 |
| Last F-22 off the assembly line..via Lockheed Martin |
But to those that do think that its worthwhile, I have a two birds with one stone solution...a solution that surprises because no one has mentioned it in a long time.
Why not build the FB-22 for the next gen bomber? That would get the airplane into USAF service rather quickly...would maintain aspects of F-22 production and with the distances involved in the Pacific could easily form the basis for the next generation fighter.
Boeing would howl but hey...who cares?
UPDATE:
This is the Wikipedia entry on the FB-22...
In 2002, Lockheed Martin began studying a modified bomber version of the F-22 Raptor fighter, featuring a delta wing, longer body and greater range and payload.[1] The FB-22 medium bomber is based on existing and planned capabilities of the F-22 fighter, a heritage that would limit development costs and risks should the idea go into production. The FB-22 was planned to serve as a regional bomber, a role previously covered by the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.[2]I can tell you one thing. Extended development times is the killing our military.
The FB-22 differs from the original F-22 design significantly. A lengthened fuselage and larger delta wing provide greater fuel capacity for greater range of some 1,600 miles (2,600 km).[2] This also allows room for a larger internal weapons bay, better suiting long range attack missions and improved stealth.[3] Changing to an improved engine such as the F-35 Lightning II's Pratt & Whitney F135, or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 is possible.[4] The FB-22 would have a maximum speed of Mach 1.92.[5]
One early FB-22 concept featured no tailplanes.[5] The FB-22 design incorporated twin tailplanes and likely would have fixed engine nozzles as opposed to the thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22.[5] The FB-22 design could carry 30 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which weigh just 250 pounds (110 kg), compared with the F-22's payload of eight.[1]
10 years and we have an aborted EFV? FCS was in development for a similar amount of time before it was taken down to the river and drowned. Same with Crusader...same with F-22...F-35...you get the point.
The only programs that are getting it done and out the door is the much maligned LCS, AH-1Z/UH-1Y (and the original design proposal for the AH-1Z first appeared in the 90's in the form of the Super Viper) and even the promising and much needed CH-53K is being delayed--even though they're ready to start churning them out....
To start from scratch for a next gen bomber when the proposed FB-22 fills the bill is beyond stupid. Setup the specs, get it done and get it into squadron service. That is if we really need it. And listening to all the airpower guys we really do.
UPDATE 1:
Paulicus found this study on the FB-22. Seems that at one time the USAF was beyond gung-ho about the idea. A light quick read so enjoy.
RS21848
Not trying to be smart arse here, but didn't APA propose that?
ReplyDeleteOh and re the Su-34 - I agree with you. Now wouldn't it be great if we could get some airframes and pick the eyes out of the super hornet and f-35 and install the best bits in there.
no i believe it was an Air Force and Lockheed initiative. APA might have proposed it, but like i said i don't recall. time for some google-fu
ReplyDeleteit was a lockheed martin proposal...
ReplyDeleteJust had a quick look over there and here's a good link. Not sure when APA first started talking about it though. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf
ReplyDeleteFor good or ill that ship sailed a while ago. There was always a lot of merit in observing that the USAF really required at least 10 squadron's of F-22's (one per each AEF), and that a longer production run might have led to derivatives like an FB-22 or EA-22, or that maybe the stated reason for shutting down production was how quickly the F-35 would be along and how much cheaper it would be, etc., but what we have is about 100 jets that can deploy and that's all we're going to have.
ReplyDeleteNow that said an FB-22 is not a replacement for a NGB. It's a totally different requirement. An FB-22, however, would have been a great replacement for the F-15E. We still have a requirement to eventually replace out heavy bombers even if the USAF intends to fly the B-52 to 2040.
why is it not a proper replacement for the NGB? is that even a valid requirement in this day and age? to be able to penetrate enemy airspace once you tackle the tyranny of distance in the Pacific and then fight your way to drop nuclear bombs?
ReplyDeletei think thats mission creep and unrealistic. what we're actually facing is the need for the USAF to be able to fly at about twice the distance of an F-15E (my guess), do so quickly and help influence the air-sea battle.
the B-52 has the range but is unsurvivable, the B-1 is survivable but is unreliable and the F-15E is capable but lacks the punch on the other end.
a properly designed FB-22 should fill the void today...and if i've learned nothing else from recent procurement is that a bird in hand or near hand is better than an artist sketch. we can get an FB-22 in a couple of years if they push and don't over stack the requirements. the NGB might be here by 2025 if they start with a clean sheet. might
Remember the days when we could have something like the FB-111 AND large strategic bombers like the B-52 and B-1? I miss those days.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing is you're talking about two entirely different classes of aircraft with very different requirements. An FB-22 would be in the class of the F-111, F-15E, A-6, etc. Now Frankly I think the nation made a mistake in not purchasing at least 360 F-22's to give every AEF a squadron, not pursuing a stretched F-22 to provide both an FB-22 and EA-22, and don't even get me started on the A-6F.
ReplyDeleteThis aside all these are tactical aircraft. A heavy bomber is a different animal. It can fly 24 hours and provides space for the crew to get out of the seat. If you need to drop two dozen 2,000lb weapons, do a long range cruise missile strike, drop a 22,000lb weapon, loiter over the battlefield for many hours carrying a wide variety of weapons, etc., then you require a heavy bomber.
If you want to drop more than a few weapons from 20,000+ ft there's nothing with greater range, loiter time, load capacity, and speed than a B-1.
Now if you want to change the requirements to a long range, long loiter time medium bomber with a max load of perhaps 30,000lbs one could argue that perhaps that's what is needed. That's still not an FB-22. Not unless they were going to put a bomb bay in it to carry at least 8 2,000lb weapons.
As far as getting an FB-22 in a couple years it might be worth considering what a total redesign of the F-22 it really is and compare that to how long it takes to develop these days then make a reasonable estimate as to cost. In this budget environment it's simply never even going to enter the conversation. It's a luxury when the USAF has already bet the entire tactical aviation farm on the F-35A and in fact gave up getting more than 180 F-22's or any other tactical fighters the past decade in order to get the F-35A.
I'd argue an FB-22 would be more different compared to an F-22 than an F-18E/F is over the C/D. You're talking new structure, stretched, new wing, different engines, entirely new systems (one major issue with the F-22 is the difficulty upgrading avionics, LM made this a pain and was a contributing reason in the short production run), to be really useful a side by side cockpit with room for one to lie down and possibly a 3rd seat for an EW version, etc.
In any case it's never going to happen, however much you, I, or anyone might like.
I agree with Lane. The FB-22 can't be the NGB. It just doesn't have the range or endurance. A fighter-sized cockpit limits the overall (repeatable) crew endurance to 8-10 hours.
ReplyDeleteNow if they redesigned the cabin along the lines of the Su-34, with a toilet and room to lay down, then you might be on to something.
Of course, it still needs enough unrefueled range to get from the last tanker orbit, to its target, and back. Which, in the case of China, could be a thousand miles or more to hit targets inland.
Better to build an FB-23 than an FB-22. Far more capable (though most likely far more expensive as well).
ReplyDeleteAs for "I really don't care one way or the other and to be frank, believe that a pure air superiority airplane in this day and age is a non-starter." that's the F-15C
. . .in actuality the F-22 has far more air-to-ground capability than the F-15C (which can't do anything more than drop dumb iron - if that).
ReplyDelete