The F-22 Thread

that's too short sighted imo, right now is the best time to be teething next generation technologies. we have no immediate need for such superlative aerodynamic performance; rather it would be more beneficial in the long term to mature f-35 avionics so that they can be integrated into successor platforms with fewer design compromises.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:thumbup:

This should scare the hell out of the F-35 community...F-22 production was truncated to free up money for the F-35. The fact this request came from so far up the command chain indicates this is more than a hypothetical discussion...

 

While true it would take a few years to train personnel and ramp up production, in the end we'd have a proven combat capable aircraft far sooner than waiting for the magical mystical F-35.

 

Sierra

Hate to bust your bubble here Sierra, but that is some Grade A bullshit right there. Shrinking military budgets in general given the lack of a credible hostile power lead to the truncation of the F-22 production line. The F-35 fills more roles, is cheaper to build, and cheaper to maintain. The F-35 isn't going anywhere. It's a multinational project and we're using it to replace our F-18s, AV-8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and to your personal chagrin, the A-10. The F-22 only was slated to replace the F-15. Unless the Air Force is about to get a huge infusion of capital, the odds of seeing any real movement on this are poor at best, and even if it does go forward, it will not impact F-35 numbers, since without them, we don't have a tactical strike fleet, and you wouldn't want the grunts on the ground to suddenly find themselves without CAS now would you? :music_whistling:

So basically it's the original plan from the late '80s.:lol:

This time it could replace all Eagles, not just the pure fighters as they planned in the 80s, but also the Strike Eagles. To replace the F-15E it would need at least a slightly increased main weapons bay, capable of holding two 2000 lbs class weapons and more fuel. Any new F-22s should also be upgraded with an IRST sensor, the F-35's DAS and if possible its less maintenance intensive stealth materials. All this would result in some quite extensive redesign of the airframe, but anything less would be nonsensical.

As others have said before the budgets for dedicated air superiority fighters aren't there anymore. Few air forces can afford huge fleets of fighters these days and, with the possible exception of China, all would be greatly outnumbered by the F-35 force of any western coalition. Ground based defenses will be the greatest threat to attacking aircraft, not enemy interceptors.

For a war against China the base F-22, designed for an European war, lacks the range to be truly effective over the vast expanses of the Pacific. However, some kind of Strike Raptor that can conduct deep strikes against heavily defended high value targets while still excelling in the air superiority role has its merits.

But I don't think this will happen. The money required to restart the F-22 line and upgrade the airframe (even in a more modest way) is better spend developing an entirely new high performance 5.5th generation airframe, with advent based engines and free space for some laser turrets in a later upgrade. Using F-35 avionics and sensors would allow for much shorter developing times and more commonality later.

Drones are the future....with Skynet commanding them.

not just the pure fighters as they planned in the 80s, but also the Strike Eagles. To replace the F-15E it would need at least a slightly increased main weapons bay, capable of holding two 2000 lbs class weapons and more fuel. Any new F-22s should also be upgraded with an IRST sensor, the F-35's DAS and if possible its less maintenance intensive stealth materials. All this would result in some quite extensive redesign of the airframe, but anything less would be nonsensical.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

this amounts to a f-35 rehash that compromises (a plane already lambasted for making compromises) its main mission solely for the notion of being nominally better at a2a, which will be crippled with weight penalties thanks to eodas and strike armament.

...and a "redesign" which amounts to a brand new aircraft. labeling something a redesign won't change the number on the invoice. what, did you think you can fix an aircraft's weight and fuel woes by simply clicking "stretch horizontal 120%"?

well, it might be enough to give pierre sprey an aneurysm this time around.

some kind of Strike Raptor that can conduct deep strikes against heavily defended high value targets while still excelling in the air superiority role has its merits.

once again, you are describing the f-35.

it seems some people have the impression that the f-35 is some sort of monkey model aircraft. this is not true. the f-35 is the best we can do right now that fulfills the difficult task of meeting an unprecedented number of requirements at the same time. your "strike raptor" will only be able to do a third of the f-35's job 10% better, and the things that it won't do well will cost it (and us) far more than its gains.

10-20 years from now we can start talking about a f-35 successor that can improve without compromises:

an entirely new high performance 5.5th generation airframe, with advent based engines and free space for some laser turrets in a later upgrade. Using F-35 avionics and sensors would allow for much shorter developing times and more commonality later.

yet it may be this next generation aircraft will wind up using the performance margin freed up from matured f-35 avionics for clumsy first-generation laser armament instead of unnecessarily superlative aerodynamics, and we will have the whole f-35 debate once again.

Ground based defenses will be the greatest threat to attacking aircraft, not enemy interceptors.

this is correct, and i think we should start warming up to changing our notion of air superiority to respect this. sead is peer to a2a in the concept of air dominance.

this is why i think it's important to become less fixated on traditional a2a criteria like bfm aerodynamics. the people who advise the military on future trends are not stupid and there is good reason funding was diverted to the f-35.

 

this amounts to a f-35 rehash that compromises (a plane already lambasted for making compromises) its main mission solely for the notion of being nominally better at a2a, which will be crippled with weight penalties thanks to eodas and strike armament.

A bigger airframe with two engines can more easily absorb the extra volume and weight needed for strike role. The F-35 is significantly smaller than the Raptor, yet they managed to include more fuel, a bigger weapons bay and still got a very decent performance. A larger aircraft with the same bomb load as the F-35, that can supercruise for a significant amount of time, features the next iteration stealth technology and is even prepared to be equipped with self defense lasers will be much more survivable against any threat, not just in a2a.

...and a "redesign" which amounts to a brand new aircraft. labeling something a redesign won't change the number on the invoice. what, did you think you can fix an aircraft's weight and fuel woes by simply clicking "stretch horizontal 120%"?

That is exactly what they did to develop the Super Hornet, a "redesign" which essentially amounted to a brand new aircraft. Just compare the timelines of the SH, Raptor, F-35 or Typhoon projects. This approach most certainly has benefits.

once again, you are describing the f-35.

it seems some people have the impression that the f-35 is some sort of monkey model aircraft. this is not true. the f-35 is the best we can do right now that fulfills the difficult task of meeting an unprecedented number of requirements at the same time. your "strike raptor" will only be able to do a third of the f-35's job 10% better, and the things that it won't do well will cost it (and us) far more than its gains.

For me the F-35 is a brilliant design, but that does not mean that there is no need for any other new airframes in the coming decades. If another platform is much more survivable and/or more effective in a number of missions it will always be worth the costs. A limited number of "Strike Raptors", or a similar new design, working in concert with a large number of F-35s would just repeat the successful F-15, F-16 combo of the past.

This time it could replace all Eagles, not just the pure fighters as they planned in the 80s, but also the Strike Eagles. To replace the F-15E it would need at least a slightly increased main weapons bay, capable of holding two 2000 lbs class weapons and more fuel. Any new F-22s should also be upgraded with an IRST sensor, the F-35's DAS and if possible its less maintenance intensive stealth materials. All this would result in some quite extensive redesign of the airframe, but anything less would be nonsensical.

 

As others have said before the budgets for dedicated air superiority fighters aren't there anymore. Few air forces can afford huge fleets of fighters these days and, with the possible exception of China, all would be greatly outnumbered by the F-35 force of any western coalition. Ground based defenses will be the greatest threat to attacking aircraft, not enemy interceptors.

 

For a war against China the base F-22, designed for an European war, lacks the range to be truly effective over the vast expanses of the Pacific. However, some kind of Strike Raptor that can conduct deep strikes against heavily defended high value targets while still excelling in the air superiority role has its merits.

 

But I don't think this will happen. The money required to restart the F-22 line and upgrade the airframe (even in a more modest way) is better spend developing an entirely new high performance 5.5th generation airframe, with advent based engines and free space for some laser turrets in a later upgrade. Using F-35 avionics and sensors would allow for much shorter developing times and more commonality later.

I'm convinced that if you upgraded the F-22 MAWS to EODAS standard except with IRST zoom and rapid scanning, an EOTS would be redundant.

Raptors on Mach Loop.

For a war against China the base F-22, designed for an European war, lacks the range to be truly effective over the vast expanses of the Pacific. However, some kind of Strike Raptor that can conduct deep strikes against heavily defended high value targets while still excelling in the air superiority role has its merits.

This is well said, and I agree. A former F15E pilot over at Aces High's forums who has been there since the start, still posts frequently, and said precisely the same thing - that a larger striker F22 would be very effective, and necessary, in a war in the South Pac region. China's J20 looks to be something along those lines, and I wish the USAF would build something similar - an enlarged or strike optimized long range fighter along the lines of the F22.

This is well said, and I agree. A former F15E pilot over at Aces High's forums who has been there since the start, still posts frequently, and said precisely the same thing - that a larger striker F22 would be very effective, and necessary, in a war in the South Pac region. China's J20 looks to be something along those lines, and I wish the USAF would build something similar - an enlarged or strike optimized long range fighter along the lines of the F22.

That's starting to sound like a B-21...

I would put the money into DF-21D/DF-26 equivalents for strike instead.

Then you would get a more expensive and less flexible force that still needs the support of some penetrating asset to provide targeting data for your missiles. And how would you do something like Gulf War 1 SCUD hunting or equivalent missions with an all ballistic missile strike force?

Then you would get a more expensive and less flexible force that still needs the support of some penetrating asset to provide targeting data for your missiles. And how would you do something like Gulf War 1 SCUD hunting or equivalent missions with an all ballistic missile strike force?

Satellites and drone spam.

Satellites can't provide a 24/7 coverage and have regular, predictable orbits. A drone that can survive long enough in an A2/AD environment needs to be highly stealthy and won't be an inexpensive throw away asset. Your missile will have a considerable longer flight time than any weapon launched from a penetrating assets that has just located the target. It can be detected (and intercepted), giving the enemy additional time to react. Serious problems when attacking time sensitive targets. If you already need to have stealthy high end reecon drone nearby, why not armed stealthy high end strike fighters?

Satellites can't provide a 24/7 coverage and have regular, predictable orbits. A drone that can survive long enough in an A2/AD environment needs to be highly stealthy and won't be an inexpensive throw away asset. Your missile will have a considerable longer flight time than any weapon launched from a penetrating assets that has just located the target. It can be detected (and intercepted), giving the enemy additional time to react. Serious problems when attacking time sensitive targets. If you already need to have stealthy high end reecon drone nearby, why not armed stealthy high end strike fighters?

Depends how many satellites you have. Drones can be designed to be very small and stealthy. In theory you could even have something like a MALD-V (1,000km range) with a Hellfire warhead, that would both spot targets and either destroy the target, or force the expenditure of a costly SAM.

For time sensitive targets, you make sure satellites are doing frequent enough passes, and target anything necessary with a 10-minute guided MRBM rather than wasting time flying a plane there. Planes don't cover ground as fast as satellites and are more expensive than drones/MALDs, especially if you include human cost. By the time you fuel and arm a plane, an MRBM would have already destroyed the target. MRBMs are faster and harder to intercept than plane-launched munitions. Stealth is also only stealth so far. It can certainly help prevent X-Band/S-Band getting a lock, but VHF will still detect your presence and despatch fighters. It can also be used to cue X-Band on a narrower search. It's a help but it's not a silver bullet.

It's good to have some stealth aircraft too but guided MRBMs are currently a major hole in the NATO inventory. Going back 20 years, I would have based the F-35A/C on modified F-22s, with slightly enlarged bays for GBU-31/JSM/JSOW/JSOW-ER/AARGM-ER, F-35 avionics and build improvements; and I would have built the F-35B as a proper standalone VTOL fighter that was nothing to do with the other two. And I would have kept the main build of each in one or 2 states rather than spewing it out to 42 states a la F-22. I would also have continued with the SLIRBM program and maybe SBL(IFX) program too. You can add RATTLRS to that list too.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/26/f-22-restart-not-wild-idea-says-welsh/84971806/

Welsh: F-22 Restart for US Air Force Not 'A Wild Idea'

https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/f-22-raptor-back-grave-100005254.html

Now, Congress has ignited a flicker of hope for fans of the pricey airplane. A House subcommittee asked the U.S. Air Force to investigate what it would cost to put the tactical fighter back into production.

I put a thread up a couple months back the some think tanks are saying developing a 6th gen (would be more like 5++) aircraft out of the F-22 might be the way to go.

I put a thread up a couple months back the some think tanks are saying developing a 6th gen (would be more like 5++) aircraft out of the F-22 might be the way to go.

Depends on the time scale they're looking for. An F-22 with modular avionics, HMCS and EODAS style MAWS and sensor fusion would be a relatively quick fix. If necessary, they could leave the full sensor fusion to a later software block.

Some interesting fact - F-22 has different construction of Flare Dispenser bay doors for left and rigt side.

And usual to find the photos with RR196/A and MJU-39/40 blocks are very difficult, so my be it will be interestig for somebody...

For fun - F-22 and something :)

DCS F-22 Confirmed!