Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

However, nanotech and ceramic coatings are not currently available and will take another 5 - 10 years to develop. Furthermore, the first generation of coatings will probably be fragile and ill suited towards intensive operations. And, waiting for a 6th gen fighter will take another 20 years. I would much rather that the USAF builds something in the interim and develops the technology for a 6th gen fighter outside of any program before integrating that technology into an airplane.

This will be especially important as I am of the opinion that the true separation between 5th gen and 6th gen will be a dramatic leap forward in engine technology. 3 - 5 gen fighters have fundamentally the same engine architecture. Either a high speed or a low speed optimized engine and one that operates at most up to Mach 2. A 6th gen fighter will have either: an engine that combines super efficient cruise with supersonic capability, ADVENT I believe; or an engine that is capable of sustained operations above Mach 3. That will be the biggest jump forward from 5th gen and it will take a lot of time, money, and probably several X planes before it works. The USAF would be well served to put that on the back burner for now.

The argument for the FB-22, as opposed to the NGB / LRS-B / UCAV, is that the US needs an high speed, with sprint ability above Mach 1, tactical bomber. I happen to think that is the case. There exist targets that the US will want to bomb, but that happen to be within in the range of roving hostile fighters and not at strategic distances, 1500+ nm. A tactical bomber, similar to the F-15E and F-111, will probably cost in the 200 mil range, assuming it is a modification of an already existing fighter, as opposed to 400 - 500 mil for the NGB. That means the USAF can build a significant number of them to supplement the NGB and compliment the F-35.

Because of its sprint speed, it should be able to operate in areas where the chance of an accidental discovery by a hostile fighter is high. The NGB won't be able to flee as easily if it gets bounced by an enemy aircraft. The NGB can slip through greater gaps but it won't have the ability to run away from hostile aircraft. That limits it to missions in low density areas.

Finally, as mentioned in other threads, it appears that the Navy and maybe even the USAF recognize the need for long range aircraft with two pilots to shepherd UCAVs and conduct EW. If the USAF wants to build a long range fighter with two pilots, that will naturally lead to a long range tactical bomber with two pilots. The F-35, because of its single pilot, won't be able to conduct those long range and highly independent missions, as in there aren't data links outside that of the immediate formation due to enemy EW activity. The USAF will have to build something to fill in those gaps and it won't have enough NGBs to do so. (And, the USAF will eventually have to replace its EF-111s...)

F-16.net Sponsor

If you build the FB-22 to be able to go toe to toe with defense fighters on the way in, you'd better be sure of the F-22A's HOBS capabilities.

That can be accomplished with an adaptation of the AAR-56 MLD into a distributed aperture system. That in turn allows for HOBS shots. On the other hand, the A-12 was equipped to defend itself with AMRAAMs using its SAR radar, so perhaps a hypothetical FB-22 could carry AMRAAMs for better stand-off self defense in that scenario.

@arkadyrenko I agree that propulsion advances will indeed be one of the defining features of 6th gen but I'm just listing off one of the other key defining features of 6th gen that I found more applicable to what the LRS-B is supposed to possess.

Is there even an F/B-22 in the works? I do concede that a supersonic strike aircraft based on the F-22 might be necessary, but it is to my understanding that the Air Force is simply aiming for an interim strategic bomber like LRS-B instead.

CAN'T TURN A FIGHTER INTO A GOOD BOMBER!!!!! You may have heard of it... they call her the Strike Eagle. Cool

TSFG

thestealthfighterguy wrote:

You may have heard of it... they call her the Strike Eagle.

...which is a strike fighter, not a bomber, and has a little fraction of both the range and payload of an actual bomber.

That's not to say that strike fighters aren't good planes for what their own actual role is. It's just that that what they are isn't bombers, so suggesting them for a program to select a bomber just doesn't make sense. Suggesting them for a program to upgrade fighters or select a new strike fighter could.

But that's where we get to my point about the need to not keep throwing an endless stream of money at this stuff. Having bombers and two different sizes of strike fighter might be nifty, but if you're already going to have the smaller strike fighter and bombers, then adding the larger strike fighter just doesn't add a whole lot to the package; very little of what it can do is not already covered by one or both of the others. Mostly what it does is suck away money from other projects, such as a future replacement for the older bombers.

* * *

Speaking of other projects and how much range you can get out of fighters: have any of you heard of any serious suggestions about coming up with a stealth tanker, to allow the fighters more freedom in where on the map to refuel?

On UCAS-D the stated requirement is 4,500lbs. There's no reason this design can't scale up to carry a larger load. X-47C had a 10,000lb load although it wouldn't be carrier capable.

Regarding low level performance being a thing of the past: Depending on mission and threat environment high altitude is not always the best profile and in some cases will be far more dangerous. Just because the new normal seems to be flying 20,000+ ft to avoid AAA and light SAM's doesn't mean it actually is the way to go all the time. Low observable doesn't mean invisible.

delvo wrote:

thestealthfighterguy wrote:

You may have heard of it... they call her the Strike Eagle.

...which is a strike fighter, not a bomber, and has a little fraction of both the range and payload of an actual bomber.

That's not to say that strike fighters aren't good planes for what their own actual role is. It's just that that what they are isn't bombers, so suggesting them for a program to select a bomber just doesn't make sense. Suggesting them for a program to upgrade fighters or select a new strike fighter could.

But that's where we get to my point about the need to not keep throwing an endless stream of money at this stuff. Having bombers and two different sizes of strike fighter might be nifty, but if you're already going to have the smaller strike fighter and bombers, then adding the larger strike fighter just doesn't add a whole lot to the package; very little of what it can do is not already covered by one or both of the others. Mostly what it does is suck away money from other projects, such as a future replacement for the older bombers.

* * *

Speaking of other projects and how much range you can get out of fighters: have any of you heard of any serious suggestions about coming up with a stealth tanker, to allow the fighters more freedom in where on the map to refuel?

Yeah I'm with you. I just like the old "not a lb for air to ground" fighter being turned into one of the worlds great strike fighters. That was the idea with the FB-22. Also, how many countrys have built a bomber with more range and payload than a strike eagle. What... 4 I think. The US, Russia, UK and China copied one Russia built. Not bad for a fighter based aircraft.

TSFG

thestealthfighterguy wrote:

CAN'T TURN A FIGHTER INTO A GOOD BOMBER!!!!! You may have heard of it... they call her the Strike Eagle. Cool

TSFG

The Beagle, otherwise defined as my future office Wink

I can't wait for DAS, AESA, and maybe LO features.

No amount of mods to the Beagle will ever make it truly low observable so it's better to go all the way.

@TSFG The ATF was actually aimed to make a multi-role aircraft with emphasis on A/G but the Beagle took that job away before long so ATF became strictly A/A instead. I would imagine enough mods to an F-22A airframe can make it a viable supersonic strike platform which can be used to replace the Beagle. Still, LRS-B is what is currently present at the moment in terms of solving our future strike needs so I'm not sure if I can even believe the existence of F/B-22 development post 2007 until I see evidence.

I don't really care for the FB-22 concept. The redesign would be costly and a new bomber would probably do the job better for roughly the same price.

The F-22B on the other hand... could be useful, provided it's evolved into a dual-role (SEAD and A2A) fighter to provide more comprehensive air-dominance with minimal redesign. The changes below would only require off-the-shelf technology, space for which has already been provided in the original design.

1. HMD--- Doesn't have to be as high-resolution as the F-35's, just good enough for the two roles mentioned above.

2. IRST--- Same as with the HMD, the space is there, so use it.

3. Cheek AESA--- Again, the space is already there.

4. New RAM skin--- Already being worked on.

5. AIM-X/w lock-on-after-launch--- ties in with the HMD.

6. JDRADM--- ties in with the SEAD and A2A roles.

7. 2nd seat--- something to look into.

The above mentioned improvements can be made without a massive redesign of the entire airframe. There is no need to add 2K weapon capability or F135 engines. Keep changes to a practical minimum, and there's a chance that the F-22 could rise from the ashes. Otherwise, it's a dead bird (and rightfully so).

The Raptor has a very heavy empty weight so you can't go around filling in empty spaces without hurting performance if you don't redesign the structure to use more of the F-35's advanced materials.

sgt - the reason for an FB-22, as opposed to an F-22B, is that the USAF needs fighters with a longer combat radius more than it needs better interceptors. As thing currently stand, the F-22 has a combat radius on the order of 400 - 500 nm and the F-35 has a combat radius on the order of 550 - 650 nm. Both of those distances are completely inadequate for the AA/AD challenges that the USAF faces in the future. Hence why the look at a FB-22. The delta wing alone should give the plane more range.

Perhaps a FB-22 shouldn't have a radically redesigned bomb bay, just stick with its current layout + maybe room for more AMRAAMs somewhere. The range gain from a new wing, however, shouldn't be ignored.

The stuff you're laying out, AESA, etc. would for all intents and purposes mean restarting the F-22 line and bringing the plane to the last of its block upgrades. It doesn't solve the USAF's range problem (which should drive all fighter purchases after the F-35 and maybe even lead to a F-35D with redesigned wing...).

ark, There's no need to build another fast penetration fighter-bomber. The F-111 and F-15E were only necessary because high speed was the way to beat air defenses back then. A medium-range, sub-sonic, VLO bomber would be a better platform for that kind of mission today.

cobb, there's no reason to assume that installing components which were supposed to be there in the first place would be a major problem. Doubtless, some minor tweaks would have to be made, but the basic airframe and powerplant don't need to me radically altered.

If not a fast penetration problem, at least a long range fighter. Get more fuel into the F-22, by hook or by crook. Right now, in the Pacific, the F-22 is either going to be tied to a highly vulnerable string of tankers or it'll be too close to Guam to count.

(Okinawa will be paved over by cruise missiles, can't really count that in.)

arkadyrenko wrote:

If not a fast penetration problem, at least a long range fighter. Get more fuel into the F-22, by hook or by crook. Right now, in the Pacific, the F-22 is either going to be tied to a highly vulnerable string of tankers or it'll be too close to Guam to count.

(Okinawa will be paved over by cruise missiles, can't really count that in.)

Sad to say, but that's just a limitation that one has to live with in fighters. There's still no reason to panic because there are also other factors in the Pacific theater that limit China as well, but discussion of such would go way off topic here.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22B changes