Someone, on 24 Feb 2009, 13:36, said:
CommanderJB, on 15 Feb 2009, 23:53, said:
Albeit a dead one. The F/B-22's strike and CAS role has since been pretty much filled by the F-35,
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the F-35 is suppose to be a multirole fighter and close-air-support aircraft meant to replace F-16s and A-10s, whereas FB-22 is proposed as a deep-strike fighter/tactical bomber like the “mothballed” F-111 / FB-111.
While the roles are not exactly the same, the F-35 is designed and built first and foremost as a battlefield strike aircraft (hence J
SF after all). It's being marketed as a multi-role type and thanks to its stealth can perform as such quite well, but it's not a design with the emphasis on air-to-air you'd usually see in a multi-role type, with no supercruise and a paltry maximum missile load of four. You're also correct in that it is supposed to do CAS, mostly by way of the SDBs that are now becoming the backbone of the USA's air interdiction capability, and in an area usually off-limits to legacy aircraft (i.e. a high SAM threat zone, such as that posed by Voskya PVO during the late 80s), though when replacing A-10s it mostly relies on the EOTS system to make up for its shortcomings of an otherwise limited (internal) weapons capacity, lack of a heavy gun and higher top speed in this role, so yes, in A2G it's very much an F-16 equivalent/replacement. You're also quite right that F/B-22 is closer to F-111, but the fact of the matter is that the F-35 has very considerable range thanks to the internal payload, which can be acceptable if dedicated entirely to one role, mostly by virtue of the SDBs that are becoming the backbone of the US's battlefield interdiction capability. Moreover the F-35 can also self-escort, or at the very least needs no other aircraft types in a strike package (although loadouts should really be mixed within a package, with some A2G and some A2A Lighting IIs, as it can't do both very well thanks to the fact it has only 4 internal hardpoints), whereas I doubt an F/B-22 would have the F-35's already-only-middling close-in aerodynamic performance and/or distributed sensor system.
Put simply, the F/B-22 would have been a better choice for deep strike, but with a still-competent strategic aviation force, F-22s to clear the air threats and the B-2s to clear the ground threats, you shouldn't need an F/B-22 to do anything the F-35 can't, which is still exceptionally capable strike at a slightly shorter range and with a probable better self-defensive capability.
Someone, on 24 Feb 2009, 13:36, said:
CommanderJB, on 15 Feb 2009, 23:53, said:
and the 2018 bomber that might have also resulted from the design (even very unlikely as it was to do so) has also been scrapped, so it's virtually certain the F/B-22 will never come to fruition.
Are you sure that 2018 bomber is canceled? Quiet recently I saw an article that outlined USA airforce’s ambitions for the 2018 bomber (though it made no mention about FB-22).
It's cancelled as the '2018 bomber', though it's still on the drawing board for further away.
Quote
Heavy Bombers Hit The Twilight Zone
February 1, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense has told the U.S. Air Force that there will be no more money for developing a new heavy bomber. Not for a while, anyway. That will slowdown the decade long air force effort to get a new heavy bomber, but won't stop it.
Since the late 90s, the air force has been U.S. Air Force is working on a replacement for its current force of heavy bombers (19 B-2s, 67 B-1s and 76 B-52s). Models of what the new bomber might look like have been shown, and the "B-3" (officially the NGB, or New Generation Bomber) looks like the B-2. There were two proposals (from Northrop Grumman and Boeing). Both look like the B-2. For the Northrop Grumman proposal, the main difference is that the stubby wings are "cranked" (moved forward a bit, rather than continuing in a straight line from the body of the aircraft).
These derivative designs were apparently favored because the air force knew it was unlikely to get the money for a radical (and expensive) new design. Now they've been told they won't even get money for a "B-2 Lite." There was also talk of building the B-3 so it could operate with, or without, a crew. The air force had rejected suggestions that the B-3 be a UAV. But now it looks like that may change, as a B-3 UAV would be cheaper, and a future project more likely to get funded.
The air force hoped to get the B-3 into service in by 2018. That is no longer possible, even though the air force has already spent several billion dollars of its money on B-3 development. All is not lost. The B-3 spec called for a smaller and stealthier aircraft that carried a ten ton bomb load (less than half what current heavy bombers haul). This recognizes the efficiency of smart bombs, which are more than a hundred times more effective than unguided bombs.
I suppose my main point is that the F/B-22 died stillborn for very good reasons. There just isn't the demand for it and won't be, with the F/22 covering SEAD/DEAD, the F-35 covering battlefield interdiction/moderate strike (with considerably more versatility) and the B-1B plugging any deep strike gap probably until the NGB finally arrives, at which point it'll probably be a UCAV.
While I haven't seen the article you're referring to, I would guess it's something along these lines:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=395...c=AME&s=TOP
And while it's more recent than the other report, I think the main thing to take out of this one is this line:
Quote
But Catton said Boeing officials see no technological hurdles that would hold up the program.
They
can, but what with the current economy, funding situation and (in my opinion inevitable, and probably quite horrifying when they happen) F-35 program cost rises, I really can't see that they'll be given the cash to do it any time soon. And given delays usually trigger upward cost spirals of more delays and more costs, NGB is fully
technically possible, but fiscally and politically unlikely for quite some time.
Edited by CommanderJB, 24 February 2009 - 08:46.
1
.
.
