Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-22 basic design flaw and stupid band aid
Adamantine    1/12/2005 6:24:20 AM
Actually F-22 has some glaring design flaw that is not being address even after so many years of testing. Right from the beginning, its payload stealthy internal payload is TOO SMALL. The internal weapon carriage is too short. It should be design to carry missile that is at least 4.2 meter long instead of 3.7 meter long. The extra length permit the carrying of 4 to 5 HARM as well as RAMJET version of HARM. A future super long range AAM with ramjet weighing 800 pounds could also be carried. Due to the end of cold war, USAF is unlikely to be outnumbered greatly in any fight, neither is USAF going to face too many small MIG-29. What USAF will face is a SMALLER number of more advance aircraft like SU-30/35/37 and MIG-31 as well as possibly Rafale and Eurofighter in rare situation. Meaning you dun need to carry 6xsmall AAM (aka 345 pound AMRAAM). Its better to carry bigger longer range missile in smaller number. By lengthening the basic F-22A by another 0.5meter (50cm), you can carry 4-5 ramjet HARM or RAMJET long range AAM and also JSSAM (without modification to shorten it). Right mow there is lots of talk about SSB etc and 1000 pound JDAM. The real reason for such need is because many weapons are DESIGNED around the inherent LIMITATION of the miserly weapon carriage of f-22. Its like applying BAND AID to a flawed design. Smaller missile and bomb=smaller range, less powerful missile radar and less powerful bomb or less bomb or less missile !! You can carry far more interesting weapon load by lengthening the carriage by 50cm and maybe increasing the height by 10 to 15 cm. Such modification is FAR smaller than the modification required for producing the far more bigger and expensive FB-22 which has a different wing shape and aerodynamic. By lengthening the basic F-22a weapon bay, the fuslage will be corresponding bigger and longer, so is the wing and wing area. Lift can be improved and internal fuel can increase by another 3500 to 6000 pound due to bigger wings fuel tank and longer fuselage. I am sure fuel fraction will go up marginally as well as lift to drag ratio. You dun increase the size of the nose, pit or air intake. A slight increase in wing span will increase drag only slighly but the corresponding higher lift conpensate for it !! As if this advantage is not enough, the slightly lengthened F-22 can also have a longer side internal weapon bay which currently can only carry the 3 meter AIM-9X. I am sure some clever engineering can increase the length to 3.66m and enable it to carry AMRAAM phaseIV missile or the future AARDM (advance air breathing dual range missile) missile. With the AADRM, the is no more need for AIM-9x and AMRAAM. AADRM is about 3.7 meter long and 8 inch in diameter, roughly same weight as Meteor. Its NO ESCAPE ZONE is significantly higher than METEOR and its manevrability is same or better than most short range AAM like AIM-9X, Archer or even Python 5 or IRIS-T. With the above mention modification, a basic F-22A could carry internally in clean configuration 2xAADRM (dual range, inclusive of short and medium range, missile). The main carriage can carry 4 to 6 10 inch diameter wingless super long range 800 pound ramhet AAM missile, probably longer range than the Novator KS-172, maybe 500km) Now most of you would ARGUE that stealth fighter dun need long range AAM as you can engage opponent at medium range since you are largely invisible until 40km or so. I argue otherwise. Improvement in IR imaging seeker and IRST technology as well as large scale employemnty of Ultra Wide band (UWB) AESA radar would in SU-37 , RAFALE second iteration and tranch2 and tranch3 Eurofighter would enable these 4.5 generation aircraft to detect F-22 at far longer range than what 3rd generation aircraft could manage. The radar technology of let say SU-37/Rafae RBE2 and let say a basic su-27 or mig-29 or mirage 2000 is VERY GREAT. Hence its safer to engage your enemy at longer range. Now the next argument. Some may say that the 185-250 km range of AADRM (about 450-500 pound) is suffice and there is no need for a 800 pound AAM. Again I beg to differ. A larger missile can carry a more powerful miniature AESA radar couple to an LIDAR or IR optic for better acquisition capability against stealthy target or target with powerful and advance JAMMER. You need more signal processing too. This entail more electronic and larger or more DSP chip running in parallel. A missile maximum range is its THEORITICAL range against a incoming slow moving and non maneuvrable traget like a TRANSPORT or AWAC. Against supercruise capable plane at high speed and flying away from you, you need missile that can out run the opponent plane. This shoten the effective range of your missile. As a RULE, the NON EXCAPE ZONE (NEZ) of a missile is MUCH shorter than its maximum range. NEZ is probably only 25% of max range. Hence a AIM-120A has a NEZ of probabl
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Aussiegunner1    RE:F-22 basic design flaw and stupid band aid   1/12/2005 6:39:21 AM
I don't really think the F-22A is going to need more than the standard AMRAAM to whup any non-stealthy design in the sky. The enemy would have to detect the F-22A at beyond the AMRAAM's >50km range for bigger missiles for the F-22 to be justified. Given the success of stealth in its predecessor(in the stealth sense) and stablemate, the F-117, I don't see that happening with the radars of the type you mention. As for IRST, I am sceptical about their ability to search for targets without cueing from an onboard or offboard radar, given that the nature of optical devices is that longer range means a narrower search area. In any case, stealth aircraft like the F-22 have IR signature reduction as well as RCS signature reduction, a point often forgotten in these discussions. As for the great power of the F-22's radar, that is more so that it can search a large area for enemy aircraft and cruise missiles, then intercept them using supercruise, far away from any aircraft or surface assets it is protecting. The fact that it might be able to guide longer range missiles is not really relevant. However, I will say that being able to lob 4000 versus 2000lb worth of A2G ordinance would be an asset worth having and would go a long way towards turning the thing into a true multi-role. However, it would still be too expensive to replace other multi-roles, like the F-16 and F-18 and given that they are cutting the current orders, it isn't going to happen now.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:F-22 basic design flaw and stupid band aid   1/12/2005 8:05:26 AM
I agree that longer & deeper bays would've been nice, but a redesign of that nature would be expensive. We're having a hard enough time buying the aircraft as is.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:F-22 basic design flaw and stupid band aid   1/12/2005 1:08:46 PM
Adamantine made some very valid points and I tend to agree with his view . I does make a lot of sense . To increase the NEZ is "THE" thing you look for when designing an Interceptor , which is the main purpose of the F-22 . Stealth is not "cloaking" neor invisibility . Closer you are from the target , better the chance is to be detected . To add 1/2m to F-22 shouldn 't be too hard to archive without rising the overall cost . MICA , which is an AADRAM , will soon be available in Ramjet configuration . That will greatly increase the missile range so its NEZ . What it means is RAFALE second iteration ~in theory~ could be able to detect F-22 and fire at it before being in range of F-22 's AA missiles . So , increasing the lenght and depth of F-22 's bays is sound . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:F-22 basic design flaw and stupid band aid   1/12/2005 1:44:50 PM
"To add 1/2m to F-22 shouldn 't be too hard to archive without rising the overall cost ." Doing anything major (airframe changes are major) to the F-22, when the overall production run is only 180 airframes, probably won't happen. At 24-30 per year, the full run will be done by the time a modified airframe was ready for production. If we were talking about 500-700 aircraft, then it might be worthwhile. Besides, Meteor (and the US BVRAAM competitor) is the same length as AMRAAM and probably would fit in the F-22 bay. Also, AIM-120D is said to have a 50% greater range than late model -120Cs, and a supercruising Raptor supposedly give significant range increases to AAMs, compared to a subsonic or transonic counterpart. So if stealth detecting radars become a problem, the existing F-22 can be upgraded with longer-ranged AAMs.
 
Quote    Reply

Adamantine    Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 1:49:50 PM
Although the modification cost money, it GREALTLY increase the EFFECTIVENESS of F-22 as a interceptor and CAS bomber. If by increasing the cost by 15-20% you could increase its effectiveness under stealthy configuration by 50 to 100% , why not? In REALITY the new lengthen F-22 will be EVEN CHEAPER !! Sound like paradox right?? No it isnt. A much better F-22 internal load will greatly enhance its air to air and air to ground capability and with a higher BENEFIT TO COST ration, you can JUSTIFIED replacing F-15E, some F-35 and many F-16 and BUILD 700 F/B-22A. By increasing the F-22 procure, the unit cost is reduced. RIGHT NOW F-22A has too many INCURABLE flaws. You dun produce 700 F-22A with only 3200 pound payload in stealthy configuration !!! You cannot blame the Pentagon for cutting the number of such low payload and expensive fighter. But you cannot live without air dominace. So how? Lengthen it. That the cheapest, most logical and intelligent decision. No question about it. BUT I am sure the airforce has no gut or no fund for it. Thats reality. Or maybe the have 200 super F-23 in Nevada undeground base and the huge amount of money spend on F-22 is only A COVERUP. hahahhahah Sound logical. I dun think you need 40-50 billion to develop F-22. when it fly in 1990, most of the tech is already invented. You dun need another 40 Billion to improve the plane marginally and bring it to productin standard. Where is all this money? Maybe spend in building some MACH 3.5 super cruise monster. hahah Have fun brainstorming. Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

JWCook    RE:Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 4:55:50 PM
have you considered what would happen to the supersonic wave drag this 'only 0.5m' might have!!. You may turn your supercruiser to a supsonic cruiser!!. The devils in the detail!, and apparently minor changes can have dramiatic effects. Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

god of war    RE:Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 4:58:44 PM
If you change the shape, won't you lose the stealth? The F-22 was designed the way it was for a reason. It had to be fast and manuverable and stealth. It was never a bomber, its a air to air plane.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 5:03:49 PM
The F/A-22 will have Small Diameter Bombs. At least 8 internally. These bombs have the penetration of 2000lb class weapons. F/A-22 can carry JSOW/JSSM/JDAM. That is plenty of firepower.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 5:05:15 PM
Also why would advances in technology not apply to weapons as well. Future weapons would be smaller and more lethal.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Its CHEAPER to increase length than do nothing!!   1/12/2005 5:08:45 PM
The F-22 can't carry JSOW or JASSM internally (though there is talk of a mini-JASSM that would fit in the F-22 bays)
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics