FB-22 Update

[Murph]

Lockheed refines FB-22 concept

Company to trade speed and handling for increased range and payload capacity for USAF bomber requirement

Flint Journal 02/14/06

Lockheed Martin's newest designs for a bomber variant of the F/A-22 Raptor show a steady shift in design philosophy to prize range and payload capacity over speed and manoeuvrability.

An initial FB-22 concept revealed in 2001 retained the air-superiority fighter's wing and tails, but stretched and widened its fuselage. This roughly doubled its range and weapons capacity, and retained its Mach 2 maximum speed. A new configuration drafted earlier this year preserves the F/A-22's fuselage, while dramatically expanding the size and changing the shape of its wings. The new design reduces top speed to M1.92, but trebles range and increases total weapons payload to 15,000kg (33,000lb).

Lockheed Martin attributes the design changes largely to concerns about affordability. Further studies of the first FB-22 design showed that changing the fuselage carried heavy cost penalties, including the need to build a separate production line. The new 6g-limited design's clipped-delta wing can be handled within the current assembly process.

The FB-22 is widely viewed as the US Air Force's preferred choice for a proposal to field about 50 bombers with "global reach" from 2015. It was among 23 proposals submitted by industry early last year, and the air force is now devising requirements and a budget strategy for the programme.

The FB-22 will share 85% hardware and software with the USAF's F/A-22 Spiral 5 aircraft. Lockheed Martin's pricing strategy depends on inserting the design into the production line in 2012, two years before the USAF receives its last of 277 planned F/A-22s. The FB-22's cockpit avionics, radar, engine core, fuselage and tails will be common with the Spiral 5 design.

Lockheed Martin plans to bulge each FB-22 weapons bay door to allow a 1,000kg Joint Direct Attack Munition to be installed on each side of the internal bay. The bomber will also be fitted with two 2,270kg-capacity weapons bays on the wing's inboard stations, with each capable of carrying six 250kg Small Diameter Bombs. An outboard station also could be used to carry a fuel tank or stealthy cruise missile, such as an advancedversion of the Lockheed MartinAGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

STEPHEN TRIMBLE / WASHINGTON, DC

[Mark S.]

Gents:

Hope they publish a picture. With the same fuselage a kit-bash might be possible.

FWIW, built multi-wheel base trucks on the same assembly line.

Mark

[Scooby]

Waco a soon to be bomber pilot?

Does this mean he will need some B-52 hours. :)

[Fishwelding]

...aardvark's revenge!...

[DPD1]

So is this a contest, or is Lockheed pretty much a done deal? I know Northrop took back the YF-23 demo from the museum it was at, and they say it's "on loan" to Northrop. Any chance that's part of a design competition? Personally, I would like either. I do think it's good to have a small size dedicated bomber.

Dave

http://www.dpdproductions.com

- Featuring the NEW 'Military Aircraft' Photo CD -

[Waco]

Waco a soon to be bomber pilot?

Ahhhh...no.

[Rapier01]

I'll believe it when I see it. It's going to cost an arm and a leg to design and build this thing, I wonder if it would be easier to come up with a clean sheet design while retaining/leveraging the avionics from the F-22/JSF/J-UCAS designs.

[Slartibartfast]

Okay, so how is this an improvement on B-2s? Don't tell me cost, either. Look at the small procurement. "Global reach"?

[Woodman]

Ummmm....Murph's original article posted appears to be an old article - it first appeared on 04/01/05 at Flight International - probably a reprint, or lazy editor, or a lazy journalist trying to get as much mileage for their efforts.

Link to Flight International

the correct information is this; the FB-22 was effectively KILLED by the latest QDR.....

Battle Damage from the QDR

"USAF will be prohibited from acquiring more than about 183 F-22A fighters, the aircraft USAF considers the heart of future aerial combat. That is about half of the 381 Raptors needed for the minimum deployment of one squadron for each of the service’s 10 air expeditionary forces. The decision kills plans for building an FB-22 bomber, too. In effect, DOD reaffirmed last year’s sudden program cut, though it extended production to 2010. "

and

more of the same

The QDR may be the most reliable public source at this time??

A little birdy from St. Louis dropped these in my inbox.

(ducks and runs)

Edited February 14, 2006 by Woodman

[Rapier01]

According to the new QDR, there is a requirement for a long range penatrating strike capability from 2018 on. While I'm not convinced this FB-22 is the answer, it improved upon the B-2 with it's speed.

Speed+Stealth+Extreme High Altitude= More survivability then Speed or Stealth independent of each other.

In other words, the B-2 has stealth, but that won't be enough against an IADS composed of double digit SAMs.

The QDR: http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf

It's a primary source; of course it's the most reliable document available publically. It's the policy document that's going to shape defense policy for atleast the next 3 years of the Bush admin.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Rapier01

[Fishwelding]

No backseater? Have they finally decided that one gal/guy can do it all her/himself?

[Woodman]

No backseater? Have they finally decided that one gal/guy can do it all her/himself?

Actually - no seat front seater either - it would appear fom the latest news the FB-22 was effectively killed. See links above. <_<

Edited February 14, 2006 by Woodman

[Rapier01]

Probably, but I'm not sure if the long range strike plane will be unmanned. There will be a requirement to replace the B-2 in the future, if this platform is the ticket, it'll need a crew in order to deliver nuclear weapons.

There is the possiblity that it may turn out to a very low observable, high mach, long endurnace manned bomber that fits the bill. It could just as likely be a scaled up J-UCAS type platform if there is no nuclear requirement. But no firm requirements have been set down so far as I know.

[MAC]

QDR and Pentagon budget plans merge to promote new priorities

BY: David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall , Aviation Week & Space Technology

02/14/2006

The proposed Fiscal 2007 defense budget is hammering home what the Quadrennial Defense Review suggested--that long-range strike, unmanned aircraft, tankers and the broad category of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance will be favored for at least the next three years.

Perhaps more importantly, the Pentagon's senior civilian leadership says it will shake up how acquisition money is spent. Instead of leaving program management up to the services, it wants to promote horizontal integration that would put money into capability funding pools and joint portfolios. Later these capabilities would be further integrated across the international community. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England says he doesn't know how exactly it will work, but he's certain that more horizontal control and enterprise-wide management is needed.

The White House is requesting Pentagon spending of $439.3 billion, which marks a 7% increase over what was enacted by Congress last year, including $84.2 billion for weapons procurement and $73.2 billion for research and development, says Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas.

Many in the aerospace industry had been predicting a flat acquisition budget in 2007, with declines of 2-3% in real spending power in subsequent years. They say their prediction hasn't changed. The new budget translates into no significant increase in buying power for warfighting acquisitions. Moreover, unless Congress is willing to continue approving large supplemental budgets to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the money to modernize the military could be significantly reduced.

Nonetheless, the services have juggled priorities to beef up spending in key categories.

The U.S. Air Force has set a goal of increasing its long-range strike (LRS) capabilities by 50% and the penetrating component of long-range strike by a factor of five by 2025, according to QDR documents. It also calls for a new land-based, penetrating LRS capability to be fielded by 2018. About 45% of the future LRS force is to be unmanned.

AT FIRST GLANCE, that would appear to translate into a fleet of 100-105 unmanned, stealthy aircraft. But top-level planning is still murky. Lt. Gen. Stephen G. Wood, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, described LRS as "rapid global strike" (which would mean a high-Mach aircraft or perhaps a missile) during a QDR brief that accompanied a Pentagon USAF budget discussion. During those talks, Maj. Gen. Frank R. Faykes, the deputy assistant Air Force secretary for budget, said Boeing's X-45C technology was being rolled into the LRS program. The X-45C is a stealthy, subsonic, longer endurance aircraft.

Others with insight into the project say the Air Force has learned from its experience with the Predator UAV's ability to find targets and then immediately strike them. The new strike aircraft will combine the endurance, surveillance and attack capabilities with stealth.

The Air Force has dropped out of the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System program. With the stealthy X-45C's technology base now available, and with an unmanned penetrator of J-UCAS size under development by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, there could be the foundation for a LRS competition. Northrop Grumman also has shown a portfolio of concepts that includes unmanned strike aircraft, and has been on contract for classified work in this realm.

A senior Air Force official, who is helping to structure the analysis of alternatives for operational LRS capability by 2018 (to be conducted over the next two years by Booz Allen Hamilton and Air Combat Command), says the mixed message stems from the service's being split into two camps.

"One school wants long persistence [a day or more] as the primary feature," he says. "They're looking at an unmanned aircraft with limited payload and some level of stealth.

"The other is looking at a manned bomber with the range for 4-5 hr. of loiter, but with a heavier payload, Mach 2 speed and very low observability so it can penetrate deep and strike heavily defended targets. They also believe it must be nuclear-capable to replace the B-2, and that means a crew. They want each bomber to be capable of hitting 100 individual targets. Hypersonics and space launch are not players."

Senior aerospace industry officials say their best guess is for the addition of about 50 new unmanned, stealthy strike aircraft that can carry precision weapons. A parallel program will involve a small number of ICBMs with conventional warheads developed for the Precision Global Strike program. The policy issues involved with using ICBMs for conventional strike are still not resolved. There also would be a shrinking core of manned bombers including 56 B-52s, 67 B-1s and 21 B-2s. A committee of senior Pentagon civilians and officers planned to meet late last week to better define the long-range strike program and clear up some of the ambiguities.

Critics of the LRS program say it will dominate the budget for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, companies are already considering revamping their internal operations to snag the potentially lucrative contracts.

There's also some worry that the LRS initiative, coupled with the Air Force's decision to withdraw from J-UCAS, could set up an interservice spat with the Navy. The Navy has long resisted the Air Force's effort to monopolize the "kick down the door" phase of any conflict, insisting that it can do the job with carrier-based strike aircraft and submarine-launched missiles such as Tactical Tomahawk. As the Navy continues to invest in J-UCAS and solidifies its operational requirements for a long-endurance, very low-observable strike version of the unmanned aircraft, the stage is set to pit the Air Force and Navy designs against each other. However, it's possible the Pentagon will go for both systems in small numbers.

Air Force officials also predict release of a request for proposals for a new KC-X tanker program in the fall. A request for information will be released within 90 days. The RFP is expected to encompass the first 100 tankers to replace the service's oldest KC-135Es. They described it as an $8-billion program with $204 million in R&D earmarked for the 2007 budget.

Again, industry officials point out that depending on nonrecurring engineering costs, $8 billion is only half the amount needed to buy 100 tankers and apparently is simply the amount so far approved for the program. They say the long-term purchase of at least 200 aircraft in two separate buys is under consideration.

The F-22A also would benefit: Its production would be extended to 2010 from 2008 with $1 billion in multiyear contract funding, at 20 aircraft per year, to help bridge any gap in production between it and the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. Continuity would prevent loss of skilled production line workers. However, there are still two years to worry about before JSF production ramps up (low-rate production quickly jumps from five to 18 to 55 per year). Right now, the last F-22As are started in 2009 and delivered in 2010-11. Lockheed Martin would like to see the multiyear contract extended to include another 40 aircraft in 2011-12. That would close the company's production gap since initial operation capability for JSF is slated for 2012. Extra F-22s are not in the Air Force's budget plans; however, Faykes says that if the JSF doesn't arrive on time, the Air Force may "revisit" the F-22 program for additional production.

[Woodman]

Here is some "further info on the X-45, 2 billion bucks is nothing to sneeze at, the first X-45 program was around 100 million, and the current X-45C program is probably around a $400 million job......."

Flight International Article

- Birdie in the inbox

<_<

Edited February 15, 2006 by Woodman