F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Aussie Digger]

Small diameter bomb can hit SAM sites, it can also hit moving ships. The F-22 can carry more SDB's than a pair of Superhornets can carry HARM missiles.

The F-22 uses radar to track targets. It does not require other means to track targets. It does not require laser guided weapons.

A bomb only has to hits it target, it doesn't have to do loop-da-loops on the way to the target.

Yes, from a supersonic, high altitude launch.

Did you write 130km because you thought that SDB range is only 60Nm or 112kms, so i would have to answer no to this question? Because the SDB has traveled 130kms :

The Super Hornet can maintain that for minutes, the F-22 can maintain it for hours.

F-22 does not need a buddy tanker as it not short legged like the hornet. The small diameter bomb can hit naval targets its just a matter of software, which of course would be modified in the Naval version of the F-22.

Also Recon is one of the future roles on the F-22 using a pod in the side bay. Lack of money may never see this happen. If the Navy goes with a modded F-22 then the money will be there and the Recon features will be added. Alot of functions can be added with software updates. So anything the Navy adds the Air force will get and vice versa.

Even if the Radar cross section of the F-22 is doubled, it is still smaller than the JSF

Even if the roll rate, pitch rate is reduced 20% and the empty weight is increased 20%, performance will still be ahead of the JSF and Super Hornet.

The F-22 has over 100 degree per second roll rate at 120 knots. Thats better low speed handling than a Super Hornet.


If the JSF is canceled due to money, then it will free up alot of money. Not all that money saved will go into the F-22, but some of it will so more F-22 aircraft will get ordered if the JSF is canceled.

In 2020 the Super Hornet will no longer be cutting edge. So if the JSF is canceled completely then a replacement for the Super Hornet will be needed. It would be logical for this Super Hornet replacement to share alot of common features with the F-22 such as engines, avionics, radar and alot of other parts. It may share only 50% of the parts and look completely different but it would still be a navalised F-22 to a certain extend.

130k's is the range of the Harpoon missile. Your "all singing all dancing" SDB's have a quoted range of 70k's, when launched from high altitude AND supersonically, less so when launched subsonically. It is NOT a replacement for an ASM and all the wishing in the world won't make it so. Yes if it hits a ship it will do severe damage. It is the ability to hit said ship that I doubt and is the reason Navies still use ASM's instead of simply employing JDAM's.

I thought you would have picked up the hint with the range and waypoint questions, but obviously not. A weapon in maritime strike missions MUST have the ability to do "lopp de loops" as you call it if the firer wishes to avoid the self-defence systems carried by warships.

The same is true with the HARM. An "un-guided" bomb can hit a SAM site too. The ability to destroy a SAM site is not in doubt now. The ability to systematically conduct SEAD against a SYSTEM is what makes these sorts of weapons important and a glaring hole in RAAF capability generally.

A bomb (generally) cannot fly via a number of waypoints, at different altitudes during the course of it's flight AND hit at the waterline of a ship. Only a missile has the control needed to do that. With a warhead size roughly half, half the range and accuracy no better, SDB makes a pretty poor substitute for the Harpoon as a maritime strike weapon.

RAAF is also ensuring it's JASSM's will have a maritime strike capability eventually as well, ensuring a 400k standoff range AND a 1000lbs warhead... Yet another weapon the F-22 won't be able to carry...

The F-22A will track targets with it's radar only eh? Guess current ROE's are going out the window then. Any kind of visual indentification of a target (apart from the Mk1 eyeball) will be impossible and who's going to be ballsy enough to risk a $200m F-22A in conducting low-level operations to visually confirm a target???


The upgrades for the F-22 to provide a EO/IR targetting capability (which was to be mounted internally FYI, not Pod mounted on the side of the aircraft) were cancelled due to budget restrictions. As yet they have not been funded or developed any further...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Guys the more you talk about the JSF the more desperate you become in your comments. Come'on I see that many of you in this forum are for the JSF but how will you live if this program is cancelled??? There's a better way off as we say a win win situation. The Australians get the co-production rights of the Eurofighter and we are all happy including me.

I for one will live just fine. RAAF will be unhappy, but then they'll have to reconcile themselves with the Super Hornet, which they WILL choose, if the JSF falls through...

 

[rjmaz1]

130k's is the range of the Harpoon missile. Your "all singing all dancing" SDB's have a quoted range of 70k's, when launched from high altitude AND supersonically, less so when launched subsonically.

70kms when launched a transonic B1b and 40,000feet. Not over 50,000feet at high supersonic speed. I have second hand evidence of SDB traveling 150kms in the F-22 simulator.

But then that same simulator had the F-22 smashing all time to height records set by the Streak Eagle and Rusian P-42. Not to mention supercruising at 80,000ft.

SDB makes a pretty poor substitute for the Harpoon as a maritime strike weapon.

When launches from a subsonic hornet at 20,000ft the SDB is indeed a poor substitute. From high supersonic speed above 50,000 feet its an ideal all rounder and replacement of many weapons.

RAAF is also ensuring it's JASSM's will have a maritime strike capability eventually as well, ensuring a 400k standoff range AND a 1000lbs warhead... Yet another weapon the F-22 won't be able to carry...

Only reason the Hornets needs a 400km standoff weapon is that it not stealth and with a bomb load its performance is below that of a sukhoi. The F-22 does not need a 400km standoff weapon. Its speed allows it to get twice as close to the target (200km) while being able to egress safely. Its stealth allows it to go twice as close again (100km) while still being as safe as the hornet at 400km. Wow the F-22 is in range of small diameter bomb

who's going to be ballsy enough to risk a $200m F-22A in conducting low-level operations to visually confirm a target???

Last time i checked, the HARM, ALARM and Shrike missiles do not require visual identification. Those are the weapon you listed. So all those targets would get hit by SDB without visual identification and no risk of having the F-22 at low level.

However this pro F-22 argument is for the Naval F-22 version being more capable than the superhornet, if the JSF get canceled..

For Australia, if the JSF is canceled i think we should buy cheaper superhornets, which the government aparently agree's with.

Even though the F-22 is much better at precision strike and air dominance than the Super Hornet, quantity has a quality of its own.

 

[mehdi_mu]

:lul Oh POOR RAAF they would be so sad:nutkick . Let me shed some tears for them anyways the way forward is either to continue with the Super Hornets or change to a new aircraft. The question is how long the Super Hornets will stay in the RAAF and are there any new upgrades i.e engines, avionics perhaps a new version with more stealth features? For the F-22 I heard that Japan was also interested. The plan was to manufacture the airframe and engines but the avionics would be indigeneous a bit like the F-2.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, just want to clarify a couple of things here, there seems to be some confusion as to what different weapons can do.

The current SDB, GBU-39 is GPS/INS guided and with fold-out wings has a standoff range of 60+ n miles. Granted this is public domain info so that range could be wildly off but still... The important matter to remember is that it is GPS/INS guided, which allows all-weather attacks but requires the target to be both stationary and at known coordinates.

A proposed GBU-40 SDB II would add the ability to hit mobile targets. This began development in Fiscal Year 2006 with planned RAA (risk assessment analysis?) on the F-15E in Fiscal Year 2014.

As for the Harpoon, a SLAM-ER (Harpoon Block 1F) was launched from an F/A-18B at 40,000ft and hit a mobile ship target over 150 n miles away, this was in May, 2005.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/slam/news/2005/q2/nr_050519m.html

Keep in mind that the SDB and Harpoon (and HARM for that matter) were designed with different mission parameters in mine. Trying to substitute one weapon for another, or make sole use of just one, is an invitation to mission failure and all that entails.

Hope this helps...

 

[swerve]

Okay, just want to clarify a couple of things here, there seems to be some confusion as to what different weapons can do.

The current SDB, GBU-39 is GPS/INS guided and with fold-out wings has a standoff range of 60+ n miles. Granted this is public domain info so that range could be wildly off but still... The important matter to remember is that it is GPS/INS guided, which allows all-weather attacks but requires the target to be both stationary and at known coordinates.

A proposed GBU-40 SDB II would add the ability to hit mobile targets. This began development in Fiscal Year 2006 with planned RAA (risk assessment analysis?) on the F-15E in Fiscal Year 2014. ...

But still needs guidance from off-board sensors, meaning someone has to keep tracking the target (very precisely) & sending it updates. And it has no spare energy: if it misses, it misses for good. No chance to swing round & pick up the target again, or go for the next best target in the vicinity.

 

[rjmaz1]

The question is how long the Super Hornets will stay in the RAAF and are there any new upgrades i.e engines, avionics perhaps a new version with more stealth features?

Whatever aircraft we choose it will be the last manned fighter in Australian service.

It is highly likely that stealthy cheap unmanned aircraft will be commonplace in 20 years time. It is also likely that this aircraft will operate from aircraft carriers and command will be integrated with the Super Hornet fleet.

A UCAV would be the logical next step for the RAAF, as it extends the capabilities of any manned aircraft. If its integrated with the Naval Super Hornet then its just a matter of getting the same upgrades fitted to our Super Hornets (if we choose them)

One problem is that we will most likely be keeping our next aircraft for a VERY long time. We dont want to run into the same problem we did with our classic hornets and run out of flying hours.

If we go with the superhornet it would be wise to buy extra aircraft for attrition, as the production line will not stay open forever. Atleast with the price of the Super Hornet it allows Australia to buy the extra numbers to allow the Super Hornet to fly for the next few decades.

 

[Todjaeger]

But still needs guidance from off-board sensors, meaning someone has to keep tracking the target (very precisely) & sending it updates. And it has no spare energy: if it misses, it misses for good. No chance to swing round & pick up the target again, or go for the next best target in the vicinity.

Indeed correct. My main point though was that the current SDB (GBU-39) can only be used against fixed/stationary positions. People who advocate using the SDB to replace a number of other guided (or guide-able) munitions have to remember that it will home in on a given set of coordinates, regardless of what is there. If the SDB arrives when the desired target is there, great, but if the target has moved by the time when the SDB hits...

 

[Big-E]

Indeed correct. My main point though was that the current SDB (GBU-39) can only be used against fixed/stationary positions. People who advocate using the SDB to replace a number of other guided (or guide-able) munitions have to remember that it will home in on a given set of coordinates, regardless of what is there. If the SDB arrives when the desired target is there, great, but if the target has moved by the time when the SDB hits...

Is it not possible to upload a new set of coordinates before the point of no return?

 

[Todjaeger]

Is it not possible to upload a new set of coordinates before the point of no return?

I would need to check more on what datalinks (if any) exist for the SDB. It may very well be possible to change the target coordinates after the weapon has deployed, and depending on the position of the new coordinates relative to the position of the SDB when receiving the coordinates, a new target could be designated. I believe the point of no return would vary depending on the distance between the original and revised target coordinates and the initial launch point (in 3-D)

I see two problems with trying to do this though. The first is that another asset is needed to identify the coordinates of the new target. The second is that the SDB is still GPS guided, so a moving target could have continously changing GPS coordinates which I highly doubt a SDB equipped with a datalink could keep up with. For that sort of situation a LGB or RF guided bomb would most likely work better. And that takes us back to needing an E/O system with an asset close enough to the target to see it, even if it is through a camera.

 

[mehdi_mu]

I have this link. Check it out

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/industry/contracts-awards/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/

 

[swerve]

Indeed correct. My main point though was that the current SDB (GBU-39) can only be used against fixed/stationary positions. People who advocate using the SDB to replace a number of other guided (or guide-able) munitions have to remember that it will home in on a given set of coordinates, regardless of what is there. If the SDB arrives when the desired target is there, great, but if the target has moved by the time when the SDB hits...

It has been shown it can hit a moving target, but only a large, slow, & predictable one - e.g. a tanker. And you still need to get something close enough to find it. Your point remains valid.

The point of the JDAM was to be cheap (no onboard sensors, datalink, etc) & not need illumination of the target. The ideal weapon for fixed targets, once they'd been located. The point of the SDB is to do the same in a smaller & more aerodynamic package, so as to enable more to be carried, & to reduce collateral damage. Some realised that precision enables the use of smaller bombs.

Now, a lot of people are trying to turn this simple, cheap weapon into a once-size-fits-all do everything wonder weapon. But if they do that, by adding datalinks, wing kits, & one day (I expect) sensors, even boost motors, it stops being an SDB or JDAM & becomes just the warhead of a modular missile system, like the French AASM. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it's no longer the cheap plinker of any (however low-value) target you can fix that it was meant to be. And it's still inferior to a specialised anti-ship missile, or long-range stealthy cruise missile, for the classes of target they're designed for.

 

[rjmaz1]

So indeed my original idea that the F-22 could indeed attack Ships from over 100kms away still stands correct. So the Navalised F-22 type aircraft would be good.

It would be interesting to see the maximum number of SDB that could be dropped and updated in flight. Could these bombs be guided by a single F-22 100km behind the bomb carriers?

That would actually be a good traning exercise. A few F-22's attack an Aircraft carrier battle group on high alert. The F-22's proceed to shoot down the Super Hornets and then destroy the Hawkeye, then they drop their SDB's from 100kms. The F-22's then exit, while the bombs are guided by an undetected F-22 100kms behind the strikers.

The Navy would most likely launch simulated missiles, however most of the F-22's would leave the kill zone of the missiles. If the strike F-22's came out the right direction, the rearward F-22's with full A2A missile load could try to shoot down the missiles with AMRAAM's.

Would be a good wakeup call to the US Navy, and secure more F-22 aircraft for the air force in sucessful. They could do then do the same mission with JSF's and watch every JSF get destroyed without a single target being hit.

The JSF having to get twice as close to the target to drop its bombs and it being able to be deteced twice as far away as the F-22 is the difference between 100% sucess and 100% failure.

The Hornets even with a 400km standoff missile would have been detected by the Hawkeye and shot down by Navy CAP aircraft. However they may get their missiles off in time.

 

[mehdi_mu]

Navalised F-22 is just a dream:nutkick , it will remain a dream unless the Congress wants it to become reality or perhaps an Upgraded Super Hornet with more stealth features Who knows what the future holds !!! I am just waiting for the JSF programme to be scrapped that would be the best news yet.

 

[rjmaz1]

The Super Hornet uses every advanced stealth technique available using a conventional shaped airframe.

I dont think they will be able to make the Super Hornet any lower.

Stealthy external weapon pods would be the only way. That way the weapons dont increase the radar cross section.

 

[ashkon]

would it make any difference for the JSF if it had F-18 Growlers going with it for back up?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Super Hornet uses every advanced stealth technique available using a conventional shaped airframe.

I dont think they will be able to make the Super Hornet any lower.

Stealthy external weapon pods would be the only way. That way the weapons dont increase the radar cross section.

Boeing has openly discussed a Block III variant of the SH which will address many of the performance/range/LO issues some people have with the aircraft, this may prove an attractive "second best" option for RAAF, if the JSF falls through...

 

[Todjaeger]

So indeed my original idea that the F-22 could indeed attack Ships from over 100kms away still stands correct. So the Navalised F-22 type aircraft would be good.

It would be interesting to see the maximum number of SDB that could be dropped and updated in flight. Could these bombs be guided by a single F-22 100km behind the bomb carriers?

That would actually be a good traning exercise. A few F-22's attack an Aircraft carrier battle group on high alert. The F-22's proceed to shoot down the Super Hornets and then destroy the Hawkeye, then they drop their SDB's from 100kms. The F-22's then exit, while the bombs are guided by an undetected F-22 100kms behind the strikers.

The Navy would most likely launch simulated missiles, however most of the F-22's would leave the kill zone of the missiles. If the strike F-22's came out the right direction, the rearward F-22's with full A2A missile load could try to shoot down the missiles with AMRAAM's.

Would be a good wakeup call to the US Navy, and secure more F-22 aircraft for the air force in sucessful. They could do then do the same mission with JSF's and watch every JSF get destroyed without a single target being hit.

The JSF having to get twice as close to the target to drop its bombs and it being able to be deteced twice as far away as the F-22 is the difference between 100% sucess and 100% failure.

The Hornets even with a 400km standoff missile would have been detected by the Hawkeye and shot down by Navy CAP aircraft. However they may get their missiles off in time.

Okay, I have a number of questions and observations regarding the proposed scenario.

Is the CBG anchored, or under way? If under way, how fast is the CBG moving at and in what vector relative to the launch point for the SDB? Also, how long will it take an SDB to glide to it's target? Assuming it is launched at 100km, and the SDB can move at 300km/h (I don't think it can sustain that speed) it will still take 20 min to arrive on target. Most warships cruise at @ 18 kts which means the target could have moved upto 6 n miles away, potentially outside of the range of an SDB.

In reading your scenario, it appears that your targeting aircraft that will provide GPS updates will be 100 km behind the launching aircraft. At what range do you propose to have the SDB launch? By my calculations, the glide range of an SDB is ~108km Why would a JSF need to get closer to a CBG than an F-22 to launch SDB, it will have the same range regardless.

As for a SH being intercepted by carrier-borne fighters 400km from the CBG, I'd say doubtful. If an SH with standoff missles can make it to that distance, so can AIM equipped SH as escorts, and 400 km is outside the range of any ship-mounted AAD missle I'm aware of.

Lastly, for the SDB, keep in mind it has no propulsion or maneuvering unit aside from the glider wing. If the target is maneuvering too rapidly, or the distances change too much between course corrections the SDB can't compensate and outside of a test or emergency the SDB wouldn't be used in an anti-shipping role. There are much better, more effective munitions to use.

 

[rjmaz1]

Okay, I have a number of questions and observations regarding the proposed scenario.

Is the CBG anchored, or under way? If under way, how fast is the CBG moving at and in what vector relative to the launch point for the SDB? Also, how long will it take an SDB to glide to it's target? Assuming it is launched at 100km, and the SDB can move at 300km/h (I don't think it can sustain that speed) it will still take 20 min to arrive on target. Most warships cruise at @ 18 kts which means the target could have moved upto 6 n miles away, potentially outside of the range of an SDB.

SDB travels faster than that. 6miles different from the original and new impact point is nothing the SDB travels above the glide slope and dives towards the end, so it has enough altitude to travel any extra distance a ship could travel.

The CBG would of course be moving.

In reading your scenario, it appears that your targeting aircraft that will provide GPS updates will be 100 km behind the launching aircraft. At what range do you propose to have the SDB launch?

The SDB would be launched from say 100km away from the ship. With the following information.

1) SDB takes 10 minutes to travel 100kms
2) Trailing targeting aircraft must be 100km away at bomb impact
3) Trailing aircraft is traveling slowly at 600km/h

Then the distance of the targeting aircraft behind the launch aircraft would be exactly 100kms. So at bomb drop the targeting aircraft is 200km away and when bombs hit its 100kms away.

All aircraft would supercruise together, when 300kms away from the target the launch aircraft would accelerate and climb to extend the range of the bombs, their radars would be switched off. The targeting aircraft would throttle back and slow down and have its radar on giving target information to the strike aircraft.

By my calculations, the glide range of an SDB is ~108km Why would a JSF need to get closer to a CBG than an F-22 to launch SDB, it will have the same range regardless.

The F-22 can "realistically" drop the SDB from 50% higher altitude and at 50% greater speed. This works out to the SDB traveling roughly twice the distance, so you are incorrect saying the range will be the same.

Lastly, for the SDB, keep in mind it has no propulsion or maneuvering unit aside from the glider wing. If the target is maneuvering too rapidly, or the distances change too much between course corrections the SDB can't compensate and outside of a test or emergency the SDB wouldn't be used in an anti-shipping role. There are much better, more effective munitions to use.

This is why the SDB travels above the glideslope, so it can travel that extra distance if required.

 

[swerve]

You've forgotten something. The guiding aircraft has to guide the bomb in all the way to a moving target. It has to keep flying towards the target, lighting it up frequently. LPI isn't ZPI. Also, a fleet at sea will have multiple radars, some perhaps airborne, spread over quite a few km. Calculations of detection range for a head on target may not be appropriate, so your F-22s may be detected further away than you expect.

I'd rather launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles & bugger off. What you propose is, in effect, reverting to SARH, when you have ARH (& other sensors, e.g. IIR) missiles available. And high-value dangerous targets well worth expensive missiles, but not good to risk high-value platforms near.