Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

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.

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.

Which new build 4.5 gen aircraft are you referring to, in terms of being cheaper? New F-15s with AESA, glass cockpits, state of the art EW/ESM, IRST, datalinks, etc... are going to be $100M+. A Block III Super Hornet probably would be $80-90M+. Block 60/70 F-16s would be $70-80M+. Where is the savings?

FB-22 and FB-23 were never good ideas. A fighter is just too small for any version of one to become a bomber. If you just want to extend small-strike ability beyond F-35's range, like making F-15E after F-16 had been used for ground attack for a while, costs are going to be more of an obstacle this time than they were back then, making it better to just use the true bombers we've already got, because they already have the range and more. (The payload might be overkill for a single mission, but you could usually combine what would have been multiple separate missions for strike fighters into one bomber flight, or just occasionally fly light or bring the extra back.) A new strike fighter would just have too narrow of a niche--targets out of F-35's reach but better in some way to hit with a strike fighter instead of a bomber--to be worth the expense. And if someone were to decide to go for it, YF-23 would make a better starting point than F-22, since range, speed, and stealth were its advantages in the competition (and the range factor alone at least means it would make that narrow niche less narrow).

And the problem with putting a pair of F135 engines in an F-22 is not just size. You'd be increasing thrust at low speeds but decreasing high-speed performance (both making the engines work harder to keep up at any given speed and simply cutting off the top speed at some point).

For F-22B, sensor upgrades/additions based on F-35's sensors are already planned, and some who work with the software might want to scrap the original and use a version of F-35's software instead. But the size and shape of its internal weapon bay will still impose ground attack limits on it that F-35 doesn't have. It not only can't carry 2000-pound weapons but also can't carry the more advanced 1000-pound weapons either, like JSM or JSOW. That's not something that can be changed with the planes that have already been built; you'd have to expand the bay by expanding the frame, and that means building whole new planes. And if you're going to start modifying the design and building whole new ones, the way to go then is to navalize it at the same time, since the Navy is in more need of a bigger longer-ranged strike fighter than the Air Force is. Then you can also let the Air Force buy some of the naval version too, if they want.

Theoretically, in a static-target (strategic) attack role, an LGB/JDAM is just as useful as 12 equivalent-weight iron bombs. By this rough metric, an F-15E loaded with GBU-12 can provide the hits on target of a big-belly B-52D

You're correct, the budgetary environment does argue against this type of modification. However, there is some sign that the AF is looking this way.

Your argument depends on the idea that bombers can't be precise and rely only on bulk instead. That's inaccurate. For example, a B-1 in Afghanistan destroyed a single small building with a single 500-pound JDAM without dropping anything else in that flight. (It was a minor news item at the time, I think because it was either the first time a B-1 used a weapon in that theater or the first time a B-1 used a JDAM in real combat instead of just practice.)