FB-22: a Cheaper, Faster, Smarter Bomber

Popular Science ^ | December 2002 | Bill Sweetman

[Poohbah]

Hmn. The main gear would have to be relocated then and for adequate lift and slow approach speeds you might need variable swept wings.

Which pretty much eliminates all of the fuel and weapons stowage gain.

If so, we would have our floating airbases able to launch timely strikes from great distances of the 2200 mile combat radius claimed for FB-22 without needing foreign bases on land.

That 2200-mile range is based on having a LOT more fuel aboard, which the swing-wings would rule out.

[febtrr]

Perhaps we could look to the lengthened fuelsalage for extended fuel capacity. The current FB-22 design calls for weapons bay length increases sufficent for 30 rather than 24 Small Diameter Bombs. At six feet per weapon plus six inches clearance per weapon, that works out to a bay length of thirty three feet with allowance for clearances. Four JDAM 2000s or six JDAM 1000s or eight JDAM 500s would be possible. This extended bay allows for a much bigger fuelsalage tankage while a fixed wing might help here if acceptable approach speeds and landing gross weigths were acceptable. Currently, the delta wing has been abandoned, 30 SBDs carriage is envisioned and loading is limited to 5Gs.

[Mr Rogers]

700 hours in F-4s, 1500 hours in F-111s + a variety of hours in other aircraft...the F-111 was an outstanding tactical bomber. It wasn't a fighter. Fighters are designed to kill other aircraft. 80,000 pounds, normally around 5G max turn, Aim-9Ps, no air-air radar worth a damn (and I was one of the few WSOs who could get a 30nm air target on one)...the F-111F was a great plane (particularly after Pacer Strike), but it wasn't a fighter.

[Mr Rogers]

ABL in 2004?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

2040...perhaps!

[Mr Rogers]

Well, they DID land an F-111 on a carrier...once or twice.

'Course, the pilot described it as one of the craziest things he had ever done, and the Navy backed out of the 111, but...

The solution is simple - build a 10,000' long carrier! It would probably be easier than modifying an FB-22 for carrier ops.

[pad 34]

Ever heard of "BIF"?

[Mr Rogers]

Yes - it is NOT something fighters do.

[hchutch]

The FB-22... love it.

This is the bird that should be replacing the F-15E. Seeing as the carriers are going to be the first responders, it might not hurt to see if they can get more of a punch. A navalized F-15E would be okay, but it's an old design.

[Pukin Dog]

Why does the f-22 need two vertical tail surfaces and the b-22 doesn't have any?

Vertical tails are for providing directional stability, especially at high angles of attack (alpha). Bombers do not need to perform high-alpha maneuvers, because they don't dogfight. In the B-2, directional stability is controlled by computer, which uses the engines and speed brakes to control Yaw. The B-22 would not need the ability to yaw it's nose at an enemy fighter. The other reason for twin vertical tails is to provide the ability to swing the nose quickly left and right while the wings are level. (YAW) No bomber needs this ability. In a close-in dogfight, rudder is used to keep a target inside the 'funnel', which is a gun-track targeting projection on the HUD (head up display).

[Pukin Dog]

Were the services to consider navalizing a Super Fighter, it would be the YF-23.

[pad 34]

"A Kill, is a Kill"

[febtrr]

The RF-5A bomber turned recon plane was very heavy but operated successfully on carriers with 100,000 lbs.capable catapaults and landed, I believe, at high weights. The F-14 lands with an empty weight of 40,000 lbs plus weapons of around 6000lbs. and reserve fuel for a goaround if needed. The F-35C lands with 30500lbs. empty plus a bringback of 9000lbs. fuel/weapons. The F-14A, despite its limited 40,000lbs. maximum takeoff afterburner thrust could launch at 74,000lbs. gross. The issue with a navalised FB-22 would be having a small enough landing weight and approach speed to match the limits of current arresting gear while the 80,000lbs. max afterburner takeoff thrust may be sufficent for a 85-95,000lbs. catapault assisted launch weight.

[Southack]

"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."

No, it just means that the U.S. has no use for the F-22 as a fighter. Our existing fleet is already two generations ahead of the rest of the world. China's new Sino-Pak prototype fighter, undergoing trials this year and next, has no stealth radar evasion capability and no infra-red dimminuation, for instance. Yet that's what China wants to field for their next generation.

That sort of fighter is roadkill for even our old F-14's.

The F-22 is a great fighter, but we don't need it. The F-22 costs too much, still has a pilot, and can't make even sub-orbital hops into space.

So now, with no need for it as a fighter, various Pentagon bureaucrats want to "save" it by turning it into a bomber...something that it was never designed to be.

[Pukin Dog]

Another possibility is to stretch the F-35 by fifteen feet, doubling the bombload from two one ton guided bombs to four or increasing Small Diameter Bombload from eight to sixteen while the fuelsalage extension and increased wingspan accomodate more fuel but thrust/weight ratio would suffer even with more powerful single engine.

I doubt you are going to find a single engine for the F-35 that would allow:

a. not having to redesign the entire wing for a new geometry compensating for the additional lift, and cg relocation.

b. a favorable t/w ratio helping keep near original performance specs.

c. acceptable stall, relight and deck handling characteristics.

d. avoidance of a complete redesign of the engine inlets, adding weight and complexity.

[Mark17]

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

Maybe I am missing something here. If the bombing fleet is ill-prepared, due to a shortage of friendly nations air bases, how do they expect a smaller aircraft, with less fuel to do the same job? I think it would require even more in-flight refueling than the heavy bombers are doing now.

[Poohbah]

Can you fold a fuselage, though? The YF-23 is L-O-N-G.

[Jonah Hex]

(If I ever find the Bastard that swiped my Cannon and turned it into a Sea-Wiz, we’ll have MORE than words).

Now, you're not making fun of little old R2D2, are ya?

;-)

[Pukin Dog]

It is about 5 feet longer than a Tomcat, and 10 feet WIDER than a parked Tomcat in oversweep. I would guess that we would not need as many of them, if used in conjunction with the F-35, though.

[febtrr]

Well, if I'm wrong, I am pleased to know why. I looked up the power/weight ratio of the A-6E and it is around one third. An FB-35 would have to be changed as indicated but it would not be a fighter but a bomber with AMRAAM air/air capability. At one time the JSF office desired carriage of four JDAM 1000s which would call for a seven foot fuelsalage extension. This might be more practical. The AMMRAAMs could be doubled to four with a 25.5 foot bay which could also accomodate six JDAM 500s. The Super Hornet is a stretched version of the original though four feet and a 25% enlarged wing cost a 6500lb. empty weight increase. A ten point five foot increase on F-35 might be doable but the resulting a/c would be weighing around 90000lbs. G limits would go down and acceration would suffer but with four AMRAAMs, especially the underdevelopement AMRAAMS capable of executing a 180 degree turn and engaging a target to the rear might be practical for self defense. Alternate role could be a missiler with twelve AMRAAMs fired in an eight and four missile salvo.

[febtrr]

Well, if I'm wrong, I am pleased to know why. I looked up the power/weight ratio of the A-6E and it is around one third. An FB-35 would have to be changed as indicated but it would not be a fighter but a bomber with AMRAAM air/air capability. At one time the JSF office desired carriage of four JDAM 1000s which would call for a seven foot fuelsalage extension. This might be more practical. The AMMRAAMs could be doubled to four with a 25.5 foot bay which could also accomodate six JDAM 500s. The Super Hornet is a stretched version of the original though four feet and a 25% enlarged wing cost a 6500lb. empty weight increase. A ten point five foot increase on F-35 might be doable but the resulting a/c would be weighing around 90000lbs. G limits would go down and acceration would suffer but with four AMRAAMs, especially the underdevelopement AMRAAMS capable of executing a 180 degree turn and engaging a target to the rear might be practical for self defense. Alternate role could be a missiler with twelve AMRAAMs fired in an eight and four missile salvo.