ComNavOps has stated that the role of the carrier, today, is to provide escort for cruise missile shooting Burkes and to establish localized, long range, air superiority. This requires a dedicated, optimized, long range air superiority fighter and, unfortunately, we have no such aircraft. Many people have suggested a navalized F-22 and, while that would be a distinct improvement over what we have now, it would still only be a stopgap measure with shortcomings.
An even better near term option would be a navalized hybrid of the F-22 and F-15 (the F2215?). The F-22’s stealth and air-to-air (A2A) prowess combined with the F-15’s incredible combat radius of over a thousand miles[1] would make for a pretty good long range, air superiority fighter until we could develop a truly optimized fighter.
Here’s a few considerations.
Role. This is where every US military acquisition program goes off the rails on day one. The US military simply can’t resist making every asset a multi-role, do-everything, win-the-war-singlehanded, piece of unaffordable, unachievable crap that takes several decades to field. This aircraft is an air superiority fighter and nothing more than that. Not a single piece of equipment can be added that doesn’t directly support the main and only mission: air superiority. No strike-fighter. No EW. No surveillance. No buddy tanking. No mid-course guidance, hand off to a Boy Scout in Montana. No mini-AEW. Just air superiority. That’s it. That’s all. Just that. Air superiority.
Going a step further, this is just for the Navy. No Air Force version with modifications. No Marine jump jet version. Just the Navy.
Size. Almost by definition, a very long range, heavily armed fighter is going to be fairly large. The F-22 and F-15 are both the same size as the F-14 which we operated routinely off carriers so that degree of size is not an issue.
|
|
Length, ft |
Width, ft |
|
F-14 Tomcat |
63 |
38 (swept) 64 (spread) |
|
F-22 Raptor |
62 |
44 |
|
F-15 Eagle |
64 |
43 |
|
F-18 Super Hornet |
60 |
44 (spread) 31 (folded) |
Add folding wings to the F-22 and F-15 and their parked footprint width drops from around 44 ft to around 30 ft which is well within flight deck spotting requirements.
Thus, our notional F-2215 fighter would have a spot footprint of 64 ft x 30 ft, virtually identical to the F-18E/F which is 60 ft x 44 ft (31 ft folded).
Combat Radius. The F-15 has outstanding combat radius for current fighter aircraft and that’s the point of merging it with the F-22. I don’t know what gives the F-15 its great range (conformal fuel tanks / FAST pack?) but whatever it is we need to merge it into the F-22. Note, however, that even that range is inadequate, longer term. While a thousand mile range sounds impressive and useful, it’s not. If all you want to do is to travel a thousand miles and then instantly turn around and return to base, that’s fine. However, presumably, we want to get there and stay while we engage in A2A combat. We want to have enough fuel left to ‘turn and burn’ for a while. Thus, that thousand mile combat radius is actually only 500-800 miles or so if we want to retain enough fuel to hang around and fight. Long term, we need a fighter with a true thousand mile combat radius which includes A2A combat time at a thousand miles. That, however, is a development for the next fighter.
Weapons. Obviously, we want as many weapons as possible especially against stealth aircraft where many missile shots will miss. Below are some possible max weapon loadouts for reference to give some idea of what current max loadouts are. It would be desirable to be able to carry around 12 A2A missiles of various types and the loadouts below show that to be within the realm of possibility although restricting ourselves to internal carry may reduce that to 8-10 weapons.
|
|
Possible Max Weapons Load |
|
F-14 Tomcat |
6x Phoenix + 2x Sidewinder |
|
F-22 Raptor |
6x AMRAAM + 2x Sidewinder (all internal) |
|
F-15 Eagle |
8x AMRAAM |
|
F-18 Super Hornet |
12x AMRAAM |
Stealth. The F-22 is the stealthiest operational fighter in the world so … good enough!
Maneuverability. The F-22 is the most maneuverable operational fighter in the world so … good enough!
Speed. The F-22 is capable of supercruise, however, it is not clear to me that extremely high speed is all that tactically useful. If very high speed can be achieved without added cost, weight, or complexity then do it. If not, leave it out and go with cheaper, lighter, simpler … you know, the characteristics that should be the creed of aircraft design.
Sensors. US acquisition programs inevitably fall apart because we constantly try to concurrently develop non-existent technology as we enter production. We need the best sensors currently operational and nothing more. By all accounts the F-22 sensors are more than adequate so … good enough!
Development. Conceptually, merging the F-22 and F-15 is easy and straightforward. The airframe is already proven to work. No development needed, there. After that, it’s just a matter of packaging the internal components. It is mandatory, however, to mature the design at the prototype level before committing to production and then to hold the design to zero changes during the production run. That’s how you build an affordable aircraft (see, “How To Build A Better Aircraft”).
Summary
The Navy desperately needs a dedicated, long range, air superiority fighter and a conceptual merging of the F-22 and F-15 would provide an excellent near to medium term solution if it could be fielded within a 3-5 year period and we’ve already referenced exactly how to do that and this should be even easier as everything already exists – it’s just a packaging exercise.
The F-2215 fills the immediate need while we develop the truly optimized, longer term solution.
___________________________________
Note: Yes, I'm perfectly aware that an adapted F2215 would need beefed up landing gear, tail hook, corrosion resistance, low speed landing, etc. Those are the nitty-gritty details for the engineers to deal with. We're working at the concept level.
___________________________________
[1]Wikipedia, “McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle”, retrieved 20-Jan-2023,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Specifications_(F-15C)
“Combat range: 1,061 nmi (1,221 mi, 1,965 km) for interdiction mission”
Much easier to build F-24 Tomcat (navalized stealth version of F-14)
ReplyDeleteThe F-14 people and construction equipment are all gone whereas the F-22 equipment is in storage and there may be some people still around.. In addition, the F-22 is a proven design whereas the F-24 was a concept not an actual design.
DeleteThe entire swing wing is a dead end. It's not necessary. We can land on carriers without needing a swing wing and we can build highly maneuverable aircraft without it.
Watch this and understand why the F-15 Sea Eagle wasn't successful https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FMsRkPITBLg
DeleteThat's a worthless video. It offers no relevant information. No one is talking about taking an exact F-15 and putting it on a carrier. Any aircraft being adapted for carrier use would require beefed up landing gear, slow approach speed, corrosion resistance, a suitable hook, folding wings, etc. The video could have made valid points about any of these factors but it didn't.
DeleteThat said, there is no reason why a purpose designed MODIFICATION of a land aircraft couldn't be perfectly suitable for carrier use. It simply needs carrier requirements designed in from the beginning.
Are entire swing wings dead end? Don't think so. It'd be interesting for you to compare the maneuverability of the F-14 with entire swing wings vs F-15 folded wings. Also read this. https://www.quora.com/Have-the-F-15C-and-F-14-ever-competed-in-air-battles-Who-won/answer/John-Chesire?ch=10&share=92bdf1a0&srid=zOCN
DeleteYou are describing an stealthy F-16. Small, light, high fuel fraction, and hopefully cheap so we can build the thousands we will need in a war! Stealth has been expensive in the past but maybe the volume will bring the cost down. And although it should not be developed as a joint aircraft, if it is cheap, small, etc. You can use Naval Aircraft from shore bases and possibly sell them (non stealth skin variants) to other countries. And DO NOT do the Navy Marketing exercise and designate it an F/A-2215 call it an F-2215. Designations and words matter this should be a FIGHTER.
ReplyDeleteI suspect an F-16 derivation would not work due to the small size. We're looking for a VERY long range fighter with a VERY heavy weapons load. If you can fit the range and weapons into a F-16 (internal carry for stealth), great, but I don't think so.
DeleteYou're describing something not too far from a Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon. Probably quite a formidable aircraft with the latest engines. Fast, long range, lots of carrying capacity and highly maneuverable.
DeleteProbably "low observable" rather than truly stealthy, but so would a hybrid F-22/F-15 be with the large missile load out you want.
Note that a lot of the F-22 tooling and documentation is missing, and pretty much everyone feels that a restart of the production line is simply not achievable. One of the big problems with the F-22 is the avionics were hard-wired into the aircraft rather than being modular, so upgrades are very hard to do. This is a 30 year old aircraft, and a lot of the systems are obsolete and would have to be completely rethought and redesigned for modern production.
A naval J-20 with the latest US stealth/propulsion/avionics/EW technology would be fairly close to perfect for the missions you have in mind.
"with the large missile load out you want."
DeleteThe missile load would have to be all internal for max stealth.
"Note that a lot of the F-22 tooling and documentation is missing, "
I posted on an F-22 restart of the production line and all the equipment and docs have been stored for that exact possibility. Unless you have documentation to the contrary, the documentation I've seen states it's all available in storage.
"a lot of the systems are obsolete and would have to be completely rethought and redesigned for modern production."
Of course! That's just a packaging exercise. Again, we're not talking and exact, rivet for rivet duplication of the F-22. We're talking about taking the F-22 as the design basis, changing as little as possible while adding in the F-15 aspects and upgrading whatever electronics have better options today. In other words, a 70% complete F-22 with some repackaging to do.
The AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) is around the size of an AMRAAM. I think you would do well if you could get 8 internally, plus you would probably want a couple of Sidewinders for close-in self defense.
DeleteThe AIM-260 is badly needed to counter Chinese PL-15s which significantly out-range current AMRAAMs.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43235/testing-of-air-forces-secretive-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile-is-now-well-underway
The "War on the rocks" article on restarting F-22 production in the link below is very good.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/out-of-time-do-not-revive-the-f-22/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-americas-stealth-f-22-raptor-america-cant-19420
https://tacairnet.com/2016/04/19/congress-just-asked-the-air-force-to-look-into-restarting-f-22-production/
https://www.defenceaviation.com/why-did-the-united-states-stop-f-22-production-could-lockheed-martin-restart-the-production-line/
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-us-cant-restart-production-of-f22-stealth-fighter-2021-6
"The AIM-260 is badly needed to counter Chinese PL-15s which significantly out-range current AMRAAMs."
DeleteI don't know how many more times I can say this. It doesn't matter if you have a million mile range missile if you can't provide a target lock. When we're looking at low observable and/or full stealth aircraft, no one is going to get a target lock at the range of the missile. Stealth vs stealth air combat is going to devolve into short range, visual combat.
Here's a post on F-22 restart costs: "F-22 Restart"
Every new fighter out there is planned to be used to forward targeting information for those following. Not just radar, but IRST which will also give you a weapons grade track. Yes, the first group is going to have to close to 15-18 miles for stealth targets, and call it 25 miles for low-observable. But everyone else gets to use the targeting information from the initial group. Exactly the reason they are putting better and better radars into missiles.
DeletePretty much the opposite to a "time on target" attack. This means the trailing aircraft can successfully launch long range missiles without getting anywhere near their targets.
Having similar or better missile ranges helps protect high-value assets like AWACS or tankers that need to stay in the rear. AWACS from both sides can paint each other, and you better hope you have adequate missile range to keep the opposition at bay.
"As well as the new missile itself, the Air Force is meanwhile busy working on other measures to extend the range at which enemy aircraft can be engaged in the air. This includes fielding new and more capable sensors, such as powerful active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and infrared search and track systems.
Then there is the work on collaborative aerial engagements, including using networked and third-party sensors to provide targeting data for engagements without the launching aircraft locking the target up themselves. Recent exercises have focused on these types of complex ‘kill chain’ engagements, while the range at which the existing AMRAAM is being employed, in tests at least, is also increasing."
"This is a 30 year old aircraft, and a lot of the systems are obsolete and would have to be completely rethought and redesigned for modern production."
DeleteSo, not arguing for or against anything in particular here, but maybe just making a ponderable observation (??) Even though many of the F-22s systems may be old enough to be considered obsolete, are they?? Isnt the F-22 arguably, today, the best in the world?? So if we were to build a brand new copy of the newest version of the F-22 tomorrow, is it at any real disadvantage besides being "not new"???
Im not saying we should, and this doesnt address the post topic, but I was struck by the thought that we would build somthing cleen sheet when theres no real need, especially if time and numbers matter...
ComNavOps - "I suspect an F-16 derivation would not work due to the small size."
DeleteThis is the same mistake people though of the F-16 becuase they did not look at fuel fraction. The F-16 has better range than the much larger F-15.
I am not saying use the exact size of the F-16, but use the principles that made it the most prodcued fighter in modern times.
Size does NOT matter, fuel fraction does. Big enough to carry the missiles you want but do not sacrifice the fuel fraction. Also in a missile platform pursuit speed does not matter becuase you will have patrols established. So make the engine smaller and forget the MACH 1+ requirement. Also go to a single engine. The Navy has driven their A/C cost up by demanding 2 engines. What is the failure rate on modern Jet Engines? Apply that to the mission profile and compute the probability of mission failure due to the engine.
Let's not be like NAVSEA and forget everything we knew about how to make ships. The F-18, which is superior to the F-14, was based on the desgin principles of the F-16 until service rivalaries and politics got into the procurement decision. NAVAIR can remain smarter than NAVSEA.
"but I was struck by the thought that we would build somthing cleen sheet when theres no real need, especially if time and numbers matter.."
DeleteSpot on!
"The F-16 has better range than the much larger F-15."
Delete???? Not in any reference I've seen. Do you have a link that supports that?
"Im not saying we should, and this doesnt address the post topic, but I was struck by the thought that we would build somthing cleen sheet when theres no real need, especially if time and numbers matter..."
DeleteThe electronics would have to be completely redone as much of the systems are no longer available even at a component level. Have you tried to buy a Pentium processor recently? A similar problem with 1980s military electronics...
The engines are EOL and not particularly efficient by today's standards, so you would be fitting something new. The stealth coatings are very high maintenance which contributes to the outrageous cost per flight hour.
The Airforce freely acknowledges that the F-22 is short of range and carrying capacity for a fight in IndoPac, which is one of the reasons for NGAD.
The tooling and instructions for the F-22 were supposed to be stored for future use, but when maintainers went to open the CONNEXes, many of them were empty. So you are up against that in addition to the very significant costs involved in restarting a production line that no longer exists. The RAND study figured it would take $50 billion to build another 175 F-22s, and that was before they found out that much of the tooling was missing. Obviously you can take those numbers with a grain of salt as there are vested interests involved, but regardless it would be a bucketful of cash and a whole lot of time to resurrect what is already a 30+ year old aircraft.
Below is a pretty good link to the issues involved. You could build a modernized F-22, but it would be neither quick nor cheap. If you want to build an F-22/F-15 hybrid, you might well be better off starting with a clean sheet of paper.
Far too much US military hardware is very dated by the time it enters service. Why add to that problem when you are up against an enemy that is building equipment that is at least a ten years newer design or in many cases twenty years newer?
The big problem is the huge gap between deciding something new is needed and actually getting it into service. It never used to be that way, and that is the real problem that needs fixing, not just another half-baked work around. IMO.
"A new F-22 would require numerous changes in processing, capabilities, and software coding, all of which would require test and evaluation. All of this makes the timeline a deal-breaker. If you need more proof, look no further than the F-22 increment 3.1 update. It took five years to develop the software and another five years since fielding began, though it’s still not in all six operational F-22 squadrons. That’s ten years and counting. Now envision the time of re-building an aircraft."
"Beyond the avionics, the only things warranting improvement in a new F-22 are range and payload. Those also happen to be the only two things that can’t be changed, thanks to the mold-line restriction inherent in maintaining any semblance of stealth. Addressing these limitations broaches the FB-22 concept, further fragments the discussion, and starts looking more like an entirely new aircraft."
https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/out-of-time-do-not-revive-the-f-22/
"The electronics would have to be completely redone"
DeleteYou seem to be laboring under several misconceptions. Let's start with this one. Of course the electronics would have to be updated. You pull the old computer out and install a new one that is smaller and more powerful. Where's the problem? You word this as if replacing electronics is some kind of show stopping effort. It's a cheap, simple, quick improvement.
"engines ... fitting something new."
Again, where's the problem? It's just a packaging exercise. You select the best available engine that fits in the allotted space, make the necessary pluming/wiring connections and you're done.
"when maintainers went to open the CONNEXes, many of them were empty."
I've never seen that. Do you have a reference?
"it would be a bucketful of cash and a whole lot of time to resurrect what is already a 30+ year old aircraft."
It would take a thousand times more bucketfuls of cash to design, develop, and build a brand new aircraft. The F-35 is proof of that. This 30 year old aircraft is the best in the world. Where's the problem?
"Far too much US military hardware is very dated by the time it enters service. Why add to that problem"
This may be the biggest misconception you have. You're treating this as if it's the ultimate answer to our military needs for the next millennia. It's not! This is a stopgap effort to provide an IMMEDIATE partial solution BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE AVAILABLE AND IT WOULD TAKE US DECADES TO DESIGN, DEVELOP, AND BUILD A BRAND NEW AIRCRAFT. Again, the F-35 is proof of that. This is a short term, rapidly fielded, stopgap solution. Stop trying to apply ultimate criteria to a stopgap solution. Do you have a better solution that will get us an 80% answer fielded in 3-5 years?
"software coding ... makes the timeline a deal-breaker."
Again, a major misconception. If we make the sofware a do-everything, drone controlling, mid-course guidance of every weapon in our inventory, ISR, EW, air-to-ground, maintenance/logistics (ALIS) piece of bloated software crap then, yes, it's a timeline deal breaker. On the other hand, if we limit the software to locking on the target and firing an AMRAAM or Sidewinder, we can have the software done in a week (hyperbole). Don't fall for the do-everything (and it will be ready in four decades) software paradigm we currently have. It's wrong!
"range and payload. Those also happen to be the only two things that can’t be changed,"
Completely incorrect. Modern engines, alone, would improve range and fuel efficiency. It may or may not be possible to fit conformal tanks somewhere which, if possible, would improve range. Weapons are already coming on line which have smaller sizes and can fit more in a given internal bay. The F-35 is an example of making modified launchers and smaller weapons and increasing the payload of its bay.
The F-22 uses a fully integrated avionics system dating from the 1980s. It uses very specific hardware, much of it no longer available. If you can't source the correct components, you are in for a huge re-write of the code required to run it. The F-22 uses Ada, with assembly for the drivers to interface with the hardware, and I understand there is also some C and C++ in the mix. If you want to simplify this, then you no longer have a F-22. You have something else that is simpler and less capable than an F-22. I spent a long time in software development/test/deployment and have a pretty good grasp of the issues. This is NOT trivial for something as complex as a Raptor
DeletePlease read this reference. It explains the systems clearly and also shows that you need to get to Block 4 to even be able to fire an AIM-9X. They are currently struggling to get Block 3.1 fully rolled out into the field.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
Also please note that Ada programmers do not grow on trees. Its a specialized language largely used by the DoD.
New engines are far from a packaging exercise. See the B-52 re-engining program for reference. The interfaces from the engines to the rest of the aircraft systems are hugely different from the original 1980s systems to modern ones.
end part 1
part 2
DeleteI gave you the empty CONEX reference a few posts ago. Here it is again.
"The first problem is that while Lockheed and the Air Force supposedly made every effort to carefully squirrel away the tooling and instructions for building the F-22, problems have emerged when maintenance crews have attempted to pull the equipment in order to repair damaged jets.
One recently retired Air Force official with direct knowledge about the service’s efforts to repair two damaged Raptors said that they faced severe difficulties with retrieving the correct tooling. In one example, Air Force maintainers needed to build a particular component from scratch to replace a severely damaged part for an F-22. The crews went into the Conex boxes where the tooling and instructions to build the part were allegedly stored, but to their considerable surprise and aggravation, the container was empty. The same pattern repeated itself several times—and as of the last time the source checked–the issue remains unresolved. The bottom line is that even if the Air Force wanted to, it may not be physically possible to restart the line—at least not without a huge additional investment in time and money."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-big-problem-americas-stealth-f-22-raptor-america-cant-19420
You seem to feel that a Frankenstein F15/F22 would be fast and easy. Reality is that both aircraft are hugely complex and merging them would be a nightmare. To the point that a clean sheet of paper would probably be much easier. Its critical to realize that it has taken 10 years to get the Block 3.1 upgrades for the Raptor from initial design to squadron service, and they are not fully deployed yet. Ten years!!!!
Its also vital to understand that stealth is a function of math. It a major reason that everyone's light and middle-weight stealth aircraft all look somewhat the same. The math demands it. The rules change a bit once you get into the heavy-weight area, which explains the B-2/B-21, but they are also less stealthy than their smaller brother too.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/out-of-time-do-not-revive-the-f-22/
Finally, you can't just fit CFTs without screwing up stealth. The math doesn't allow it. And as far as weapons go, and AIM-260 is about the size of an AMRAAM, and a Sidewinder is a Sidewinder so there is not much give there without building a significantly larger aircraft.
This comes back to the core problem. We can't design even a single-purpose aircraft in a timely manner. See the Century Series for reference. So we're scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for kludges that might work. I'm pretty sure you have more than one post on exactly this issue, but I haven't gone digging for them.
Meanwhile the Chinese are building J-20s with the new WS-15 engines just as fast as they can, and the consensus seems to be that their primary role in life is dealing with US CSGs. About the same as a Type 052D or a Type 055 vs a 1970s Burke.
So I do understand that things cant happen overnight, and the F-22 restart subject is beaten to death. But, here's my big problem with most of it: we've all been using recent past performance for benchmarks and timelines. Accepted it as the norm. Looked at design and development times in years, instead of months. And "the norm" isnt really acceptable. (This applies to pretty much EVERY program, from planes to ships to infantry kit)
DeleteTheres been no urgency in design, development, or procurement since the Cold War. The "F-teen" programs were some of the last things weve done with reasonable timelines. So in my mind, if this country decided it truly needed somthing yesterday, it could happen. In spite of recent performance, I believe this country still has the best and brightest, theyre just mismanaged. If we decided on an F-22 restart (or an F-2215), and gathered all the engineers, electricians, software guys, etc, and said, "Heres the old plans and specs. I need a new blueprint and materials list of it, with current production materials, in 30 days"(or 15?), who truly believes its impossible?? I dont. Reverse engineering, especially when you have the plans and the hardware in front of you could be awful easy.
(Play inspirational montage of huge WWII era rooms full of draftsmen churning out blueprints HERE.Then cut to scene of modern engineers arguing about details scribbled out on a coffee stained napkin)
The same thing could be said for a production line. If there was a true national will, there would be people working three shifts, and an empty piece of land could sprout a building, that would fill with all the tooling and equipment necessasary to start spitting out planes in six months, give or take. I believe that 100%. It just takes applying the urgency...
"You have something else that is simpler and less capable than an F-22."
DeleteNo ... you have something that is FOCUSED on A2A and nothing else.
"container was empty"
That's a single hearsay story that is unsubstantiated. The manufacturer was paid to store the production components. I would be shocked if they did not do so. That would be criminal fraud.
I say this as gently as I can, you are so locked into the current badly broken paradigm that you can't even imagine quickly producing a modified design of an existing aircraft. I too have worked extensively doing programming and there is nothing magical about one programming language over another. Any can work.
An engine is an engine. They all work basically the same. You merely have to physically package it and provide the proper plumbing and wiring connections. THEY RUN ENGINES ON TEST STANDS, FOR GOODNESS SAKES! It's not hard to install an engine if there's physical room for it. Many (most?) aircraft get a new type of engine at some point in their life. It's interesting that all those occurred with no problem and yet, for some reason, you think it's impossible to install a new engine in an F-22?
You also seem to think that modifying an existing aircraft is impossible and yet that's exactly what we did with the F-18E/F Super Hornet. We took the base F-18 Hornet and gave it new components throughout to produce essentially a new aircraft. That's exactly what we're talking about doing with an F-22. Don't make it out to be more difficult than it is. We've done it with the F-18 so we know it can be done. We've done it with other aircraft as well so suggest it can't be done.
Where to start. Well, lets see. Its apparent you are not familiar with just how complex an F-22 is, and the significant mistakes that were made at its inception by integrating the entire avionics suite rather than making it modular. There is tons of data out there for even the casual observer as to why upgrades take so long, even assuming milspec is ridiculous compared to a commercial environment.
DeleteHere's the reference again. This stuff is NOT just my opinion, its based in fact.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
Container was empty and we can't find F-22 tooling? Yeah, bad things happen. Logistics is a science, and I've seen similar things happen in the commercial world where people actually get fired for this kind of screw-up. So I have no problem at all believing that something that is supposed to be in one place isn't. Doesn't mean its destroyed, just means its lost, probably semi-permanently. Or its in an underground factory in China.
I'm not locked into anything and I'm confused what gave you the idea I am. I am well aware how much work it takes to introduce a language to developers who are unfamiliar with it. I was at Bell when we were working on the year 2K modifications to Fortran code on the mainframes. It was an absolute nightmare finding skilled Fortran guys who could mentor the rest of the team, and doing the kind of software mods required in Ada for a newly revised F-22 or F-15/F-22 would be not far off that scale today. 1.7 million lines of code in the F-22 and you need them all to get the system to work properly. On the other hand, you seem to not appreciate how difficult modifications to a 1980s, sophisticated and fully integrated aircraft are going to be. The concept of object oriented was never employed in the F-22. Its fully integrated, not modular, which makes upgrades a nightmare. Fortunately the F-22 was designed using CATIA from Dassault, so at least we aren't working from paper plans. I'm familiar with CATIA from offshore oil platform design and its an excellent tool. But its still a huge amount of work to make significant changes.
Adapting for a new engine is probably the least of the problems. Its not super complex, but its also not trivial due to the fully integrated nature of the avionics to the engine. The bigger age gap between the old and new engines you are trying to span, the more difficult its going to be.
It took 9 years or so to get the F-18 E/F from concept to a carrier deck. Not exactly rapid prototyping and agile development, but it could have been worse. The link below is from CDR Robert Niewoehner, USN, Ph.D., served as the Navy’s lead test pilot on the Super Hornet program from prior to first flight until July of this year so you can take it to the bank.
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm
Do we really have 9 years before the Chinese take us behind the woodshed? Looking around carefully, I think not, but that's just my opinion. I largely agree with Jjabatie, but I think he's a bit optimistic. First we have to fix the acquisition and development world which you are not going to do in a couple of weeks, then finally we might be able to focus on getting something useful actually accomplished.
The stuff I developed in the oilfield went from a concept on the back of a napkin in a bar to making money in the ground in typically something like two months. And that time included delivery for some very large, sophisticated high strength steel forgings and ten days on a milling machine. It wasn't an F-22, but it was important enough that we could have trashed a $2B production platform if we screwed it up. Shell is very picky about risk management so we were under a microscope!
I know what urgent looks like, and I also know what dragging your feet to make more money from the taxpayer looks like.
"introduce a language to developers who are unfamiliar with it."
Delete???? Why would you want to do that? You use whatever language the manufacturer is comfortable with, meaning whatever language is currently in vogue. Why make this stuff harder than necessary?
Do you think we would actually use the existing code? We could, I suppose, but it would be far easier to simply translate it into whatever language we currently use. Translating is not difficult. I've done it many times. Most of it is automated and you do a little manual cleanup at the end. It's pretty straightforward.
" integrating the entire avionics suite rather than making it modular. "
You seem to have the notion that we would exactly repeat the original methods. That's silly. We'd rip out the entire avionics and replace it with something that already exists. Just a packaging exercise. Take the avionics from the F-35 or F-18E/F or whatever and place it in the modified F-22 (hence, the word, 'modified'). The avionics have already been proven so, again, just a packaging exercise and the software largely already exists from the F-35, F-15, F-18 or wherever you choose to source it.
For reasons I can't fathom, you're trying your hardest to make this seem more difficult than it is. You take a car and you put in a new engine, new transmission, new control computer, new wiring, and off you go. Just a packaging exercise.
CNO - it is more time than I want to spend trying to find data that show both A/C flying the same mission. H3ere is a site that shows travel range https://aerocorner.com/comparison/f16-vs-f15/
DeleteHere is a thesis showing persistance https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA475630.pdf
Bigger and more fuel is not the key to long range fuel fraction is.
"fuel fraction"
DeleteNo. Fuel fraction is a consideration but if that were the only thing then we could build a palm size aircraft with a fuel fraction of 0.9 that could circle the globe ... but that can't be done. Total fuel IS a factor. You want a combination of total fuel and good fuel fraction. You also want a fuel efficient engine.
Size, by the way, is driven mainly by the weapons carry requirement.
Super Tomcat 21
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like
We've posted on this. See, "Super Tomcat Today"
Delete"The F-15 has outstanding combat radius for current fighter aircraft and that’s the point of merging it with the F-22. I don’t know what gives the F-15 its great range (conformal fuel tanks / FAST pack?) but whatever it is we need to merge it into the F-22."
ReplyDeleteIt's basically due to the fuselage design and CFTs. The simplified version is that the F-22 fuselage is narrower than the F-15 fuselage as part of the RCS reduction for stealth: this, combined with the internal weapons bay, means there's limited internal volume for fuel tanks. This limitation in range was to be mitigated by doctrine and the original CONOPS, which envisioned F-22s flying out of German airbases to secure air superiority against a swarm of Soviet fighters.
The F-15s gets its range from having a wider fuselage than the F-22, and external weapons carriage means that it doesn't sacrifice internal fuel volume for a weapons bay. The conformal fuel tanks are the third piece of the puzzle.
It's a balancing act, because a narrower fuselage benefits your stealthing and aerodynamics, but a wider fuselage allows you to have a larger internal weapons bay and more internal fuel. Consider the F-35 fuselage, which is proportionally wider than the F-22 fuselage (which was a decision made to be able to carry the same 18,000lbs of fuel as the F-22 in a shorter, smaller package).
I believe this aircraft would really require a clean sheet design. CFTs are not an issue on the F-15 because the CFTs don't block the wing weapons stations (and infact add fuselage weapons stations on the F-15E and other Advanced Strike Eagles), but just adding CFTs to the F-22 would block the side Sidewinder bays on the F-22, restricting it to 6 AMRAAMs in the internal bay. It's theoretically possible to make combined CFTs with internal AAM bays - Boeing showed mockups of AMRAAM launch rail CFTs for the Silent Eagle concept - but in my opinion that's just a poor execution of CFTs and missile bays, and that's doing extra work to arrive back at the same starting point.
Fuel fraction plays a large role.
DeleteF-15C without CFT
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006100027/http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F-15C_Eagle_SAC_-_February_1992.pdf
F-15C with CFT
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006212359/http://alternatewars.com/SAC/F-15C_Eagle_(CFT)_SAC_-_February_1992.pdf
An F-15C with CTFs has a TO weight of 67,000lbs while carrying 27,000lbs of fuel in its max range counter air mission.
The F-22 doesn't carry external tanks to preserve its stealth. So it's stuck with only carrying 18,000lbs of fuel on an TO weight of around 65,000lbs.
Sure only F-24 is able to meet all the requirements in every aspect
DeleteActually the counter air mission appears to be A2G, probably airfield attack or DEAD.
DeleteArea Intercept is 22,000lbs of fuel with a TO weight of 58,000lbs.
I don't think you can really just mash together the best parts of the F-22 and F-15 and come up with anything worthwhile. The F-15 carries a lot of fuel and all munitions externally. The F-22 doesn't. To carry that much fuel, the F-22 would have to be a LOT larger. It already is larger than the F-15. Empty weight of the F-15C with CFTs is 31,000lbs. Empty weight of the F-22 is 43,000lbs.
I think one aspect of F-22 that is relevant is it has only 2 hard points for drop tanks. Plan for that range extension and stealth aspect. I'd also look at its payload and how that would change in the future. Design for spherical directed energy weapon coverage for point defense, the gun finally goes, as does the sidewinder bays. Consolidate in 1 bay and think 3 x4 or 4 x 4 SDB launchers where the AIMs are a 6 foot and 12 foot variant. 8 12 foot AIMs internal or a mix with shorter missiles. Probably 6 long 4 short. Keep payload light and keep it a one man fighter supplemented with a real AI. Keeps it from being manned yet not too big.
ReplyDeleteAbout 7 years ago, the Air Force looked at resuming F-22 production and found that it would cost nearly $50 billion to procure another 194 aircraft. That broke down to about $10
ReplyDeletebillion in non-recurring start-up costs and about $40 billion in production cost. Each aircraft would cost roughly $200 million.
Money like that would be better spent on a new fighter.
The AF did not / does not want to restart the F-22 even if it was free. They want an all new aircraft. Thus, they performed a study that *surprise* came up with a high cost to restart. I've already posted on this. See the link in another comment.
DeleteAnytime you look at any report, the first thing you have to do is determine who did it and what their agenda was so you can properly evaluate it.
The last F-22 was delivered in 2012 and, as best I know, the last unit price was $137 million. Inflation alone would put that number at $175 million in today's dollars.
DeleteThe F-18E fleet numbers about 300 aircraft. A one-for-one replacement would cost $50+ billion. It doesn't make any sense to spend even half that on what would be an interim design.
"the last unit price was $137 million."
DeleteWhy do you think that was?
Your point is incorrect so let's see if you can reason out why.
"the last unit price was $137 million."
DeleteWhy do you think that was?
Your point is incorrect. Tell me why. Hint: the answer is in my question.
What do you think a navalized F-22 would go for?
DeleteSadly, it would take 5 years just to design a purely navalized f-22 let alone a hybrid. The Navy's path to an NGAD is probably just that, a navalized, tail-less f-22 (xf-44) that was being looked at years ago, rumored to be even delivered, is where it will "probably" end up. Hopefully they keep to that, as the f-18 is great for most things, but not designed to penetrate 300 miles into a China. We have to live with the thought it's f-18's and 35's until this next monster comes in, and the Navy is due and deserves a true flying death machine that does what it is designed to do, very long range interception.
ReplyDelete"a true flying death machine that does what it is designed to do, very long range interception."
DeleteAnd ... it's already a failure. The next gen aircraft is NOT going to be an air superiority fighter. It's going to be a do-everything strike-figher with ISR and EW thrown in for good measure. It's going to be exactly what's wrong with the F-35 - well, one of the things, at any rate.
"it would take 5 years just to design a purely navalized f-22 let alone a hybrid."
DeletePlease don't buy into our current badly broken development system as being normal. It doesn't have to be this way. We developed the F-14 Tomcat in around 4 years. A modified F-22 that has already had most of the development done shouldn't take more than two years. It's just packaging exercise.
Grumman benefited from working with General Dynamics on the F-111 before tackling the F-14. Also, its not just a packaging issue, a navalized/hybrid F-22 would need redesigned wings, probably swing wings, in order to achieve the low speed and proper descent rate to land on a carrier.
Delete"a navalized/hybrid F-22 would need redesigned wings, probably swing wings, in order to achieve the low speed and proper descent rate to land on a carrier."
DeleteOh, you mean a swing wing like the F-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G, A-6, A-7, X-47, S-3, F-4, A-4, F-35, E-3, EA-6B, A-3, and all the rest that required swing wings in order to achieve the low speed and proper descent rate to land on a carrier?
Yet, for some crazy reason, the F-14 has swing wings.
DeleteThe swing wing had mainly to do with variable speed maneuvering during ACM.
DeleteTomcats did, occasionally land with the wings tucked back in manual override.
There have been some emergency landings of an F-14 with it's wings stuck in the swept back position. And, it's not a simple feat.
DeleteIn The ATF and Its Friends, from the January,1989 edition of Air and Space Forces magazine, Congress ordered the Navy to take a serious look at the ATF and see what it would take to operate it from a carrier. The idea being that it would save development and production costs to field the Navy's next fighter. The Navy assigned a team to Wright-Patterson and funded Lockheed and Northrup to look at possible designs of a navalized F-22.
From that article, "He [Colonel Fain, ASD’s program director for the ATF at the time] sees no significant problem with the Navy’s use of ATF avionics or engines. The NATF airframe is a different story. The Navy wants a much larger wing that is capable of changing shape for carrier storage. The plane will need heavier landing gear for carrier use, and this will require heavier beams to be added to NATE This, he says, can be accommodated."
Emphasis mine.
The need to land on a carrier probably explains why the Navy's F-35C wing area (668 sq. ft.) is 45 percent larger than the wing area of the Air Force's F-35A (460 sq. ft.).
Correction . . .
DeleteOperating from a carrier probably explains why the Navy's F-35C wing area (668 sq. ft.) is 45 percent larger than the wing area of the Air Force's F-35A (460 sq. ft.).
"The Navy wants a much larger wing that is capable of changing shape for carrier storage."
DeleteYeah, they want a folding wing like every other carrier aircraft. Is there something noteworthy about that?
Not just a folding wing or a wing "capable of changing shape for carrier storage," whatever that means, but "a much larger wing." Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the Navy got in their F-35C.
Delete"a much larger wing."
DeleteHere's some data for F-22 and F-35 wing areas.
F-22 wing area = 840 sqft
F-35A wing area = 460 sqft
F-35C wing area = 668 sqft
Thus, the unmodified F-22 wing area is 83% (1.8x) larger than the F-35A and 26% (1.3x) larger than the F-35C.
Was there anything else you wished to note about wing size?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make comparing the wing area of different aircraft.
DeletePerhaps, you can explain why the Navy wanted a larger wing for a navalized F-22. Or, perhaps why the wing area of the navalized F-35 is significantly larger than it's land-based relative.
"why the wing area of the navalized F-35 is significantly larger than it's land-based relative."
DeleteThe wing is larger to enable low speed carrier approaches.
Thank you.
DeleteThen it stands to reason that a navalized F-22 would need larger wings too to enable low-speed carrier approaches as well.
DeleteThe F-35C has an empty weight 1.19 times that of the F-35A. If that ratio applies to a navalized F-22, a navalized F-22 would about 53,700. Add in fuel, weapons, and other sundries, a navalized F-22 might have been too heavy to operate from a carrier.
" a navalized F-22 might have been too heavy to operate from a carrier."
DeleteFirst, I don't think any of us know what landing speed an F-22 could achieve on a carrier (ignore the lack of hook and beefed up gear) so it might be perfectly acceptable, as is ... or not.
Second, we used to routinely operate large, heavy aircraft such as the A-3 Skywarrior which was 70,000 - 80,000 lb operating weight. Even the F-14 was around 44,000 lb empty and operated around 60,000 - 75,000 lb.
What a great topic to start this week off with. Yeah , buddy. The F-15EX Eagle II is a beast ( and that's coming from a Tomcat dude). Without the benefit of CFT's, the F-15EX will load out with 12 AMRAAM (4 more than the Strike Eagle). If, and when they decide to pursue CFT's for the EX, the number of AMRAAMs carried would increase to 16. The AIM-260 should achieve IOC may be by the Summer. They have been very tight-lipped about its development. The AIM-260 could be joined by Raytheon's Long-Range Weapons of Engagement (LREW). or Peregrine. It's a smaller medium-range AAM. In fact, it weighs less than the AIM-9X Sidewinder and a foot shorter. I know they can stuff more of LREW's in the internal weapons bays of the F-22 and the F-35. And not to be left out, Boeing has a concept of a two-stage weapon, the long-range air-to-air missile or LRAAM.
ReplyDeleteWhen the F-14D were put out to pasture, the Navy lost its only IRST(Infrared, Search, and Track) capability. The IRST was co-mounted, side-by-side next to the TCS under the Tomcats nose. I cannot say for certain, but I will say it anyway, that IRST might be able to detect stealth aircraft.
The rather unfortunate smaller numbers of F-22's in the inventory, I do not foresee much CAS in its future. I see it as an interceptor, at least the two squadrons at JBER in Anchorage, Ak. The same for the two squadrons of F-35A's at nearby Eielson AFB.
Going back to the F-15EX for a second. Unless, they decide to develop CFT's for this version, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of air-to-ground weaponry hanging from it.
Believe it or not, the ASF-14 was going to be a cheaper alternative to a navalised F-22.
F-22 Production Restart:
F-22 production stopped back in 2011,meaning many of the assets allocated to building these jets have since been redistributed to other efforts or simply left to rot. In order to kick-start production, a significant initial investment would have to be put forth, possibly removing any financial incentive for using an existing platform rather than moving forward with one that is currently under development, like the PCA endeavor.
I believe the F-35 took up residence where the F-22 was produced. The production facilities and supply chain for the F-22 were cannibalized for the F-35. In 2017, a report was submitted to Congress that estimated it would cost the U.S. close to $50 Billion to restart the F-22 line for about 194 aircraft.
(source:https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-us-cant-restart-production-of-f22-stealth-fighter-2021-6?op=1)
Other sources for my post:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2017/irst-legacy.html
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/raytheon-peregrine-missile/
https://min.news/en/military/322331d58223bf24c1c99e9a6b5b56a7.html
https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article/3259100/f-15ex-proves-out-full-air-to-air-capability/
https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/why-cant-the-us-restart-the-f-22-program-because-it-would-be-cheaper-to-build-the-next-fighter-instead/
This F-22/F-15 hybrid, and potential future upgrades, would appear to be a key to realizing the carrier as escort concept in the previous thread.
ReplyDeleteAdd a fixed wing ASW/patrol aircraft.
Also an EW aircraft. I wonder if you could take the F-35C, put an operator position where the lift fan fits in the B (so the pilot can focus on flying), and fill the bomb bay with additional electronics and fuel (for longer legs). It already has pretty sophisticated electronics, so some truly amazing stuff could presumably be added.
I would give the fighter/interceptor/air superiority mission entirely to the Navy, and let the Marines have the strike/ground attack mission along with close air support (CAS). Transition VA squadrons to VMA and VMF squadrons to VF. Normal carrier loadout would be, say, 4 VF squadrons. Where some air strike mission is contemplated, replace one VF squadron with a VMA.
Now, in this model, conventional strike would be primarily the mission of SSGNs (I would want 20 of them, based on Ohios), secondarily the mission of Virginia VPMs (I would want 30 of them, along with another 30 non-VPM SSNs), tertiarily the mission of surface ships (BBs, CGs, DDGs, GP escorts) armed with SSMs and escorted by carriers, with air strike a distant--but not totally ignored--fourth.
"secondarily the mission of Virginia VPMs"
DeleteIf you have 20 SSGNs, why would you want Virginia VPMs? They wouldn't have enough missiles for an effective strike, individually, and it would be very difficult to coordinate multi-sub strikes. Leave the mission with the SSGN and make the Virginias true ASW/ASuW. Eliminating the VPM and original VLS would greatly reduce the cost of the Virginia and increase the numbers of subs.
20 x 150 = 3000 missiles. Do you really need more strike than that? Does another 40 missiles in a Virginia VPM really add anything?
"If you have 20 SSGNs, why would you want Virginia VPMs? "
DeleteThere's certainly an argument to be made there. On the other hand, 30 VPMs x 40 missiles = another 1200 missiles, plus another 30 launch points for an enemy to deal with. In addition to the VPMs, I'd have another 30 smaller SSNs which would focus strictly on ASW/ASuW. And I'd also have another 30 or so AIP SSKs for littoral and coke point ops, to free the SSNs for blue water missions. What I would not do is go the way the USN appears to headed with all VPMs or more expensive replacements, so costs drive the fleet size down to unacceptable levels.
My approach builds 20 SSGNs, 60 SSNs, and 30 SSKs for less money ($298B) than the USN plans to spend to build 61 subs, 4 SSGNs and 57 SSNs ($308B).
Delete" On the other hand, 30 VPMs"
DeleteAre tactically very difficult to coordinate, bordering on impossible so unless they offer overwhelming operational advantage (and they don't) why accept the cost and reduced numbers of subs?
If you've already got 3000 VPM, you'll already be taxing your inventory way past sustainable so another 1200 cells aren't going to help because you'll have nothing to put in them. Think logistically as well as operationally.
This smacks of a spreadsheet approach without a CONOPS.
Do wonder if your thinking on the lines to that of the Air Force NGAD CONOPS of what is known, would it help if Air Force funded approx two thirds of the new tech for the fighter
ReplyDeleteA few comments/speculation seen, it may forgo extreme maneuverability in favor of larger wing and internal fuel tanks for the longer ranges required in the Pacific theater to achieve a combat radius 1,000+nm with a heavier weapons payload. A big and costly fighter, ~ 73 ft in length and 62 ft wingspan, ~$300 million ea.
Engines would be the new generation type AETP jets with their adaptive three-stream fans which claimed to improve range by 30% and increase thrust by 10%, plus providing significantly more aircraft heat dissipation capacity for its powerful radar etc. Major ongoing competition this year to replace the current F-35 43,000 lb PWF135 needed to power the heavier FOC F-35 Blk 4 between GE with their new AETP XA100 and Raytheon with an updated PW135 with 7% more range and power. The NGAD will require even more powerful AETP engine, not constrained by the size of F-35 'hole'.
Main missile will be the new gen longer range AIM-260 in full development to replace the AIM-120
"may forgo extreme maneuverability in favor of larger wing and internal fuel tanks for the longer ranges"
DeleteOne needs to be extremely careful about tradeoffs. Sacrificing combat capability (maneuvering) for range is a poor tradeoff if it means you can't win when you get to the fight. There's no point having the range to get to the fight if you can't win when you get there.
A fast way to gain air-to-air would be putting something like the Peregrine missile or the AIM-9 on the XQ-58 Valkyrie. The XQ-58 is inexpensive, can takeoff and land without runways, is already in production, stealthy, and has a 1750 mile combat radius. It isn't a replacement for manned fighters but could supplement them especially doing something like combat air patrols. At scale it would cost about as much as a long range air to air missile, serving as a useful decoy after it shoots its 2-4 missiles if things were really hairy.
ReplyDeleteDARPA's LongShot concept is an expendable version of essentially what the XQ-58 could do.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2021-02-08
Of course the Valkyrie won't be a good dog fighter. And a drone that has extreme range, is stealthy, has guns, lots of missiles, is supersonic, has sensors good enough to shoot those long-range missiles, etc. would cost the same or more as a manned aircraft.
Another option would be to go all in on stealth, maneuverability, and short range weapons to allow a smaller, cheaper form factor. Just put a gun on it. The software problem of flying and following waypoints is already solved and we've already seen testing that shows software is getting good in simplified scenarios like close-range gun fights. If you really believe stealth will result in close range engagements then a no frills gun fighter drone would be hard to beat. It is a longer term project than the XQ-58 flying in circles and ripping off a missile at a target when prompted, though.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/artificial-intelligence-easily-beats-human-fighter-pilot-in-darpa-trial/
Before you get all excited about unmanned aerial combat aircraft, you should read the post I did on it, "AI Beats Fighter Pilot - Not Really"
DeleteHave you seen any semi-realistic test demonstrating that an unmanned aircraft can do anything useful in combat? I haven't.
DeleteAh, thanks for the link on that. That is rather disappointing. I think as a missile carrier we are there, but if the Navy and Air Force don't want to use and test them that way then of course it doesn't matter. I see the XQ-58 being especially useful as a cheap, persistent cruise missile defense air patrol flying over ships and bases. Again, most of the interest seems to be for strike right now where its cost per tonnage delivered is comparable to manned aircraft. The only advantage I see there is that the enemy has to use more missiles to shoot them down.
DeleteI am optimistic about how fast machine learning is improving and I would expect a gun fight where the drone could pull more G's would be a good early application. It looks like the DARPA ACE program awarded contracts to put the software in full size planes last year, so we'll have to see how that develops. The typical result for machine learning is that against conventional human strategies it can quickly dominate but is susceptible to gimmicks. So you'd definitely want to keep developing human fighter pilots and the pairing would be pretty ruthless. There is usually a long period of time where human-software pairing exceeds what either a human or software agent can do alone.
Is there any hope that the adaptive cycle jet engine, in development, could improve fuel efficiency and perhaps range ? They would need to test this on an aircraft.
ReplyDeleteHope? Sure. Reality? Not so much.
DeleteThe answer to this question has already been flown and tested by the USA. It has a range of 4500miles which will be extended by the use of the latest more fuel efficient engines. It is supercruise capable and is actually stealthier than the F22. It is on a par with the Tomcat and F22 in terms of dimensions.
ReplyDeleteIt just needs to be dusted down.
It is of course the YF23.
4500 miles???!!!! That's a typo or you're just making stuff up!
DeleteApologies 4500km or 2789 miles. However this is still well in excess of the F22 at 1800miles or 3000km.
ReplyDeleteWith the latest engines that should get you out to over the 3500 miles mark as they should offer a 25per cent increase in range over existing engines. source - aerospace manufacturing magazine. With conformal tanks you could well get over the 4k mile mark using an existing aircraft design. As an interim measure it should be worth investigating. However as an left field suggestion. Long range stealth UAV fitted with internal aams and link16 system. Sitting out well ahead to fly prearranged patterns ahead of carrier units. They are not fitted with radar but possibly IRTS. AWACS provide coverage and upon identifying bogey transfer data to UAV nearest the threat which it then engages. Keep it simple and “preprogrammed” flight patterns a La luftwaffe night fighters which each had their own box for intercepts. The uav does not need high performance but range and connectivity to the awacs system. Just a thought for others more knowledgeable to muse over….or shoot down! If as an idea it kicks off someone else or stirs debate then job done. As an aside, as a Brit I wish to say your site is an informative delight. Just wish you had let our RN know about the limited weapons range coupled with the F35 range issues before we built two aircraft carriers. Altho come to think of it much like your navy our RN are supposed to be the clever thinkers!
I'm suspecting that you may not have a good grasp on what 'range' means.
DeleteFor starters, 'range' is a nearly meaningless figure as it is a ONE-WAY value. Radius is an out and back figure and is what's important though it depends on a host of factors and is, therefore, almost as meaningless.
Here's some F-22 Wiki values for 'range':
Range: 1,600 nmi (1,800 mi, 3,000 km) or more with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat range: 460 nmi (530 mi, 850 km) clean with 100 nmi (115 mi, 185 km) in supercruise
590 nmi (679 mi, 1,093 km) clean subsonic[N 13]
The corresponding 'range' for YF-23 is:
Range: 2,424 nmi (2,789 mi, 4,489 km)
Combat range: 651–695 nmi (749–800 mi, 1,206–1,287 km)
Note the 'combat range' (which is really radius) figures are well under a thousand miles for both and even those are not realistic.
Here's a post on range/radius that will give you a good start on understanding the issue: "Combat Radius"
Many thanks for the reply and I have studied your issue on Combat Radius which is highly informative. I am tho actually aware of the difference between "range" and "radius" and that range is a one way value. However in order to simplify my observation I thought it best to use a single reference measure to compare and contrast the F22 and YF23 aircraft.
DeleteThe point being to highlight that an existing fifth generation aircraft offering the stealth characteristics you desired had already been created and which already provided a decent built in increase in "range" over the F22.
I pointed this out as this would seem, at face value, a better basis on which to start than the F22 as the YF23 has on paper an advantage of over 800 miles in terms of "range" or over 200 miles of "combat radius" over the F22. Meaning that the increase in range or "combat radius" required to be found would be less than if starting with the F22.
However, I digress, as you stated the figures are fraught with variables and direct comparisons virtually impossible to ascertain.
Your posit that an air superiority fighter ( or Interceptor? ) with a "combat radius" of over 1000 miles is an urgent requirement for the us navy is unquestionable.
However my small question remains - would the YF23 be a better starting point or do you feel that the F22 has advantages over that plane?
In terms of creating an F15/22 hybrid.
The F22 weighs 19700KG empty with fuel capacity of 8200kg.
The F15 weighs 12700kg with fuel capacity of 6100kg.
The reason for the long legs of the F15 is probably revealed by those figures.
The F15 flies twice as far as the F22 with less fuel.
Weight slows you down.
To achieve a 1000 mile combat radius is in simple terms going to require virtually double the fuel in a modified F22 airframe or a major slimming exercise. That extra fuel will increase the weight by circa 8000kg. That is before you look at the increase in structure weight incurred by increased size, structural strengthening / modification, wing design / dimension etc etc. Would that in turn lead to a requirement for more powerful engines and will they be available.
All the usual difficulties that are regularly thrown up but which still require an answer to be found, and which shall take time.
Is it achievable quickly and ( relatively ) cheaply? I am not so sure if I am being honest. Is the will there to even investigate the possibility. I do not think so.
After all how many "land" fighters adopted by the usaf have subsequently been adopted by the us navy?
The requirement is there though.
The Chinese J20 has introduced a further complication resulting in an urgent answer being required to permit US carriers to operate safely sufficiently close to the mainland to permit attack aircraft to strike a reasonable distance into that mainland, let alone for air refuelling tankers to be able to operate in support of aircraft without being picked off.
You previously published an article in which you showed the lack of "combat radius" of the F35 and F/A18 and the lack of range of their weaponry. Is that not the real Achilles heel?
Having an air superiority aircraft with a 1000 mile "combat radius" will tho surely still mean that us carriers will still be required to approach dangerously close to the mainland to enable those attack aircraft to bring their weaponry, with their limited range, to within range of any targets on the mainland, let alone deep within the mainland.
Sorry for going round the houses here but is a 1000mile fighter the most pressing need?
Will it solve the problem?
Are long range land attack weapons a more pressing need.
Are long range anti radar attack weapons to knock out or suppress sam and ship attack missile systems more urgently required?
or, will the promised new, longer range air to air missiles enable the existing US navy fighter aircraft to engage the likes of the j20 at a sufficient range to do the job in the meantime?
I do not have the expert knowledge to give an answer but throw these comments out to spark debate, which I trust does not cause offence.
"would the YF23 be a better starting point or do you feel that the F22 has advantages over that plane?"
DeleteSince the YF-23 never entered production or service, I have no basis for a comparison. As you undoubtedly know, paper claims are always amazing while real world performance is always far less spectacular. Thus, you're trying to compare unproven, calculated, paper claims of the YF-23 against the proven performance of the F-22.
That is not to say that the YF-23 wouldn't be a better basis for an upgrade but it's purely theoretical and, as such, would require all the testing, development, debugging (there are ALWAYS significant problems that crop up), etc. which is exactly what my suggestion avoids to the maximum extent possible. We're looking for something that can be in service in 3-5 years and that isn't the YF-23, no matter how extraordinary the claims. Now, the YF-23 might be suitable as the starting point for the F-2215 hybrid replacement, further down the road. Again, I can't say because it never existed to the point of being tested.
"The reason for the long legs of the F15 is probably revealed by those figures.
The F15 flies twice as far as the F22 with less fuel.
Weight slows you down."
So ... you're saying that an aircraft with no fuel (the minimum possible weight) would fly the furthest?
"To achieve a 1000 mile combat radius is in simple terms going to require virtually double the fuel in a modified F22 airframe or a major slimming exercise."
Or, it's going to require a combination of new, modern, more fuel efficient engines that are optimized for fuel efficiency along with a higher fuel fraction, to the extent possible, and various other range extending modifications. If we can push an old F-15 out to a thousand miles, we can surely do the same with a modified F-22. Perhaps CFTs on the upper side of the wing-fuselage? Who knows? A little creativity goes a long ways.
"still mean that us carriers will still be required to approach dangerously close to the mainland"
That is the exact opposite of everything I've ever said about carriers and their air wings. Feel free to disagree with me but make sure it's about something I've actually said.
" longer range air to air missiles"
As more and more Chinese stealth aircraft enter service, the value of longer and longer range A2A missiles vanishes since we won't be able to target stealth aircraft at the range of the missiles. Stealth vs stealth A2A will devolve into close range fights. Thus, if you want to establish air superiority for an operation, you'll have to get up close instead of standing hundreds of miles off, casually launching missiles. There won't be any detectable targets to launch at. That's what so many people fail to understand.
"If we can push an old F-15 out to a thousand miles, we can surely do the same with a modified F-22. Perhaps CFTs on the upper side of the wing-fuselage?"
DeleteTheoretically possible, but the con is that the CFTs, placed there, would block the side Sidewinder bays from opening, meaning that the F-22 would be limited to 6 AMRAAMs from the centerline bay. Boeing did show mockups of CFTs with internal AMRAAM carriage and fuel tanks, a decade ago, but those were purely mockups and were never seriously designed or procured.
Rather than trying backfit CFTs onto something that wasn't meant to carry them, I think it'd be a more effective use of that effort to go for a clean sheet, purpose built aircraft.
"Rather than trying backfit CFTs onto something that wasn't meant to carry them, I think it'd be a more effective use of that effort to go for a clean sheet, purpose built aircraft."
DeleteYou're missing the main concept: to QUICKLY field a modification of an existing aircraft as a stopgap - but useful and effective - measure while we pursue a more optimized solution. Thus, this wouldn't be the 100% answer. It would likely be a 70% answer which, if we can field it quickly, is good enough. Remember, perfect is the enemy of good.
As a follow on from your debate on the need for a 1000 mile air superiority fighter for the Navy.
ReplyDeleteIt does raise a question in my mind, coming as an outsider so to speak.
Is it necessary for US navy carriers to have to actually project force into china and physically attack the mainland? I do not see the USA launching a land invasion on China ( or vice versa )
Would physically attacking china itself not potentially result in non nuclear ballistic missile attacks on the USA or, in the future, submarine launched longe range land attack missile attacks on the USA?
Would that be politically acceptable? Is America willing to suffer, as we see Ukraine is suffering, to achieve long term security?
Does the USA want actual physical confrontation or containment?
Does china want an actual war or to subvert the USA by the threat of its "might" in order to exercise power ?
The exception to this is of course the defence of Taiwan, but is the prevention of a Chinese military invasion force from landing on Taiwan the actual requirement? In which case do the current Navy attack aircraft have sufficient range to launch their weapons and strike any offensive forces, while they are still offshore, and while ensuring the carriers are on the seaward side of Taiwan and sufficiently far from the chinese mainland to ensure their safety.
The USA and its allies already enclose China from the sea with bases in a curve all-round. The USA and its allies can control all entry in to and out of the China Sea.
The Carriers can control this entire area without ever having to get close to the mainland and its attendant defences. The defences and offensive forces based upon and operating from overseas bases and the newly formed "islands" are inherently vulnerable to, and no match for, the offensive capabilities contained in a carrier group. These bases, once taken out of the equation, further enclose and isolate China and limits its offensive capabilities. The Tiger can be contained so to speak without having to embark upon the risky task of penetrating Chinese airspace.
With an awareness that the current weakness of carrier operations is that the carriers have to get into range of offensive Chinese weaponry, then why go to where they have the advantage? Can you make them come to you. That is far out to sea, at multiple locations, where you have the advantage. They have to find you, prosecute an attack and all while over the open sea and likely unable to return to base if damaged. Such losses of aircraft and pilots would be irreplaceable. USA Carrier aircrew could still be recovered if downed but have managed to eject and could return to the fray.
Can you make them come to you?
You are the threat after all.
Attrite and wear down your opponent before going on the attack on your terms. Target the J20 first to take out that threat. then wear them down threat level by threat level until you are able to push closer to the optimal off shore distance to bring your attack aircraft to bear. Is that a viable approach? or do matters have to be dealt with to a quicker drumbeat?
The USA has these fantastic carriers, but you do not have to use them as your enemy expects and in the manner they have historically operated.
Carriers operating from multiple spread out locations, moving in and out as operations demand, feints to divert attention to enable a punch from a different quarter as and when opportunities arise could force your opponent to cover each threat and in turn thin out his forces enabling strikes where cover is weakest and he is least able to counterpunch.
Hopefully some of this sparks some debate, after all there are many ways to catch a mouse, you just have to be smarter than it.
Anyway, feel free to shoot me down if I deserve it!
"Is it necessary for US navy carriers to have to actually project force into china and physically attack the mainland?"
DeleteIt depends on what our strategy is and, unfortunately, we don't have one. That said, there is no reason for a carrier to attack mainland China.
"Attrite and wear down your opponent before going on the attack on your terms. "
This is the old AirSea Battle concept (rollback). You should spend some time perusing the archives and come up to speed on the many plans that have been put forth by the Navy/military. Most are badly flawed but they provide context.
"Carriers operating from multiple spread out locations"
Carriers cannot survivably operate alone, if that's what you're suggesting.
I am not suggesting that carriers operate alone. Rather I meant Carrier Strike Groups as I think you know. I shall brush up on my terminology and "come up to speed" before coming back before Captain pedant.:)
ReplyDeleteNo offense intended. Because the Navy only deploys carriers individually, many observers think carriers will operate alone during war.
DeleteReply - "still mean that us carriers will still be required to approach dangerously close to the mainland"
ReplyDelete"That is the exact opposite of everything I've ever said about carriers and their air wings. Feel free to disagree with me but make sure it's about something I've actually said."
Well I am afraid I must disagree with you. I did not state that you said that and regret that you took that inference.
"Carriers typically operate in “strike groups” of several warships, with the carrier providing most of the offensive punch while surface combatants and submarines provide defense against overhead, surface and undersea threats."
quote from the Lexington Group. 2019 The Logic of Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups.
in stating that us carriers would need to approach the Chinese mainland to undertake attack missions I did so based upon the doctrine which, to overseas readers, appears to be US Navy current policy.
Your article of Monday, September 26, 2022
Carrier Aircraft Land Attack Weapon Ranges makes v clear your position that in the face of advance sam systems this is folly."
I did not, do not and cannot disagree with you.
However from the articles I have read the US Navy does not employ the carriers to protect the Burkes but rather the Burkes to protect the carriers!
The Lexington article goes on
"Air-delivered weapons can be used to reduce enemy assets ashore, or to establish sea control over vast areas of ocean including vital chokepoints. These objectives are achieved without requiring access to vulnerable land bases.." it further states
"Because the air wing contains a diverse assortment of advanced aircraft, it is capable of executing many different missions. These include: Highly accurate, sustained strikes against hostile land targets, both fixed and mobile."
Now it may be that action against Chinese soil is excluded from the above scenarios but that is not stated, actually the complete opposite is stated, hence my observation.
"To be credible and thus persuasive, a deterrence strategy requires two things: a capability to inflict unacceptable damage, and a willingness to use that capability when necessary.....When it comes to the warfighting capabilities required, carrier strike groups clearly have greater deterrence potential than most other components of the joint force. For example, ground forces will not be effective in deterring China because there are few places where they can actually engage the PL Army, and they would be highly vulnerable if deployed anywhere near Chinese territory. Land-based tactical air forces are also unlikely to be effective owing to their limited range and basing vulnerabilities. Long-range bombers arriving from distant locations are too few in number to sustain a high-intensity air campaign. Naval power is likely to be a more effective deterrent because its inherent mobility facilitates survivable positioning of forces, and because China’s geographical circumstances dictate the use of maritime routes in pursuing most aggressive objectives. Submarines are highly survivable, BUT LACK THE EXTENSIVE STRIKING POWER OF OTHER WARSHIPS. ( my caps )Surface combatants have greater striking power, but their long-range munitions can be quickly exhausted.....Against that backdrop, aircraft carriers and their strike groups stand out as the most compelling combat system in the U.S. arsenal. The carriers will be able to precisely attack hundreds of targets day after day for weeks at a time with little risk of depleting their munitions stocks.
Aircraft carriers thus present the greatest threat to Chinese military forces short of nuclear war."
It is this type of article that has led me to believe that carrier strike groups are intended to attack the Chinese mainland if it is deemed necessary.
It was this type of article which led me to comment as I did.
Feel free to disagree with me but make sure it's about something I've actually said. :)
"Lexington Group. 2019 The Logic of Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups."
DeleteThat's a very generic, 'carriers are wonderful' background blurb for people who have no idea what a carrier is. It's introduction to carriers 101. Most of what they say is either wrong or so generic as to be worthless. Read through the archives of this blog to get an in-depth idea of how carriers will operate in combat. It won't be as single carriers with just a couple of escorts! That's a peacetime artifact.
As I note in the Comment Policy page, a certain level of fundamental understanding is required to productively discuss topics. I admire your enthusiasm but you may not be at that level, yet. You may need to educate yourself some more to understand the how's and why's of what's being discussed. I encourage you to make use of the archives. They have a wealth of information. Enjoy!
Enjoy I most certainly have, but having taken a bloody nose in the nice way I shall retire and immerse myself in your archive and bone up avidly before returning to the fray. Your knowledge is impressive and your articles informative and enlightening. a delight to read. Many thanks :)
DeleteIf you haven't yet, read, "The Task Force" to get an idea of what a combat carrier group would look like and how it would operate. It's a fictional piece that was written to illustrate the concept because so many people think the peacetime single carrier and two or three escorts is how we would fight.
DeleteYou should also read about the escort requirement in this post, "Escorts"
DeleteYou should also study history, specifically WWII carrier ops. We operated carriers in groups of 4 with around 3 dozen escorts. If you can understand why (and why they were so spaced out) then you'll understand why single carriers are not a survivable, combat effective unit.
DeleteWhat about taking current Super Hornets and giving them an F16XL treatment with a large crank delta wing for fuel storage and missile capacity. Make the tips of the wings fold, give it some low observable features and it should be an easy transition to the new aircraft
ReplyDelete