happen to at least some of the current F-22A fleet if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

The change I'd ask for is two seats, so we don't ask another Capt. Haney to be a superman all by himself. Oh and removable stealthy conformal fuel tanks for when range trumps agility.

How about limited TCAS abilities (doesn't necessarily take over control of aircraft - just gives warnings) coupled with the ability to auto orbit or land if the pilot is unconscious? I'd investigate LO, jettisonable external fuel tanks before considering LO CFTs. I would also recommend having better avionics commonality with the F-35. Having EODAS/EOTS might help keep pilots from flying into mountains and add more multirole functionality. Having we tapped the full potential of the F119 engine yet? What about upgrading to the FLCS to handle battle damage?

Underwing fuel tanks are such a drag, while a careful conformal design can add a bit of lift.

Strange updates that have gone by the wayside are helmet mounted sights, doubling the Sidewinders (in their current bays), and adding the capability of firing actual powered air to surface missiles instead of just dropping GPS guided bombs.

Survivable 4th gen is nearing it's end. Package Q showed this against even a moderate IADS.

Having multiple similar airframes (a mixed 4th gen / 5th gen) force is not economical, especially in the area of acquisition and lifetime cost of parts.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Survivable 4th gen is nearing it's end. Package Q showed this against even a moderate IADS.

You got that right. Losing 3 Vipers in one mission is embarrassing.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Having multiple similar airframes (a mixed 4th gen / 5th gen) force is not economical, especially in the area of acquisition and lifetime cost of parts.

The number of aircraft types we have now is not economical, but it is effective.

Quote:

...a pair of F135 thrust class engines with the thrust vectoring

discofishing wrote:

I don't think the F-22A moldline can accept F135 engines.

Agreed with Disco, the F135 is a larger engine than the F119. About 6" wider in diameter. In the engine world 6" is a huge difference. (F100/F110 clear the engine bay of a Viper by less than 1/2" in some places.)

I believe the F135 requires the use of a 60" on-center rail trailer/stand, where the F119 still used the 48" trailer that the F100/F110 (and most previous engines) used.

I know it was said an Eagle's engine bays 'could' be modified slightly during production to accommodate an F119, but it would have been a 'very tight fit' without a MAJOR redesign of the body. No way the F119 would fit a Viper without an entirely new body.

Putting the F135 into a Raptor's engine bays would be a similar problem. It would likely need a serious redesign. I don't think the Raptor's engine bays enjoy the extra space that was present in the Eagle's engine bays. (They are quite large compared to others I've seen in relation to their engines) In the Raptor internal space was more of a premium (like the Viper) than in the Eagle's design.

What is more likely (and even more likely to see eventual F-22A incorporation if a future variant/model of the Raptor isn't built) would be a new 'dash' F119. We could call it an F119-PW-240 (2nd generation 40K thrust) Use your own imagination here.

Point is, the F119 could grow just like motor types have in the past. With the technology and materials being developed for the F135 'in house' at the same OEM it is VERY likely they will find their way back into the F119. Look at the F100-PW-229EEP; it's gained tech from the F119 and F135 which has resulted in an increased TBO almost 50% higher than previous F100s.

With that said the question would be this, do we redesign the WHOLE aft fuselage and inlet system on the Raptor to use bigger motors that were designed without super-cruise requirements? Or do we use the same basic fuselage and have PW pump the F119 up with some new tech to gain power, reduce maintenance costs, or reduce fuel burn? Again this would be driven by the requirement. So too, the 2D or 3D thrust-vector nozzles. I'd go 3D myself IF you were building a fighter. If building an variant for interdiction to replace the F-15E, I'd opt for no thrust vector, and a higher TBO without a significant increase in thrust; not to mention being lighter without the fancy nozzles. Lets not forget PW is working on 'geared-fan' technology that has been said to be 'applicable' to military engines as well as large commercial engines.

It's a fun dream, isn't it?

Keep 'em 'flyin' Thumb

TEG

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Having multiple similar airframes (a mixed 4th gen / 5th gen) force is not economical, especially in the area of acquisition and lifetime cost of parts.

The number of aircraft types we have now is not economical, but it is effective.

My comment was directed at those who mistakenly think a mixed force of F-35s and newly build 4th gen fighters would be cheaper than an all F-35 force (as planned).

Why would anyone want to keep around old smelly 4th gen fighters for another 25 years? They won't last forever and the structural fatigue issues are bound to be a hassle that will haunt whoever comes up with that bright idea.

SpudmanWP wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Having multiple similar airframes (a mixed 4th gen / 5th gen) force is not economical, especially in the area of acquisition and lifetime cost of parts.

The number of aircraft types we have now is not economical, but it is effective.

My comment was directed at those who mistakenly think a mixed force of F-35s and newly build 4th gen fighters would be cheaper than an all F-35 force (as planned).

1) Contrary to mythical belief and stay-the-course fundamentalists, a mix of new-built USAF 4.5 gen fighters alongside F-35A would indeed be cheaper.

2) And to any 5Gfan still suggesting that non-5th gen platforms are going to be irrelevant over the next 25 yrs, unfortunately do not grasp reality. Combined with next-gen unmanned UCAV platforms, continuously evolved and upgraded Platforms including Rafale, Typhoon, F-15, Super Hornet, J-15, J-10, Mig-35 and Su-35 will be the mainstay for the next 20 yrs at least. I'd like to include F-16 within this category, but at time of this posting it doesn't appear that LM has the interest or plans to continue investing and evolving the line.

Geogen,

A new F-16 with all the multi-role bells and whistles (targeting pods, IRST, jammers,etc) is around FY2010 $50 million (F-18s & F-15s are even more and do not get me started on the cost of Rafales and EFs). An FRP F-35A is $65-70.

Now split the force 50/50.

What happens to the cost of the F-35s? They go up.

What happens to the cost of parts for both systems. They go up due to loss of economy of scale.

What about the extra cost of keeping two types of ground staff trained? It goes up.

What about the extra cost of IFR, ISR, Escorts, Jammers, etc that the 4th gen planes would need that the 5th gen boys do not? It goes up.

What about the development and buy cost of Post-SDD updates (for 4th gen and F-35)? Double (or more) the dev cost and buy cost goes up (economies of scale is a bitch).

Then there is the extra cost of keeping two training programs, two supply chains, two, two, etc going. More cost added.

There there is the operational costs. You will need more fighters in country and God forbid we ever go up against a peer force because you can only use half your force effectively. More cost.

All of these extra costs associated with having two types of fighters instead of one quickly eat away and waste that 15-20 million Acquisition savings that you thought you were getting when you bought them. You are making the classic mistake of focusing on short term costs and not looking at the lifetime cost of a program.

Besides the 4th gen acquisition cost, where would the savings come from?

One and only warning. Get this back on topic, which is about a hypothetical F-22B. Talk about the F-35 at that other forum.

Missions, missions, missions.

Is this still a pure interceptor (not a pound for air to ground), or is it the Ultraraptor, deep strike fighter that goes after distant, well defended elusive targets? Goodbye Mr. Imagettingit, we'll call up your wife and tell her that you're sleeping with the virgins tonight on our way back.

If the former then altitude, speed and agility are favored, if the later then stealth, range and IR gear are nice. (Shading more towards the FB-22.)

So choose.

The F-22A has the speed and altitude covered, or is an operational 1.82M at 65,000 ft not enough? I think range is the biggest issue, then additional sensors.

TEG and hcobb both probably hit the nail on the head as far as why the F-22B wouldn't happen. No mission that is unique that it justifies its existence. If the F-22A is already king of the hill then further developing said airframes makes more sense. If you want a tactical bomber then perhaps the F-22B is too expensive of concept. By the time you redesign the F-22B into an FB-22 its a whole new aircraft. Better to spend the development resources more wisely on the next generation.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22B changes