FB-22 Concept: ... for the Navy?

Intelgurl who is working out at Creech passed this along to me:

The Lockheed FB-22 concept is apparently still on the drawing table - this time for the US Navy as a stealthy, 2-seat (tandem), A2A, A2G and cyber attack aircraft. This would not replace the new EA-18G Growler but add to the fleet a stealthy electronic attack platform that can get in close to eliminate protected enemy assets.

The new and improved FB-22 concept would also have a different shaped wing from the original FB-22 concept which apparently was unable to supercruise - the revised wing would provide the aircraft with a longer range due to larger fuel tanks aas well as enabling the ability to supercruise.

The new Navy F-22 concept would be armed with an as yet unknown weaponized AESA radar unit, possibly 3 times the power of the current F-22 AESA radar.

The USAF is also eager to get in on the action and is looking into an F-15 version of the EA-18 Growler.

Disclaimer:
These are industry rumors and apparently not substantiated in print. However, it IS an industry rumor and is therefore newsworthy to the ATS Aircraft forum.

[edit on 10/16/2007 by bios]

FB-23 allready , they should stop fiddling with the F-22 and leave it be

The new Navy F-22 concept would be armed with an as yet unknown weaponized AESA radar unit, possibly 3 times the power of the current F-22 AESA radar.

3 times the power of the F-22 AESA!
And 'weaponised AESA' sounds like its a NBC agent!

This is extremely interesting news Bios, as there would appear to be a hole in the USN current force structure now that the F-14 is gone. In addition the attack role has in some ways lacked the heavy punch element since the demise of the A-6E. I for one have felt that something like this was sorely needed, especially if it can prove capable in the long range A2A area. Seems the threat of the likes of China has finnaly stirred the Admirals out of their slumber.

The high power electronic attack abillity would suggest that the the AESA will have a fairly generous array dimension and(or) very high T/R module power output. It would also be safe to assume that chin arrays would be used as well.

I am not surprised that the USAF is showing renewed interest in EA platforms either and the F-15 is a logical choice. Who knows maybe the USAF and USN may combine ideas to develop a common core FB-22 derivative to suit the long range A2A, A2G and EA roles for both services?

LEE.

This ought'a be good-lookin'!

How long is it likely to take (assuming that this rumour was true) to get such an aircraft onto the catapults? I'm glad to see that the F-14-ish role is coming back into play, but there's still a gap that's going to have to be filled. And, sorry, guys, but I don't think that even the Super Fries fills that role.

The F-22 is in production now, thats why theirs the talk of FB-22...since they would use several of the same components...unlike if they were to make a FB-23.

thebozeian - dont forget about the F-35C

reply to post by Murcielago


I think something that alot of people over look is the number of changes the F-22 went throught from prototype to production. If you look a fair number of F-23 like attributes where incorperated into the current F-22. its alot closer to the F-23 then it is different now.

To navalize a plane may make it cost prohibative unless it has design elements from the start. The JSF which has a navy version incorporated this in the design phase. To adapt a F-22 to a carrier worthy configuration would take alot of $$$$$$ that the Iraq war has drained away.

That being said the Navy has pissed away multiple chances to get into stealth such as the F-117N and the A-12 Avenger II so who knows they may want more than the JSF

Tbh the F14 was the perfect fast strike platform. It was designed to carry phoenix missles and do high speed interceptions with them. Just replace the phoenix missles with jdams or maybe gbu's and you have a excellent quik response fighter bomber. Imagine this in a say 1995 setting. You send in a F14 with 2 phoenix, 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams and 2 gbu's to bomb a target that has to be bombed asap but which is in a area with a large number of enemy aircraft.

An FB22 or something similair could also fill that role and even better.

reply to post by tomcat ha


I guess the question to pose would be if the current F-22 with its belly bays can mix SBD's with AMRAAM

For navy you fool! How many budget does DoD has!

No any 4th generation fighter was down during the Gulf War, why need too sophisticated weapon system while current F-18, and the JSF could handle the task! And UCAV too!

USAF is thinking to reduce the cost by eliminate un-affordable program, that´s why the MRF was canceled. And now they are thinking to use more UCAV and missile in the future. Missile is very effective while UCAV is an affordable and reliable system. And they are both cost far cheaper than current manned aircraft programs like Raptor or even JSF.

DoD budget for fighter procurement

[edit on 04/23/2008 by Eastpolar Commander]

Originally posted by FredT
To navalize a plane may make it cost prohibative unless it has design elements from the start.

+1


Yet again - looks like the navy have f**ked up their appropriations.

Why would it need to be carrier capable? Yes it would be somewhat of a limitation but for a large aircraft with long range, speed ect... it can be land based a la P-3.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would it need to be carrier capable? Yes it would be somewhat of a limitation but for a large aircraft with long range, speed ect... it can be land based a la P-3.

For the Navy? You serious?


If it can't run off a carrier, whats the point?


The Navy has 2 jobs, (a) protect friendly shipping and (b)project power on/from the seas.


(a) The P-3 can do one from land-based stations - the S-3 can do it from the carrier deck.


(b) needs shipborne equipment. A land-based fighter won't cut it.

reply to post by kilcoo316


Of course I understand that but if this aircraft turns out to be essentially a new tactical fighter bomber (EF/BF-111 remake, with an A2A truck side job), then it's plausible. With a range of 3,000 plus miles, super cruise and inflight refueling it could compliment the carrier based strike force from land. Based at forward deployed US bases around the globe, it can work. Think of the international market, Cold War II looks a little warm right now.

The Navy is going to have plenty of procurement/budgetary problems just replacing old hulls; there is talk of dropping the F-35 for more hulls in the water. They don't have room in the budget for a F-22 adaption even if it was feasible, which I'm not convinced it would be.

And the USAF won't surrender it's Key West Agreement rights to the Navy on a land-based strike fighters. Even if they did, fleet CAP would have to be shipborne. You might as well have the whole package originate from the fleet.

Boeing had just received $175 millions to develop the aerial refueling for the J-UCAS, which developed by using the X-45 as the basis. If this program successful, then it means the UCAV will have unlimited operation range, the ´prompt global strike´ will be the real deal. Why we need such an FB to win the war, btw, Lockheed Martin now is ongoing to develop a sub-marine based UCAV called cormorant.

[edit on 04/23/2008 by Eastpolar Commander]