F-22 will never be produced again...or will it? Sorta, with a twist.

[Cunctator]

An unmodified F-22 neither has the range required in the Asia Pacific region, nor the payload to replace the Strike Eagle.

 

They will surely build a new airframe and probably use F-35 derived avionics. I would expect something like the FB-22 concepts from a decade ago. Just as the Super Hornet went through development to production in less than decade, a Super Raptor could be ready to replace the remaining Eagles in time.

[Pilotasso]

They specified an air superiority fighter not a striker. That is the role of the F-35 and theres no reason to just do a clone.

[Cunctator]

The F-15 started an air superiority fighter and become a world beating striker. The USAF apparently does not want to have just more Raptors. To get an slightly updated F-22C they would not launch a formal competition that will take years. Also they would not expect to wait 5 to 10 years for it. They seek a more modern and versatile platform instead. Nobody will develop a high end single role airframe again in the near future. The budgets aren't there anymore and there is no reason to do so. Since WW2 all great fighters could be matured to become great multirole aircraft. There is no reason to stop now.

 

A supercruising heavy strike fighter featuring the next iteration of stealth technology will be much more survivable than the F-35. With greater range and a bigger internal weapons load it will also be much more capable.

It will be a true and much needed replacement for the Strike Eagle that will have an increasingly hard time conducting deep strikes against modern air defenses and fighters.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Cunctator

[Pilotasso]

Nothing in this news points in the direction where the new design would look remotely like an FB-22 which would self-defeat the air superiority role.

 

Also the F-22A has never been a strictly AA platform, and most likely the new fighter will be pretty analogous to that.

[Cunctator]

Fully agree with you here. But my two points remain.

- It will be a new airframe

- If they use the F-22A as a base design they will have to heavily modify it to meet modern requirements for more range and payload. That just what they planned to do for the FB-22. Of course the actual configuration will be different.

[RvETito]

6th generation fighter? What's that? A 5th generation fighter that's more environmental friendly? :D

[Hummingbird]

6th generation fighter? What's that? A 5th generation fighter that's more environmental friendly? :D

 

The unmanned fighter might become the 6th generation.

[SkateZilla]

wasn't 6th gen supposed to be UCAVs?

[Pilotasso]

6th generation fighter? What's that? A 5th generation fighter that's more environmental friendly? :D

 

If they manage to produce a fighter that doesn't corrode away due to sketchy stealth sealants that alone would be progress. :D

 

Also think more durable stealth skin that would allow higher speeds (currently its a limitation). AIM-9X integration, HMDS integration HUDless wide screen dash. Progress baby (although I would miss the stylish HUD in a SIM).

[Cunctator]

Adaptive cycle engines, designed with directed energy weapons in mind

[Buzzles]

You know, I wouldn't be too suprised if the F22 is produced again, just with a few updates into a new block number rather than having a derived airframe.

 

Why?

 

Clearly the DoD/USAF is worried again about a possible clash with Russia and it's allies, and is also clearly worried that in the not too distant future it's going to have a crippling lack of AA Fighters.

The F15C and F16 fleets are getting long in the tooth with airframe hours creeping up, and are simply older designs despite upgrades.

 

Start looking at the top Western fighters and what do you get? The F22, the Eurofighter and the Gripen.

 

If the USAF was serious about getting more top notch fighters to build up squadrons again, there might be a slim case for Eurofighter procurement, but with some F22's on hand along with supply chains, training programs and the like in place, the obvious choice would simply be to build more of them. Development is done so it's just build cost, and if they were to build a couple of hundred, it actually probably wouldn't be too expensive (econ of scale and all that).

 

Just a shame they never built up the full fleet in the first place.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Buzzles
Spelling

[Sierra99]

They specified an air superiority fighter not a striker. That is the role of the F-35 and theres no reason to just do a clone.

 

The F-35 is not an Air Superiority Fighter. I see a better chance of the F-35s avionics and Tech making their way into new 6th gen fighter...

[Dudikoff]

I say go with the F-35 and the Slient Eagle, but thats just me.

 

Agreed that it's odd that the USAF would go through all the trouble of upgrading those selected remaining few F-15C's (somewhat less than 200 will be upgraded IIRC), but they don't seem to consider (or I don't remember reading publicly about it) expanding on that number with a few hundred newly built Silent Eagles (or whatever configuration would fit the bill) while there's still a production line open. I can understand they don't want any more legacy tech and that building more (updated) F-22's would be better of course, but I wouldn't bet on seeing that happen.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Dudikoff

[Gman109]

One thing I would add to SkateZilla's list is change the fuel fraction - if this requires enlarging the airframe in some way, so be it. I've also spoken to F22 pilots, and they lament their range issues - the vaunted "supercruise" isn't very super at all, when you can barely - if ever - use it in a tactical environment due to the fuel constraints of the F22. This is where the YF23 really did shine, it had a huge range advantage over the F22, and within that the ability to truly supercruise for large portions of a potential engagement/envelopment series of maneuvers.

 

Also talking to an x F15E driver, he's said that the Chinese J20 is a direction he wished the USAF would go with a future F22B/etc stop gap strike fighter until Gen6 stuff gets here if we're talking about canning the F35 for such. That J20 sized airframe could be made along the F22 lines, and have a huge, huge range, something the USAF and especially the USN have been lacking in since retiring a bunch of types, while still maintaining much of the interceptor/fighter capability of the original F22 design. I'm not saying make ALL of a future F22B be large striker types with large size/range, but at least do SOMETHING to increase the range of the current F22s, as again, one of the best arrows in their quiver is very limited (supercruise) due to the small fuel load, compared to the YF23 especially.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Gman109

[Pilotasso]

The F-35 is not an Air Superiority Fighter. I see a better chance of the F-35s avionics and Tech making their way into new 6th gen fighter...

 

you got it backwards, either I hadn't been clear enough or you missed the background of the discussion I was engaged in. :)

[Bucic]

you could do worse than watching this video hosting the two test pilots for the YF-23

 

This is probably the best aviation video I've seen this year! Thank you! I'd love to see a similar presentation on X-32.

[sobek]

You forget in the 80's, the new rage was Thrust Vectoring, in the 90s/2000's Thrust Vectoring has since been replaced by negative stability Airframes with Flight Control Computers to keep them stable.

 

Sorry but that is outrageously wrong. Unstable airframes where there long before the advent of TV. The F-16 and Su-27 are both examples of this and they are around way longer than TV is.

[SkateZilla]

Yup, I meant to say, Non Aerodynamically Sound Abnormal Designs, witj Computers to keep them airborne, lol.

 

F-16 is a amazing and versitile design, and its survived for 40+ years, still being upgraded, still being manufactured, still being sold..

 

TV was used for added manueverability, and Axis Authority, shoot they even slapped Paddles into the tomcat to see if theu can be used to stop Flat spins.

 

Now we are using FCS And Advanced Control surface Manipulation to allow the Aircraft to do things and recover from practically impossible positions.

 

Manuevers that would normally be impossible to do without the computer controlling the surfaces.

 

The F-22 Doesnt Need the Pitch Authority Given by the TVN, its a 1 Axis System. (maybe 2, but I dont think the Nozzles on the Raptor are Differentially Operated).

 

The Flanker on the Other Hand is 3 Axis System, the TVN gives pilot increased Pitch, Roll and Yaw Due to the Angle the Nozzles are mounted at.

Edited March 17, 2016 by SkateZilla

[SDsc0rch]

This is probably the best aviation video I've seen this year! Thank you! I'd love to see a similar presentation on X-32.

 

i know! its an address given by the two test pilots involved in the YF-23 program - along the way they give comparisons of key capabilites of the two aircraft

 

and yeah, its a long video

 

but you learn a lot about the whys and wherefores and relative capabilities - i found it very interesting

Edited March 17, 2016 by SDsc0rch

[sobek]

Yup, I meant to say, Non Aerodynamically Sound Abnormal Designs, witj Computers to keep them airborne, lol.

 

Like the F-117?

 

I'm not sure that much has changed in FCSs since the F-16 got the digital FLCS. Some evolutionary development, sure, more processing power as well, but not the revolution that you make it sound like. FBW control of unstable airframes was probably quite mature in the 80ies, definately so at the time that TVS started to pop up.

 

 

Manuevers that would normally be impossible to do without the computer controlling the surfaces.

 

Which the unstable 4th gen fighters are already capable of.

 

I do agree however that TV appears to be, in the grand scheme of all things cost/benefit, a gimmick, since it makes the plane more costly to maintain (just look at the history of russian TV systems, at least when they came up they seemed to be horrible to maintain, i doubt that it wasn't/isn't a problem for western counterparts).

[aaron886]

I'm not sure that much has changed in FCSs since the F-16 got the digital FLCS. Some evolutionary development, sure, more processing power as well, but not the revolution that you make it sound like. FBW control of unstable airframes was probably quite mature in the 80ies, definately so at the time that TVS started to pop up.

 

Ehhh not so fast. The complexity and effectiveness of control laws, soft-failures/degradation, and regime blending are nothing to ignore. The math is not new, but the years of communication between engineers and pilots has not been for nothing.

[SkateZilla]

I dont see F-16A's doing the same Edge of Evelope/Out of Control Stall Maneuvers that the F-18F's do at RIAT.

 

The Core was there, but not the sophistication in the coding, equations or control surfaces.

[sobek]

Well the F-16A can't do what the F-18A can do either. That is a thing of airframe design, not of the FCS.

[Bushmanni]

F-18A can't do what a F-18C updated with Super Hornet FBW sofware can do. Super Hornet FBW had it's control laws designed from ground up with different principles and produced definite improvements in controllability. While Super Hornet also had some additional aerodynamic enhancements to improve controllability, the legacy Hornet could still improve it's controllability using the Super Hornet software.

 

[ame]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p011127.pdf[/ame]

Edited March 18, 2016 by Bushmanni

[Rogue Trooper]

The F-35 program is all that is required for understanding the future of US military requirements.

By its fundamental definition, the F-35 and its distribution amongst the USA's western Allies is a supreme statement by the USAF and its governments own understanding of its "future" global reach and what it can achieve in its economic decline.

 

The F22x is an airframe that will simply add superb diversity to its western allies when it comes to protecting "their" international interests.

 

The buck rules supreme and the days of going it alone are well and truly over.

The mega economies are just over the horizon... they will simply pay more than you can afford to pay for what you need!

Their military expands whilst ours shrink.. Barack Obama's recent speech about Europe was not for shit.... this guy knows his job, he does not dick around.

 

but alas the dollar rules and this also applies to emerging mega powers, the money must flow. If we cannot buy they cannot grow and if they cannot grow we cannot buy... it all works out in the end and in the mean time we get us some really cool weapons... Sweet no?