USAF Bomber Replacement: F/B-22

Winter

New Member
Leaders talk to Congress about long-range strike

WASHINGTON -- A variant of the F/A-22 Raptor is one consideration for the Air Force’s next long-range strike aircraft, the Air Force’s senior leaders said.

Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper met with members of the House Committee on Armed Services on Feb. 26 to discuss the Air Force’s portion of the 2005 National Defense Authorization budget request.

Two congressmen, Ike Skelton from Missouri and Dr. Phil Gingrey of Georgia, specifically asked about the service’s plan to upgrade the long-range bomber force.

“We’re trying to define what piece of technology we need to take the big leap to be able to do long-range strike,†General Jumper said. “One of the candidates is a variation of the F/A-22, taking full advantage of the development work that’s been done on that airplane.â€

Selecting the F/A-22 as the basis for the new bomber makes sense because it would be very efficient to build, the secretary said.

“It is a bomber variant of the F/A-22, which would give it dramatically greater range -- somewhat short of the B-2 Spirit -- but still it’s able to fight and depart quickly,†Secretary Roche said. “A problem with our very large bombers is they don’t have the ability to fight on their own and, given where we’re thinking of using very stealthy systems, the ability to escape a particular problem -- or to shoot back and scoot out -- is very important.â€

The secretary admitted that the F/B-22 would not be able to carry as much ordnance as heavy bombers, but the use of precision-guided munitions would more than make up the difference. [Hmm... :roll] The F/B variant of the Raptor would also have larger wings than the F/A model.

“We now have weapons that are so … precise, that instead of talking about how many aircraft do we need to attack a target, it’s how many targets can we attack with one flight of the airplane,†he said.

To illustrate his point, the secretary told the congressmen about the recent successful test of a new bomb rack for the B-2. The bomber was able to drop, 80 500-pound joint direct attack munitions, each individually programmed.

“In the case of the F/B-22, we are looking for something that can compliment the F/A-22, which will be a deep-strike system … but will be more regional than continental,†Secretary Roche said.

The F/B-22 would also address the issue of balancing standoff capability and proximity, General Jumper said.

“A regional-type bomber is attractive because it is able to penetrate deep, loiter for long periods of time and work problems on the ground with a very short time of flight of the weapon because it’s overhead,†the general said.

General Jumper said that some standoff weapons, such as cruise missiles, could require an hour or more of flight time to get to the target.

“It’s the time-of-flight balance that you’re searching for in what makes a weapon such as this attractive,†he said. “It has to be stealthy. It has to retain, in this case, the benefits of supercruise, to aid in its penetration and to loiter for long periods of time.â€

Source: United States Air Force
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
A couple of squadrons of these would be a fantastic replacement for Australia's current F111's. I can't see it happening though...
 

mysterious

New Member
Its gona be a looooooooooooooooooong time before US sells F-22 Raptors to ANYONE! Let 'em use it first atleast for now...exporting is atleast a decade away!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'd argue the toss on this. Certainly the UK would not be rejected if an approach was made. I'd hazard a guess that we are high on an acceptable list as well, especially when you count the number of reciprocity and critical technology transfer agreements that have been signed between the US and Aust in the last 3 years.

Work done on the Collins Class didn't cost is - and that work was substantial and included some current nuke sub technologies that were transferred into the platform. In this case, the only other country with that kind of access is the UK. None of the US's other "allies" have had that level of transfer and assistance.

Aust is in the "top 3" of countries that the US shares protected technology with.
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
A follow-up analysis:

F/A-22 required for deep strike against enemy threats

by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez, Air Force Print News

WASHINGTON -- Maintaining deep-strike capability is critical to future warfighting operations.

In a March 3 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on projection forces, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley said the Air Force must continue to maintain its deep-strike capability.

"(Deep strike) must be defined as the capability to achieve the desired effects rapidly and persistently upon any target set in any environment, anywhere, at any time," General Moseley said. "Simply said, we must continue to be able to hold any enemy target set at risk at any point on the Earth."

For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military.

"We are unlikely to encounter such a luxury in subsequent conflicts," General Moseley said. "In the future, we will require deep-strike capabilities to penetrate and engage high-value targets during the first minutes of hostilities anywhere in the battlespace.

"Against the most advanced current and future enemy anti-access threats, the F/A-22 [Raptor] will be required," he said. "Combining stealth and supercruise, the F/A-22 will destroy these systems -- pave the way for penetrating F-117 [Nighthawks] and B-2 [Spirits] -- and support follow-on operations by our nonstealthy bomber and legacy fighter-bomber fleets."

Committee members asked the panel of witnesses, which included both military and Department of Defense advisers, about the threat posed to U.S. long-range capability in Iraq by military hardware produced in Russia or China. Such hardware included the SA-12, a tactical surface-to-air missile system with anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

General Moseley said such systems were unlikely to surface in Iraq.

"The opportunity for the bigger systems, the strategic systems that are such a threat to long-range strike capability … I don't see as a threat … in Iraq," General Moseley said. The systems, he said, are too large and too expensive to be used by opposition groups there.

By some estimates, systems such as the SA-10 or SA-12 may cost as much as $300 million to acquire. Both the initial cost, and the training and support required to sustain such systems would be prohibitive the general said.

One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF program office is aware of the issue.

"The JSF is a critical niche in our portfolio, is a critical backfill to many of our aging systems and is a compliment to the F/A-22," General Moseley said. "The (F/A-22) program office is acutely aware … of our sensitivities on the protection of software, source code, and key and emerging technologies. We believe … the way ahead on this is to build this airplane the way we have it laid out and to be ever vigilant to the challenge (of security)."

Also discussed was the need for intelligence in the field, the ability of the services to replenish munitions at a fast enough rate and the Air Force's need for a new tanker aircraft.

One committee member asked if the requirement for a new Air Force tanker was invalid or "made up." General Moseley assured committee members the requirement was very valid.

"Yes we need a new tanker, and yes we cannot operate these (KC-135 Stratotankers) at the level we have in the past," General Moseley said. "I am the operating commander from two campaigns. I could not take the KC-135E and, in fact, said ‘Do not deploy it, I do not want it over here.’"

General Moseley was the first combined air forces component commander for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Source: United States Air Force
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Politicians have no idea do they? Here's a member of a (presumably Congressional) defence commitee is asking if the new USAF tanker requirement is valid or made up? A cursory observation of the current state of things should be sufficient to answer this question. 1. The US intends to maintain expeditionary forces. 2. Probably the most powerful component of a US force would be the USAF elements deploying. 3. Aircraft require refuelling if they are to fight battles thousands of miles away from their home base. 4. The current US tanker fleet has a minimum age of what, 25 years? 5. Planes do not last forever. Like every other single piece of machinery, they wear out eventually. 6. If our tankers are not replaced, the vast majority of our combat aircraft cannot deploy overseas and become extremely limited in their ability to conduct defensive operations over mainland USA. 7. 8. If you cannot understand this, why the hell are you on a DEFENCE COMMITTEE?
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Defence committe, if i'm not mistaken, are made part of it by some congressmens. If it is, then i doubt if this men have a miltary knowledge and know what they talking about, or simply some political figure trying to get more face time on evening news by raising some issues.
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Awang se said:
Defence committe, if i'm not mistaken, are made part of it by some congressmens. If it is, then i doubt if this men have a miltary knowledge and know what they talking about, or simply some political figure trying to get more face time on evening news by raising some issues.
Well, it would be expected for members to have at least a basic knowledge of militaria and defense matters. To have not, and remain so would be entirely irresponsible. What would you base your decisions on?
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is unfortunate Winter however most of these idiots haven't served in the Boy Scouts. Personally I've always felt that these positions should be chaired by members that not only served but retired from the military. If you think about it, a retired military officer of any nation has spent their entire professional life in the military and should be considered experts in their respective positions. Now in the US these Congressmen many of whom have no military experience whatsovever dictate what the experts need. It's unfortunate but that is they way it is.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I doubt the F/B 22 will ever come about. There are serious doubts as to whether or not the F-22 will even make it. Check out this article. It's from the 17th of March 2004.

A diverse bi-partisan group of taxpayer and military watchdogs called on the White House to shut down the F/A-22 jet fighter program, continued concerns about costs and reliability documented by the General Accounting Office (GAO). The span of interests represented by the groups demonstrates a growing sentiment that the F/A-22 program is too expensive at a time when of rapidly escalating budget deficits.

According to the letter: “The F/A-22 program was originally developed to fight a threat that no longer exists. We believe the F/A-22 is a bad buy for the taxpayers and not being developed in the best interest of U.S. fighting men and women.â€

The groups signing the letter are: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, National Taxpayers Union, Project On Government Oversight, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The new GAO report released today documents that the Air Force will only be able to purchase 218 aircraft, down from the previous estimate of 276. This would put the per unit purchase price of the F/A-22 at $329 million, according to calculations by the Project On Government Oversight. However, this assumes there will be no more funding increases to the program. In April, 2003 the GAO had testified that per unit costs of the F/A-22 were $257 million.

A document recently leaked showed that the White House had instructed the Pentagon to conduct a review of the F/A-22 and the Comanche helicopter. On February 23, the Army announced that the Comanche helicopter was cancelled.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg...?session=dae.2653372.1071218039&modele=jdc_34

$329 Million US, per aircraft as of right now!!! Some people suggested Australia should get F-22's... HA!!! The RAAF would flat out fielding a single squadron!!!
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I believe the F/A-22 has a good chance of coming out successfully. Unlike the Comanche, Crusader, etc...It is in it's advanced stages, and the first squadron is fielded next year. They can probably fend off the witchhunt with the 'we need the next-gen airdom fighter for the best possible issues' reasoning until then. Not that initial active duty puts the design beyond cancellation, but it can certainly mop itself in relief.

Of course, it's probably too early for them to condemn the fact that a single F/A-22 is now costing as much as the planned Navy's future warship, the LCS (!) I read a piece on that somewhere...

I would recommend visiting the official design team's website. Notably there is a section named 'Stay the Course' bringing down the sunrays from heaven, preaching the Raptor is facing the same oppositon as it's Eagle predecessor...

On second thought: Eagle, Strike Eagle. F/A-22, F/B-22. A natural evolution of thinking, maybe?
 

Red aRRow

Forum Bouncer
$329 Million US, per aircraft as of right now!!! Some people suggested Australia should get F-22's... HA!!! The RAAF would flat out fielding a single squadron!!!
That is a little too steep i must say.
However US has the cash and the technology to field such a fighter in limited, if not huge, numbers. I have to agree with Winter that F/A 22 seems to be the next step in the natural evolution of the American fighter plane.
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
shamayel said:
That is a little too steep i must say.
However US has the cash and the technology to field such a fighter in limited, if not huge, numbers. I have to agree with Winter that F/A 22 seems to be the next step in the natural evolution of the American fighter plane.
I was actually commenting on how the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter design, the F/A-22's predecessor, was developed into a strike variant, and how this bears similarities with the consideration of a bomber version of the Raptor...Though I see your point.

The fact the F/A-22 is the next American fighter plane is quite possibly the only thing sustaining it's existence. For if the design is cancelled, then what aircraft is going to replace the F-15/F-16? You cannot continue to upgrade them forever and the F-35 was not designed for this role...For all it's expense the F/A-22 is an effective design, the most advanced fighter jet in the world, and you would dread to spend the decade or two expensively developing a less capable plane to actually cut costs. What other alternative is there?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I don't know the answer to that maybe a re-developed F-15? Perhaps they could redesign it from the ground up as a "conventional fighter" ie: no stealth technology but with the radar, engines and other technology from the F-22 program. It's just that if the price keeps rising even the US won't be able to afford it. The original program was to acquire 750 FA-22's to entirely replace it's F-15C/D fleet. Now they can only afford to acquire 218 of these aircraft. This will not fill the USAF's capability requirements though and the F-15 will have to soldier on anyway. The FA-22 will I guess be used as a "silver bullet" to ensure day one air superiority and older aircraft will have to be continued to be relied upon. No doubt it will be re-developed in the future into a Strike Raptor version which will at least partially replace the Strike Eagle, but again I can't see the replacement being a one for one replacement, given the the USAF currently operates 350 such aircraft...
 

Winter

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Aussie Digger said:
I don't know the answer to that maybe a re-developed F-15? Perhaps they could redesign it from the ground up as a "conventional fighter" ie: no stealth technology but with the radar, engines and other technology from the F-22 program. It's just that if the price keeps rising even the US won't be able to afford it. The original program was to acquire 750 FA-22's to entirely replace it's F-15C/D fleet. Now they can only afford to acquire 218 of these aircraft. This will not fill the USAF's capability requirements though and the F-15 will have to soldier on anyway. The FA-22 will I guess be used as a "silver bullet" to ensure day one air superiority and older aircraft will have to be continued to be relied upon. No doubt it will be re-developed in the future into a Strike Raptor version which will at least partially replace the Strike Eagle, but again I can't see the replacement being a one for one replacement, given the the USAF currently operates 350 such aircraft...
A re-developed F-15? Hmm...The base design is probably sound so it has merit. But is continued evolution of a fighter design, without groundbreaking development really feasible, especially from their point of view?

If you view the F/A-22 developer's website, I believe they mention the USAF did in fact, look into a re-developed F-15 idea with stealth, however they found such a program would cost almost as much the Raptor has yet not achieve as satisfactory a capability. Naturally, their bias included... :roll

You know, I've just realised I went off on a tangent about the F/A-22 being introduced in response to Aussie Digger's comments when all along you were talking about the F/B-22. Sorry, Aussie Digger and I quite agree with you... ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well the Harrier has had almost 4 decades of continous upgrades and re-development without any major engineering breakthrough's (that I'm aware of) so it is possible. I don't see that re-developed F-15's would require stealth features. Stealth as it's known publicly mostly involves the shape of the airframe. This would indeed be more trouble and expense than it is worth. I think a better solution would be to maintain the basic F-15 airframe (perhaps F-15E airframe with conformal fuel tanks) retrofitted with vectoring thrust engines, incoporating super cruising capability, the radar and avionics packages of the F-22 and the weapons fit of the current F-15E, combined in one package, possibly with radar absorbant paint and other minor stealth "enhancements". Thus the roles of the F-15C/D and F-15E could be combined into 1 aircraft, with the F-22 used as the "first day strike" aircraft used to achieve air superiority and conduct precision first day strikes on enemy air defence systems, command and control centres etc. I have read that the F-22 would be replacing the F-117 eventually too. Additional funding to replace this aircraft (I think the USAF operate about 80 or so of these aircraft) could possibly see the F-22 fleet boosted to around 300 or so and provide the USAF with additional air superiority aircraft. Don't get me wrong about the F-22, I think it will be the finest air combat aircraft ever built and I wish Australia could afford it. I only dislike it's price tag, not the aircraft itself. It would also fit into the ADF's strategy much better than the JSF, we just can't afford it...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The other issue about thr F-15 is that it would not be cost effective to attempt to stealth it up. (which is a little difficult).

If you look at the F15 that was a test mule at Dryden then there is substantial evidence available already that would have supported developing another iteration - that hasn't happened so in a basic sense shows that not enough platform improvement can be extracted in relation to cost/capability etc..

If any platform was going to be enhanced for a a more dynamic stealth role, it would make more sense to use an existing stealthed base such the B-1.

BTW have you seen the design of the F/B-22? it looks like a 21st century version of the Draken - sans tailfin.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
No, but the issue being discussed was the fact that the USAF is not going to be able to purchase sufficient F/A 22's to replace their F-15's so what could possibly be done to ensure that the F-15's remaining in service have sufficient capability to remain a plausible combat aircraft. I don't necessari;y agree that a combat aircraft has to be "stealthed" in order to remain effective in future air combat, particularly one that will most likely be used as a second tier combat aircraft. AS to the F/B-22, it seems likely that it will completely replace the F-15E and B-1B fleets, if it ever gets off the ground that is, project wise...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Considering that the USF would be deploying assets as integrated packages, then stealthing a tier 2 aircraft is not a major requirement.

And I agree, Stealth isn't a pre-requisite to effectiveness - its the tie in package that counts.
 

DRUB

New Member
I remeber reading an article in Aviation weekly or something like that about Australias future fighter. The F-22 always acme accross as the 'wet dream' of defence planners. However, the speculated price tag them (2001 or so) was close to $250 mill (Oz $). This price will cement the F-22 as a no show in the RAAF.

Correct me if i am wrong, however, didn't the F-14 evolve from studies and development of the F-111? At the time the F-111 came about, were the same arguments not being made i.e inhibitive price?

What i see happening is that the F-22 will be marketed as a platform which can be developed into many other platforms. Becuase it is so expensive, the only real selling point that the USAF may have is its ability to be diversified to carry out multiple missions (F/B-22).

It will be interesting to see where the F-22 lies in the USAF inventory. Further, the make up of the second tier fighter (f-15 variants), i think, is just as important of a choice for the USAF.
 
Top