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

[Aussie Digger]

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.


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.


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.



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

That sounds wonderful, except SDB 1 is NOT equipped with a data-link and thus is restricted to attacking co-ordinates pre-determined prior to launch.

Attacking a moving ship is NOT going to be a likely role for this weapon, IMHO. SDB II, with it's multi-mode seeker is far more likely to succeed in this role, but the range is going to be significantly less than 100k's I should imagine, due to the need to acquire said target "visually". If the GPS/datalink mode of attack was to be used, significant questions over the weapons ability to maneuvre quickly enough after updated GPS co-ordinates were sent would remain, I should imagine...

Further growth may see SDB acquire "autonomous" attack and loiter capabilities and this weapon would be most suitable in the anti-shipping role out of the 3 variants, but then you would likely lose the primary benefit of operating it from an F-22A (ie: high speed terminal attack).

FYI, Exocet missiles, though an earlier generation weapon, were unable to distinguish between frigates and "carriers" in the Falklands at ranges of no more than 40k's, from all reports. Hopefully the "autonomous" attack capabilities have improved somewhat since then...

 

[swerve]

Further growth may see SDB acquire "autonomous" attack and loiter capabilities .

That won't be an SDB. It'll be a missile. When the SDB is smaller & cheaper than the stuff around it, it's the stuff around it that's the weapon, & the SDB's just the warhead. And it would probably be more efficient to build a new weapon from scratch, because then it wouldn't be constrained by having to carry a warhead designed for a different purpose.

 

[Waylander]

Isn't a SDB with its high gliding altitude and lower speed much easier to intercept for AEGIS like systems than a wave skimmer missile with ECCM capabilities and automatic evasion maneuvers?

 

[swerve]

Isn't a SDB with its high gliding altitude and lower speed much easier to intercept for AEGIS like systems than a wave skimmer missile with ECCM capabilities and automatic evasion maneuvers?

Much cheaper systems than AEGIS. With a wing kit (necessary for the extreme ranges quoted here) it's very vulnerable. Clip a wing, & it tumbles, as long as you don't clip both the same, which isn't exactly likely. I think a CIWS would make mincemeat of it.

One SDB won't sink a carrier, either. Not even a small carrier. It'd take a lot of hits. Even the escorts should be able to absorb a few each.

 

[Waylander]

I took a system like AEGIS with its Spy-1 or the ones with APAR, etc. because of the uge amount of SDBs which could be delivered by a squadron of F-22.

I also believe that ASMs (In combination with Anti-Radar Missiles like HARM) are just the best options if it comes to sinking or crippling ships.
LGBs (And other guided bombs) are good for finishing the job if you want more than a mission kill and the first ASM/ARM salvo just crippled the enemy ship.

 

[ashkon]

So how many ASM's could the JSF carry in an anti-shipping role? The JASSM with the 400km range sounds like the ideal weapon.

 

[Waylander]

It is not that easy to really use these 400km.
To pin down the exact location of the enemy ship/surface action group is not that easy.
This is one of the reasons why TSSM are no longer in service. This big range is just not necessary and Harpoon is able to fullfill the role of an ASM with enough range.

 

[ashkon]

So would the JSF have a load out of say 4 harpoons?

 

[rjmaz1]

So would the JSF have a load out of say 4 harpoons?

There goes ya stealth with the external weapons.

The Navy ships and AWAC's would see the JSF with four Harpoon comings from AGES away, they would most likely be intercepted if the Navy has aircraft in the air.

F-22 brings in so many extra elements, its can surprise the AWAC with its higher levels of stealth and speed. Speed gives the AWAC's less time to prepare itself. The F-22's possibly could get shots off before being detected. It would also jump the aircraft escorting the AWAC and most likely destroy them too.

This allows the F-22's to have air dominance and to drop their SDB's from standoff range outside the kill zone of the Naval missile defence.

If the Navy was smart they'd position missile defence around the carrier to allow shots to be taken at the F-22s when they strike the battle group.

However if the F-22's were smarter they would not attack the carrier first time, they take out the escort ships first then go for the carrier. By then the carrier would run away and leave the combat zone. So effecticely it has been eliminated.

They could then chase the fleeing aircraft carrier using inflight refueling.

However as the enemy doesn't have an aircraft like the F-22 the navy can still use average aircraft and get the job done fine.

Even if a Naval F-22 cost three times the price of the Super Hornet it would still be the way to go.

The F-22n replaces the Super Hornet in air/sea defence,
The F-22n replaces the JSF in strike
The F-22n replaces the Hawkeye in early warning.
F-22n wouldn't need buddy tankers as its range would decent.
The F-22n doesn't require Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

F-22's stealth allows it to fly further away from the carrier than the Hawkeye, giving a larger radar picture. Its speed allows it to cover more area in the same time. Its higher operating altitude allows it to see just as far. The F-22N could do the majority of missions the Hawkeye could.

As a single aircraft can do 90% of the missions, you can reduce the total number of aircraft needed as they can change missions when required. This would offset the extra price.

The extra firepower would also offset the price. A pair fo F-22's could do the job of four JSF's.

The carrier could consist of 60 F-22N's, 2 Hawkeyes and choppers.

 

[Waylander]

You again don't say a word about the vulnerability of the SDBs.

Easy target for the defence coronas of a enemy surface action group with their low speed, high altitude, no evasive maneuvers and no ECM/ECCM systems.

Do you want to throw SDBs till the magazines of the ships are empty?

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think the whole ability of SDBs is being misunderstood here, my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the newer(?) SDBs will have duel guidance, the first being GPS which is programmed before launce to hit a stationary target from stand-off range. The second being laser guidance (or similar) where the target has to be physically targeted, by either the aircraft launching, another aircraft or by ground troops. So as an anti shipping munition its ability is limited to low threat targets as they have to be ‘painted’. The SDB itself is only 250lb compared with the Harpoons 500lb warhead.

Give me the JASSM anti ship variant any day.

 

[rjmaz1]

You again don't say a word about the vulnerability of the SDBs.

Easy target for the defence coronas of a enemy surface action group with their low speed, high altitude, no evasive maneuvers and no ECM/ECCM systems.

Do you want to throw SDBs till the magazines of the ships are empty?

Whens the last time the US ship has had a bomb dropped at it?

When has the defence effectiveness of US ships been tested?

Of course if the Navy opted for an F-22 version the funding would instantly appear for new weapons to fit both F-22 versions.

A HARM missile with the physical dimensions of an AMRAAM missile. Fired from high altitude to a sea level target its range would be 200kms. It could be launched ahead of the SDB's to knock out the enemy radar and allow the SDB's to fly through without being detected.

A weapon like this was on the cards for the F-22 but was canceled due to the shrinking budget. With a Naval F-22 this weapon would probably get made due to the extra funding. As well as the recon pod that sits inside the sidewinder missile bay.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'd think that the JSF (and the F-22) can use the JASSM at appropriate standoff ranges. GMTI should not be a problem at those ranges for aircraft operating at eg 50,000+ ft ceilings.

Anyhow, the SDB even with AMSTE is not a proper munition against surface vessels. The JASSM is. And it is way more standoffish than the SDB.

Btw, as comparison for SDB vs shipborne AAW, IIRC the good old Sea Dart has shot down 4.5" artillery shells during exercises. A more difficult target than an SDB - both signature- and trajectory wise.

 

[ashkon]

When an F-22 opens it's bomb doors, does it still remain as stealthy? or is it comprimised a little?
Also no doubt Harpoon carrying JSF's won't be flying solo, they will have escorts (stealthy ones) in the form of JSF's with 4-6 amraams tucked away inside the fuesalage,ready to take on any CAP aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There goes ya stealth with the external weapons.

The Navy ships and AWAC's would see the JSF with four Harpoon comings from AGES away, they would most likely be intercepted if the Navy has aircraft in the air.

F-22 brings in so many extra elements, its can surprise the AWAC with its higher levels of stealth and speed. Speed gives the AWAC's less time to prepare itself. The F-22's possibly could get shots off before being detected. It would also jump the aircraft escorting the AWAC and most likely destroy them too.

This allows the F-22's to have air dominance and to drop their SDB's from standoff range outside the kill zone of the Naval missile defence.

If the Navy was smart they'd position missile defence around the carrier to allow shots to be taken at the F-22s when they strike the battle group.

However if the F-22's were smarter they would not attack the carrier first time, they take out the escort ships first then go for the carrier. By then the carrier would run away and leave the combat zone. So effecticely it has been eliminated.

They could then chase the fleeing aircraft carrier using inflight refueling.

However as the enemy doesn't have an aircraft like the F-22 the navy can still use average aircraft and get the job done fine.

Even if a Naval F-22 cost three times the price of the Super Hornet it would still be the way to go.

The F-22n replaces the Super Hornet in air/sea defence,
The F-22n replaces the JSF in strike
The F-22n replaces the Hawkeye in early warning.
F-22n wouldn't need buddy tankers as its range would decent.
The F-22n doesn't require Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

F-22's stealth allows it to fly further away from the carrier than the Hawkeye, giving a larger radar picture. Its speed allows it to cover more area in the same time. Its higher operating altitude allows it to see just as far. The F-22N could do the majority of missions the Hawkeye could.

As a single aircraft can do 90% of the missions, you can reduce the total number of aircraft needed as they can change missions when required. This would offset the extra price.

The extra firepower would also offset the price. A pair fo F-22's could do the job of four JSF's.

The carrier could consist of 60 F-22N's, 2 Hawkeyes and choppers.

What is the POINT of arguing this? There IS no planned F-22N variant. It WAS looked at in the early stages of the F-22 program and rejected.

Strike aircraft do NOT operate alone. Do you truly think JSF users, WON'T be aware that their level of stealth will be reduced if carrying external weapons?

Of COURSE they will. These people are not stupid. If they are attacking a carrier group with an air threat present, they WILL have aircraft tasked with A2A (ie: a "sweepers" role) that WILL operate as stealthily as possible.

The JSF/F-22 program are also looking at introducing "stealthy" external pylons as well, which will assist in reducing RCS, not as greatly as if they weren't carried, but better than now.

Remember that the purpose of stealth is to allow an aircraft to get with range of IT'S weapons, before an enemy can target it with it's OWN weapons, not to make the aircraft invisible or un-beatable as you seem to think the F-22 will be.

Face facts. USAF is acquiring F-22 as a top level fighter and JSF as a striker. The JSF will be the better strike aircraft, because that's what UASF need. With the maritime strike capabilities being introduced onto the JASSM missile, a semi-stealth JSF firing 400k+ ranged "stealthy" weapons, will be a nightmare for defending surface forces. In sheer explosive weight alone, you will need 4x SDB strikes to equal EVERY JASSM strike.

There's simply no comparison in this role, between the 2 in my opinion and if the F-22 were actually capable of carrying the JASSM, there wouldn't even BE a discussion about the issue...

 

[rjmaz1]

When an F-22 opens it's bomb doors, does it still remain as stealthy? or is it comprimised a little?
Also no doubt Harpoon carrying JSF's won't be flying solo, they will have escorts (stealthy ones) in the form of JSF's with 4-6 amraams tucked away inside the fuesalage,ready to take on any CAP aircraft.

So instead of two F-22's escorting themseleves we have

Four JSF's carrying bombs/Harpoon and four JSF's with AMRAAM.

Wow 8 aircraft to do the job to two, how effecient. :unknown

What is the POINT of arguing this? There IS no planned F-22N variant. It WAS looked at in the early stages of the F-22 program and rejected.

As i have already pointed out the F-22 was looked at when it was not suitable. Now it can do EVERYTHING the Navy wants it to do.

If the JSF is canceled and they have a second look at the Navalised F-22, its go for launch!

Again like a said it may not look 100% like the F-22, they may call it the Super Duper Hornet using F119 engines and sharing a few of the expensive major systems from the F-22.

Strike aircraft do NOT operate alone. Do you truly think JSF users, WON'T be aware that their level of stealth will be reduced if carrying external weapons?

JSF and Super Hornets strike aircraft do not operate alone. They cannot degend themselves on a strike mission. Having to have escorts then doubles/tripples the number of aircraft to perform the same mission. Last time i checked you wouldn't be able to get 3 JSF's for every F-22 bought.

If you have aircraft performing sweeper roles your reducing the ability to conduct strike missions.

F-22 strike aircraft can operate alone. They can carry two AMRAAMs and two sidewinders with a full bomb load. Operating in pairs and the trend of the enemy going with smaller advanced aircraft then the F-22 even in strike mode can perform air dominance.

Thats why the F-22 is better than every other fighter.

Remember that the purpose of stealth is to allow an aircraft to get with range of IT'S weapons, before an enemy can target it with it's OWN weapons, not to make the aircraft invisible or un-beatable as you seem to think the F-22 will be.

I am taking that purpose into account.

Thats why over and over again i state that the F-22 must drop its SDB from atleast 100kms away. This is so it remains outside the zone where the enemy can target it with its own weapons. The reason for the trailing targeting aircraft is so the aircraft dropping the bombs can turn away without having to keep their radar on the target.

Also the AARGM program is looking at shrinking an AGM-88 type weapon to suit the F-22 bomb bay.

If a Naval F-22 came to life, we could only imagine the weapons that would be created in the coming years.

For example, a mini Harpoon with the same size warhead but smaller propulsion as the F-22's kinetic energy will make up for the lack of range.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think the whole ability of SDBs is being misunderstood here, my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the newer(?) SDBs will have duel guidance, the first being GPS which is programmed before launce to hit a stationary target from stand-off range. The second being laser guidance (or similar) where the target has to be physically targeted, by either the aircraft launching, another aircraft or by ground troops. So as an anti shipping munition its ability is limited to low threat targets as they have to be ‘painted’. The SDB itself is only 250lb compared with the Harpoons 500lb warhead.

Give me the JASSM anti ship variant any day.

Okay, some clarification on the SDB from Boeing.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/docs/SDB_overview.pdf

Basically what it says is that the SDB & SDB Increment I (GBU-39 & GBU-39/B)
are small GPS or GPS/INS guided bombs that can do standoff missions with a wing kit, against stationary targets. They do not have a datalink or laser guidance option.

The proposed SDB Increment II (GBU-40) will have a most likely reduced range of 40+ n miles vs. 60+ n miles for SDB, but will add in a datalink, laser guidance, and a multi-mode seeker. It's current about 6 months into a 42 month Risk Reduction program, with development starting in 2009 if Boeing/LM wins vs. Raytheon, and appears (assuming program isn't axed) to be tentatively scheduled for deployment in 2014.

Hope this clears a few things up.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As i have already pointed out the F-22 was looked at when it was not suitable. Now it can do EVERYTHING the Navy wants it to do.

If the JSF is canceled and they have a second look at the Navalised F-22, its go for launch!

Again like a said it may not look 100% like the F-22, they may call it the Super Duper Hornet using F119 engines and sharing a few of the expensive major systems from the F-22.


JSF and Super Hornets strike aircraft do not operate alone. They cannot degend themselves on a strike mission. Having to have escorts then doubles/tripples the number of aircraft to perform the same mission. Last time i checked you wouldn't be able to get 3 JSF's for every F-22 bought.

If you have aircraft performing sweeper roles your reducing the ability to conduct strike missions.

F-22 strike aircraft can operate alone. They can carry two AMRAAMs and two sidewinders with a full bomb load. Operating in pairs and the trend of the enemy going with smaller advanced aircraft then the F-22 even in strike mode can perform air dominance.

Thats why the F-22 is better than every other fighter.


I am taking that purpose into account.

Thats why over and over again i state that the F-22 must drop its SDB from atleast 100kms away. This is so it remains outside the zone where the enemy can target it with its own weapons. The reason for the trailing targeting aircraft is so the aircraft dropping the bombs can turn away without having to keep their radar on the target.

Really. Can you show me anything that says the US Navy even has a REQUIREMENT for a manned fighter besides F-35C and Super Hornet in the next decade or 2?

Because I have not seen or heard of anything like this.

It is common knowledge that Navy assessed the F-22 during it's development and assessed it as UN-SUITABLE for carrier operations.

The F-22 can do everything the Navy wants it to? How? They don't even WANT such an aircraft to the best of my knowledge.

In my opinion IF the JSF is cancelled and this is a VERY big if, the USN will concentrate on the Super Hornet and any evolved variants that are developed down the track. They cannot afford to look at a new aircraft from scratch because their F/A-18C/D fleets are wearing out remarkably quickly...

IF I recall correctly even RAAF "legacy" Hornets operated un-escorted on strike missions in GW2, as did USMC aircraft. Are you seriously suggesting that the RAAF and USMC would change their Modus Operandi when they operate the MORE capable F-35???

Why would an aircraft, even an F-22 need to keep a warship "painted" with it's radar during maritime strike missions using SDB? SDB are NOT radar guided, nor do they have a data-link for course correction, which is necessary unless Navies are going to start leaving their vessels stationary for your F-22 fleet to attack. THIS is why, as I've stated previously that the weapon, IMHO is not as suitable as others for this particular role.

100k's btw, is WELL within the engagement zone of any naval vessel equipped with SM-2 or similar weapons. It'd be a WONDERFUL move for an F-22 to start going ACTIVE on a warship with it's radar system in order to guide said SDB at this range.

It would nullify ALL it's advantags of stealth and speed. Even an F-22 isn't quicker than an SM-2...

Anyhoo, I'm over this argument. We both obviously share different opinions and neither is likely to budge on this matter, so I'm fininshed here.

 

[mehdi_mu]

Nice so I will continue the work :nutkick :nutkick :nutkick

lol so all the fight is going to end.

Now for some real insides I saw an article about the F-22 being offered to Japan. It would be a downgraded one but will still be superior to any platform the Chinese have or will build.

So if we downgrade the avionics and say a coproduction is offered the price will likely fall. All depends on what the Congress will say. If the deal with Japan goes ahead Australia will have to decide what is best for their Airforce.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

I think a summary is required.

The proposed aircraft: F-22

The F-22 is entering service with the USAF, only a small number of aircraft will be purchased.

The US Navy has considered and rejected the F-22.

If the USN do not buy JSF they will purchase more Super Hornets.

Replacement aircraft are required to replace the aging Hornets.

Development of a F-22N would essentially mean designing a new aircraft. This would be difficult, expensive and lengthy process; taking a longer time than is dictated by the Hornet replacement program.

The US will not build the F-22N.


The Weapon: SDB

The concept is that by using a very accurate delivery system a small warhead can be used to take out small target using a single weapon; being smaller more weapons can be carried and more targets attacked by a single aircraft.

At present the weapon uses GPS to attack stationary targets.

In the future a reduced range version may be available with data link and multi-sensor guidance, allowing in flight correction from the fighter and Laser designation from the fighter or another source.

The SDB is capable of destroying SMALL targets, stationary at present and possibly moving targets in the future.


The Target: Ships

Ships are big targets and a single SDB will cause damage but not sufficient to destroy any but the smallest ships.

Ships have defences systems, which would detect the relatively slow moving high flying SDB and would have a good chance of destroying the in coming weapon.



The Alternative Weapon: A stand-off Missile

A sea skimming missile fired at long range, would have a much better chance of avoiding the defensive counter measures and hitting the target.

Carrying a larger warhead, the probability of destroying the target is much greater than using a SDB.

If you want to attack a ship use an anti ship weapon.


The Alternative Aircraft: JSF

The JSF was designed as a strike fighter.

It can carry stand-off missiles.


In conclusion.

Use the correct tool for the job, JSF & stand-off missiles, rather than a non-optimal SDB delivered by a fictitious F-22N.

QED



Chris