It cant be dead no matter what - with F-117 retirement USAF dont have any choice but continue developing FB-22 in one form or another. It is even possible they will rename FB-22 (due to political reasons) to something like F-22A or even leave basic F-22 designation... but the end result will be the same - F-22 with a-la F-15E capabilities.
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At present, the "FB-22" exists only as a concept. Significant development work would need to be done to field it. If it does enter service, I'd think the "F" designation would likely be dropped given it wouldn't have an air-to-air role as required under current DoD naming schemes. The F-117 being an exception to the rule from the late 70's in that it was actually an "A" type platform.
Given current US budgetary pressures, it is by no means certain that money would be available for development of the tailless delta-wing. It is likely that good use of lessons learned from the F-22A Raptor off which the FB-22 is based would be used. Nonetheless, the FB-22 is a completely different aircraft, being larger, with a different shape and greater range and internal weapons capacity.
It would be nice to see though, since it is a good concept.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm
-Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It is by no means a certainty and probably less so even that additional F-22 aircraft. The Block upgrades that were planned for the F-22 were cancelled due to funding pressures and only incremental (minor) upgrades seem to be planned.
LARGE upgrades such as the integration of an EO/IR targetting system, an extensive weapons integration program etc are unfunded at present, but would be needed to turn the F-22 into a "Strike Raptor" of similar style to that of the "Strike Eagle".
At any rate, F-22's combination of stealth and ability to drop 2x 1000lbs JDAM's on a particularl mission is relatively similar to that of F-117, except that the F-22 naturally enjoys it's A2A capability whilst doing so.
It cannot however carry 2000lbs JDAM's (internally) or employ LGB's, unlike the F-117, so that capacity will have to be picked up elsewhere...
Thanks for the link Todjaeger. It is certainly an interesting looking design. Even if it is never built I imagine the technology will be incorporated in the program mentioned by Occum in Post 46 above.
It is difficult to see a Strike Raptor being developed unless there are substantial follow on orders for the F-22. I guess this will depend on the success or otherwise of the JSF program.
Cheers
In the short term the replacement of F-117 will be the F-35. There isn't time and money to develop a strike version of F-22 to substitute the Nighthawk. In the long term noone knows, but I think UCAV's are more likely to take on the long range stealth strike missions.
Seek & Ye shall find...........
See Item 7 under Essential Reading on their Media Page -
http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html
ps
I read in The Jerusalem Post that the Israelis are asking for the Raptor, though y'all already knew that 'cause we read it in the APA Submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry and were riveted to our seats when they told that Senator from South Australia that their analyses showed there was a high probability of this happening.
Yes, it was SecDef Cohen who announced it.
See Item 7 under Essential Reading on their Media Page -
http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html
ps
I read in The Jerusalem Post that the Israelis are asking for the Raptor, though y'all already knew that 'cause we read it in the APA Submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry and were riveted to our seats when they told that Senator from South Australia that their analyses showed there was a high probability of this happening.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Thanks for the direction on the link. BTW it directed to an online article from Jan. 2000 where it quoted SecDef Cohen speaking at an event in Nov. 1999. Wanted to get that straight since for all intents and purposes Cohen wasn't SecDef anymore in 2001. From what I read though, his statement indicated the plan was to use the F-22 to replace the F-117. The official statement to that effect came much later, after F-22A construction had commenced.Yes, it was SecDef Cohen who announced it.
See Item 7 under Essential Reading on their Media Page -
http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html
ps
I read in The Jerusalem Post that the Israelis are asking for the Raptor, though y'all already knew that 'cause we read it in the APA Submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry and were riveted to our seats when they told that Senator from South Australia that their analyses showed there was a high probability of this happening.
As for Israel getting the F-22, I have my doubts. There is still a fair amount of discontent about US tech transfer to Israel ending up in the PRC. IIRC it was PAC-1 specs. After that I expect the US to keep a very tight leash on the F-22 tech.
-Cheers
Stop gulping that bathwater.........
[ Admin Edit: Occum, I appreciate your sense of humor but please avoid these types of comments to other members and especially the moderators. Please concentrate on explaining your technical point of view from your experience and know-how in the field... unless of course, drinking bath water was also part of the deal. Thanks for your cooperation.]
The Raptor is following a similar weapons certification program as was done on the F-15E. The JSF will likely do the same. In fact the Eglin Strike Eagle (that was the name) Weapons Certification Program set a benchmark and has formed the basis for follow on programs. Under the jointery game, Eglin and China Lake and PMTC are working a lot closer now.
By the way, you are aware that the JSF has yet to drop a bomb or fire a missile, aren't you? All of the weaponry gurus that I know reckon this is a biggy - risk wise. I must admit that I tend to agree with them. Obviously, LM does as well given how they have convinced the cohort of international partners to strip the SDD weapons work back to the bone. High risk that stuff, don't you know?
As for the 2 kilo pounder, why would you want to with the new penetrator weapons coming down the pipe - smaller, greater accuracy and precision, more flexibility in employment and, though lighter, greater penetration. Some real fancy stuff in the umph and guidance departments.
If you could arrange a bit more space for attachments, would be happy to post some information on these and some of the other weapons being developed. I've gotta say so-solly in advance, though, 'cause as some have said so often on various forums like this, people like me just wouldn't get access to that 'classified' stuff, not that such people need to! My bet is these will be cleared off the F-22 and F-15E and E+ well before we see a combat coded JSF. But that's just my opinion.
Given the mass, guidance systems and types of war heads, these will work extremely effectively off platforms that can, firstly, carry them without much penalty and, secondly, deliver them from on high and out of reach with a lot of energy at release - a tad higher and faster than what Tier 2 platforms would be able to go when loaded for bear. Then there is the hypersonic dual role muther. Mmmmmh. This has my Gunny mates salivating and rubbin' their knobs with the few fingers they have left on their primary hand.
[edited]
Hey AD,
[ Admin Edit: Occum, I appreciate your sense of humor but please avoid these types of comments to other members and especially the moderators. Please concentrate on explaining your technical point of view from your experience and know-how in the field... unless of course, drinking bath water was also part of the deal.
Thanks for your cooperation.] The Raptor is following a similar weapons certification program as was done on the F-15E. The JSF will likely do the same. In fact the Eglin Strike Eagle (that was the name) Weapons Certification Program set a benchmark and has formed the basis for follow on programs. Under the jointery game, Eglin and China Lake and PMTC are working a lot closer now.
By the way, you are aware that the JSF has yet to drop a bomb or fire a missile, aren't you? All of the weaponry gurus that I know reckon this is a biggy - risk wise. I must admit that I tend to agree with them. Obviously, LM does as well given how they have convinced the cohort of international partners to strip the SDD weapons work back to the bone. High risk that stuff, don't you know?
As for the 2 kilo pounder, why would you want to with the new penetrator weapons coming down the pipe - smaller, greater accuracy and precision, more flexibility in employment and, though lighter, greater penetration. Some real fancy stuff in the umph and guidance departments.
If you could arrange a bit more space for attachments, would be happy to post some information on these and some of the other weapons being developed. I've gotta say so-solly in advance, though, 'cause as some have said so often on various forums like this, people like me just wouldn't get access to that 'classified' stuff, not that such people need to! My bet is these will be cleared off the F-22 and F-15E and E+ well before we see a combat coded JSF. But that's just my opinion.
Given the mass, guidance systems and types of war heads, these will work extremely effectively off platforms that can, firstly, carry them without much penalty and, secondly, deliver them from on high and out of reach with a lot of energy at release - a tad higher and faster than what Tier 2 platforms would be able to go when loaded for bear. Then there is the hypersonic dual role muther. Mmmmmh. This has my Gunny mates salivating and rubbin' their knobs with the few fingers they have left on their primary hand.
[edited]
Last edited by a moderator:
You are most welcome.
Are you saying that SecDef Cohen's statement was not official? Funny, it sounded pretty official to me.
Anyways, on the other, you will just have to wait and see, I suppose. My money is on the APA predictions since their's seem to have some substance and rigour behind them (like threat analyses and those sorts of things). Not to say that things will pan out that way at the end of the day but I am from the old school who believe it's a lot easier and less risky to contingeny plan if the original planning and direction was based on something more than a wet finger in the air guess by some bureaucrat or politician.
DID was right to ask where the threat analysis was in the new RAAF Air Power Doctrine. Where is it? Can anyone point to it?
:unknown
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
AS I'm sure you well know, JSF will have, AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, SDB and LGB's integrated right from the beginning of it's operational service.
On top of this, the Brits are funding ASRAAM into F-35B and RAAF may choose this for the F-35A, depending on studies they say they are conducting into the matter. RAAF also want a dedicated maritime strike weapon and have joined Kongsberg in studying whether NSM/JSM might be usefully employed onto F-35A.
Obviously the F-35 have yet to conduct any weapons test. Tell me if you can, how many missiles or bombs had F-22 or F-15E fired when they'd flown TEN times in total?
That's a pretty wide weapons integration right there and it's a starting point. All the A2G weapons you mention for F-22, JDAM and SDB (I/II) will be integrated onto JSF from the get go.
Or do you seriously expect people to believe they won't?
Funnily enough, we'll see them on SH before ANY of these other aircraft, is my bet and RAAF will have 10 years or so experience of operating them. Something the F-111 will never give us...
Unfortunately re: the attachments, that's something you'll have to petition webs about. I'm sure he's read the request, but obviously there's a server issue or some such, as to how much "space" you (or anyone else) can have...
On top of this, the Brits are funding ASRAAM into F-35B and RAAF may choose this for the F-35A, depending on studies they say they are conducting into the matter. RAAF also want a dedicated maritime strike weapon and have joined Kongsberg in studying whether NSM/JSM might be usefully employed onto F-35A.
Obviously the F-35 have yet to conduct any weapons test. Tell me if you can, how many missiles or bombs had F-22 or F-15E fired when they'd flown TEN times in total?
That's a pretty wide weapons integration right there and it's a starting point. All the A2G weapons you mention for F-22, JDAM and SDB (I/II) will be integrated onto JSF from the get go.
Or do you seriously expect people to believe they won't?
Funnily enough, we'll see them on SH before ANY of these other aircraft, is my bet and RAAF will have 10 years or so experience of operating them. Something the F-111 will never give us...
Unfortunately re: the attachments, that's something you'll have to petition webs about. I'm sure he's read the request, but obviously there's a server issue or some such, as to how much "space" you (or anyone else) can have...
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No, what I was referring to was that while SecDef Cohen indicated the expectation that the F-117 would be replaced by the F-22, there wasn't a real timeframe of when this would be accomplished. This was likely due at least in part by the (at the time) unknown IOC date. IIRC the 2006 QDR set a target date for F-117 retirement & replacement by the F-22 in the 2008-2009 time window.
As for the export potential of the F-22... I remain dubious. My sense is that, in the next two US presidential election cycles, unless there is a critical success in either Iraq or Afghanistan, preferably both, the US will enter a phase were overseas operations and interventions become less common. At the same time, the potential for a reduction in US forces is likely I think. In part due to a desire to reduce the possibility of operations overseas (not unlike pre-WWII America) and also as a result of economic and budgetary issues. As a result of combat operations, some of the deployed equipment (not including operational losses) has been getting fatigued at something like 5x the normal peacetime rate. This is having a defence budget effect due to the need to repair, maintain and replace existing equipment just to keep up with current capabilities. As has been observed, this is delaying the fielding of new systems and developmental work. From this, I have the feeling that the US won't sell what it considers critical current/future systems until the US mil has sufficient systems to maintain an edge. I could be wrong of course, but don't forget the issues the UK has been having in getting tech transfers for the JSF, and the UK is one of the US's closest allies and IIRC the largest partner in the JSF coalition after the US.
-Cheers
Time will tell, but funding issues may change very quickly.
No inside info, but I share your opinion.
In the case of Israel, how could they afford F-22? I strongly support the Israeli state, but if this was a gift . . . not so much.
And how large is LARGE, AD.
Do you have the competencies, skills and expertise to know what the integration of an EO/IR targeting system will take?
I refer you to Dr Alan Stephen's answer on this to the JSCFADT inquiry back in March last year. Do the words, '...in the scheme of things, insignificant!' or '..not very much' ring a bell. After all, the F-22 was designed with EO/IR bay under the nose. In fact, the JSF bay that is meant to house the EOTS is based upon the one that is in the F-22.
While you are at it, why does the RAAF have such a phobia about EO/IR targeting? Do you know why?
Hint - Take a look at how they interpret LOAC (you can find this on the Defence/APDC web site) and ask yourself how this effects their (our) ability to target any threat which is hidden, say, inside a building or on which they are unable to get a visual ident? During the Hornets time over at OIF, this was a somewhat sore point for our coalition partners when our people were prevented by this interpretation to complete the mission because they were unable to get a visual.
:smash
Last edited:
Seems there is a stated potential export demand now for the F-22, first Israel and now Japan.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602809-31477,00.html
My take is it depends on those in the US who are F-22 proponents versus the JSF brigade. An export run of F-22s would extend the proposed shutdown date, and cheapen the unit cost.
This would have to be attractive for some in the US military.
Of course there could then be the issue of the export variant not having all the features of the US version.
Also if Japan insisted on having home built versions, the unit cost of those coming off the LM line might not go down much.
I guess the 'good' thing is that Japan is not a JSF 'member' so selling F-22s to them doesn't by itself affect potential JSF orders.
rb
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602809-31477,00.html
My take is it depends on those in the US who are F-22 proponents versus the JSF brigade. An export run of F-22s would extend the proposed shutdown date, and cheapen the unit cost.
This would have to be attractive for some in the US military.
Of course there could then be the issue of the export variant not having all the features of the US version.
Also if Japan insisted on having home built versions, the unit cost of those coming off the LM line might not go down much.
I guess the 'good' thing is that Japan is not a JSF 'member' so selling F-22s to them doesn't by itself affect potential JSF orders.
rb
can't see it happening , the japanese have had lousy security on critical technologies. they're still on the outer because of past security indiscretions.
Isn't that unfair? I mean, the US has had lots of it's own security lapses, the biggest one I can think of was handing USSR the atom bomb. Perhaps the real concern is the possible ability of Japan to reverse engineer some technology.
it doesn't matter whether its fair or not. national security and national interest are not based on notions of fairness.
recent examples: Toshiba losing low cavitation propellor technology for submarines, and the recent example of a senior naval officer who had Aegis specs on his personal computer. His computer also had a bit torrent client and his partner was chinese.
In my book, thats 3 strikes and you're out. Basic security breaches are being witnessed and they want the F-22?
Outside of that, I'm not convinced that the US is going to change their stance re any foreign sales of F-22 - certainly not in the 5-10 year window.
If I'm wrong, then so be it.
I think Japan and Israel should place big orders in the JSF program.. Or forced by the US.
I can see the JSF being able to do anything they ask for it. Being an extremely capable multirole aircraft it could eventually replace most of the combat aircraft that Japan and Israel use. The F-35 would be an improvement in every aspect i would think compared to the aircraft they currently operate.
F-22 should be kept USA only i believe. If the USAF plays their cards right and get Japan and Israel to place a large F-35 order it will allow the USAF to reduce F-35 production and extend the F-22 production.
Japan and Israel would only say no to the F-35 in an attempt to get the Raptor. I believe the US should call their bluff and tell them its F-35 or no soup for you!
I can see the JSF being able to do anything they ask for it. Being an extremely capable multirole aircraft it could eventually replace most of the combat aircraft that Japan and Israel use. The F-35 would be an improvement in every aspect i would think compared to the aircraft they currently operate.
F-22 should be kept USA only i believe. If the USAF plays their cards right and get Japan and Israel to place a large F-35 order it will allow the USAF to reduce F-35 production and extend the F-22 production.
Japan and Israel would only say no to the F-35 in an attempt to get the Raptor. I believe the US should call their bluff and tell them its F-35 or no soup for you!
Based on what? A large aircraft with no LO in it design having a large RCS and heat signature and lacking the intergration of even the F-18F.
Add to that the maintenace issues with these aircraft and the package is not so great and offers no edge over other operators.