FB-22: a Cheaper, Faster, Smarter Bomber

Popular Science ^ | December 2002 | Bill Sweetman

[sonofatpatcher2]

FB-22: a Cheaper, Faster, Smarter Bomber

A proposal to transform the F-22 Raptor into a high-altitude, first-strike bomber illustrates a harsh reality: The U.S. bombing fleet is ill-prepared to fight wars in regions that are short on friendly nations willing to lend air bases.

by Bill Sweetman

Turning a fighter into a bomber may seem like trying to convert a Honda S2000 roadster into a pickup truck. Fighters, which are designed to dogfight with hostile airplanes and perform short-range attack missions, are fast and agile; bombers are made to haul heavy loads for thousands of miles. But Lockheed Martin is designing a fighter-bomber hybrid based on the F-22 Raptor fighter that's in flight-testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The proposed bomber variant—informally known as the FB-22—has been attracting increasing interest since the September 11 attacks and the start of U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Before Afghanistan, the Air Force considered its current fleet of bombers adequate and had no plans to build new ones until the late 2030s. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, after all, B-52s—slow and as unstealthy as battleships but loaded with more than 30,000 pounds of guided bombs—were successfully deployed against both ammunition dumps and front-line troops. A few heavy airplanes, the Air Force reasoned, went a long way.

But then came the mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and Air Force leaders realized how sorely the service had been neglecting its bomber fleet. Whereas in the Gulf War, the United States could launch its planes from the territory of a nearby ally, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan was a long way from any country that felt like playing host to U.S. combat aircraft. B-52 and B-1 bombers cruised to Afghanistan from British-owned Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, but it took them so long that they could fly fewer missions than desirable. And as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East, nations that are capable of providing the United States with bases within range of likely war zones are coming under increasing pressure, both from terrorists and from their discontented populaces, not to do so. Meanwhile, U.S. bombers are aging: The newest B-52 is 40 years old, and the B-1 is a complex, maintenance-heavy plane designed in the early 1970s. Many military experts believe it's time to revitalize the worn-out bomber fleet.

The FB-22 could be the answer. A midsize bomber, it would inherit the F-22's ability to fly higher and faster than other comparable planes—up to 1,200 mph at 60,000 feet—but would have longer legs and a bigger weapons load. Moreover, it would be a perfect fit with one of the Air Force's most promising new weapons, the Small Diameter Bomb. Though it's a fraction of the weight of a standard bomb, this new bomb is exceedingly precise, thanks to a satellite-controlled GPS-guidance system. The FB-22, which would be built to carry 24 Small Diameter Bombs, could be the ideal aircraft for the warfare of the future. And since it's based on an existing design and would share many parts and materials with its predecessor, it would be relatively inexpensive to build.

[sonofatpatcher2]

This make a lot of sense. Check out URL for complete story and pics.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Check out Smarter Bomber for complete story and pics.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Wait a minute. It's my understanding that the Air Force already officially designated the plane the F/A-22. I'll see what I can find.

[Ford Fairlane]

The U.S. bombing fleet is ill-prepared to fight wars in regions that are short on friendly nations willing to lend air bases.

And if we could still build F4's & F14's, we wouldn't have this problem (since the current command considers that size plane to be a bomber).

Unfortunatley, everything currently in production has no range (although they are good fighters) - the same thing that lost the air war for Germany in WWII

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Oops, I jumped the gun. This is a proposal to change the design of the F-22, not just assign it a limited attack role.

[sonofatpatcher2]

The F/A-22 can carry bombs, but the FB-22 could carry many more of the new Small Diameter Bombs. So the story says...

[Howie]

Looks good but omitting the vertical control surfaces is quite a trick. Computerized differential drag brakes? Thrust modulation? Try to fly and retrofit two vertical surfaces after it won't fly?

[Badger1]

A lot of aircraft military designs are inheriently unstable and would not be able to fly without computer controll. This would be just one more example.

[Badger1]

That should read -

A lot of military aircraft designs are inheriently unstable and would not be able to fly without computer controll. This would be just one more example.

[Howie]

I understand that but what will the computer move to keep the thing going straight if it has no tail?

[MigrantOkie]

If it can't drop 30,000 lbs it's not a viable replacement. The reason we have stuck with the B-52 for so long is that nothing else will carry the payload. The B-52 is the most cost efficient delivery system we have. It also has not needed to be stealthy since we use it after achieving full air superiority.

[Desert Dweller]

The B2 has no vertical tail. What's the difference?

[Light Speed]

Sure...and a B-52 does not need to be stealthy for the Mexican border either
Buy a B-52 for Arizona fund drive!

[Badger1]

The control surfaces on the wings are computer controlled to keep the plane stable. The control surfaces are constantly adjusted by the computer even when the pilot is using the same control surfaces to fly the plane.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: If it can't drop 30,000 lbs it's not a viable replacement. The reason we have stuck with the B-52 for so long is that nothing else will carry the payload. The B-52 is the most cost efficient delivery system we have. It also has not needed to be stealthy since we use it after achieving full air superiority.

The FB-22 will be able to go in on the first attack. I read a piece on the Small Diameter Bomb program and the point is using a small bomb directly on target will do better than a larger bomb a few feet away. Thus by putting the bomb directly on target negates the need for B-52s to go in before we have full air superiority. I have tried to find it online, but have not found it so far.

[Howie]

I think I found the answer: Vectored Thrust here

[Desert Dweller]

It probably will have vectored thrust, but it's not necessary even without a vertical tail. I don't believe the B2 has vectored thrust.

[Howie]

I'll rephrase the question: Why does the f-22 need two vertical tail surfaces and the b-22 doesn't have any?

[Desert Dweller]

The F22 is designed to be more manueverable but at the cost of being less stealthy. The combination of vectored thrust and large vertical tail surfaces produces a much more manueverable aircraft.

[Badger1]

I'll rephrase the question: Why does the f-22 need two vertical tail surfaces and the b-22 doesn't have any?

Good question. And my answer? I don't know, but eliminating the vertical control surfaces makes the flight software and firmware much more complicated (the F-22 is behind schedule primarily because of software and firmware delays) so I'm sure there is a good reason.