Cool, how much explosives can it carry...?

Cool, how much explosives can it carry...?

Don’t know yet its still in the concept phase no real solid numbers on it yet, if ever.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Cool, how much explosives can it carry...?

Don’t know yet its still in the concept phase no real solid numbers on it yet, if ever.

It looks like a Saab J35 Drakken

I read that the F/A-22 program is in jeopardy. Anyone think that it wil be cancelled outright?

There is probably more need for the Raptor bomber version than there is for the fighter. The high cost of high tech aircraft that could rival the F-22 limits the number that will be produced. The largest threat in the near future is going to be from surface-to-air defenses. A primary example of this would be North Korea. Air to air the NK Air Force would live a short but exciting life. The larger threat would be from the huge quantity of SAM and AAA sites that litter the country. There is a huge need for a tactical strike aircraft with stealth and low observability. The payload doesn't have to be that large the Small Diameter Bomb project is about ready to be deployed. It used to be "How many aircraft do we need to take out a target?" Now it is "How many targets can we take out with one plane?" Cruise missiles and RPVs can do some of the job, but sometimes you have to have eyes on the target. The FB-22 would enable this.

Jezza
the Air Force has been contemplating the development and fielding of a regional bomber variant of its soon-to-be-operational F/A-22 stealth fighter.

It has been operational.

I read that the F/A-22 program is in jeopardy. Anyone think that it wil be cancelled outright?

it cant be cancelled, dozens are in service, the jet is in full production.
I think the current number is 179.

There is probably more need for the Raptor bomber version than there is for the fighter.

I Dissagree, If you cant control the skies...you control nothing.

Darkpr0
There's too much focus on stealth now. Everything's a specialized thing. If we sent in a squadron of F-22s on a target, and it turned out they'd have to bomb something, we would be screwed for that sortie! That's why things like the F-15 and F-16 still have my .

no, the F-35's point is multi-role. There trying to make aircraft do more then one specific task. oh, and your example is poor, because the F-22 CAN bomb the target.

ulshadow, that's the X-44 MANTA concept.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 8-8-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

The F/A-22 is not strictly Air Superiority, it is also an Attack plane, hence the "A" in the designation.

The F/A-22 is armed with Precision guided bombs as well as Sidewinders, or it can be given the full Air Superiority bundle, Aim-120s and Aim-9.

Shattered OUT...

They say there were considering building it to help Boeing since they lost the JSF contract

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
ulshadow, that's the X-44 MANTA concept.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 8-8-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

That pic that he posted is from a few year old Popular Science issue. It described the pic as the FB-22.

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
ulshadow, that's the X-44 MANTA concept.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 8-8-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

That pic that he posted is from a few year old Popular Science issue. It described the pic as the FB-22.

Actually...Arn't they kinda one in the same? 22+22=44 (*closing windows calculator*)

I believe the X-44 was just some nick name that was tagged on it. Because all it is is a bomber tailess version of the Raptor. (and of course bigger version, with more internal payload room, longer range, and its a delta wing)

There is a serious need for the F/B-2x , since the retirement of the F1-11 `Aadvark` the role of a good tactical aircraft , with the payload and range is missing - and the need is now apparant .

Personally? i would prefer to see the BlackwidowII as the airframe used - it showed the capability during the fly off - and i think that Northrop build better bombers anyway ; that and it would be a win-win situation , the best return on the investment in both project.


Did you know in GW1 , the F1-11 dropped virtually ALL of the precision weapons used? Then they scrapped it

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Harlequin]

Harlequin
There is a serious need for the F/B-2x

Do you mean F/B-22 or a Fighter/Bomber varient of the B-2?

As for the Blackwidow II, It would be cheaper to go with F/B-22 then a F/B-23, because a lot of its tech is allready being built for the Raptor, so several components could be used on both (the fighter and the bomber varient).

But with costs aside, I to would prefer the widow.

Alot of money has allready been invested in both projects - and yes the `widow has been sitting on the backburner - but both prototypes are `missing`

And yes i mean the F/B-22 (or23) . With the overall shape of the F/B different (quite alot) to the F/A-22 , either airframe could be used.

Originally posted by Harlequin
There is a serious need for the F/B-2x , since the retirement of the F1-11 `Aadvark` the role of a good tactical aircraft , with the payload and range is missing - and the need is now apparant .

Personally? i would prefer to see the BlackwidowII as the airframe used - it showed the capability during the fly off - and i think that Northrop build better bombers anyway ; that and it would be a win-win situation , the best return on the investment in both project.


Did you know in GW1 , the F1-11 dropped virtually ALL of the precision weapons used? Then they scrapped it

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Harlequin]

Aus still got the pig until 2015. Hopefully longer i hope.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Harlequin
There is a serious need for the F/B-2x

Do you mean F/B-22 or a Fighter/Bomber varient of the B-2?

As for the Blackwidow II, It would be cheaper to go with F/B-22 then a F/B-23, because a lot of its tech is allready being built for the Raptor, so several components could be used on both (the fighter and the bomber varient).

But with costs aside, I to would prefer the widow.

I think the "x" in F/B-2x was intended to show a derivitive of one of the ATF contenders either the F/B-22 or the F/B-23.

Cheeper, maybe? However I think in the long run it would be much riskier! Nothing against Lockheed, but the USAF is slowly building a monopoly on their high-tech, cutting edge technoloy. That is a very dangerous thing for US National security. Without competition, there is no incentive to keep pushing the technology envelope!

Remember a few years back when Lockheed and Northrop wanted to merge? Did anyone think that maybe the government said no for a reason?

Also, Despite what some people claime, Northrop has the technology edge over Lockheed. The reason the F-22 was cheeper then the F-23 is because it used less cutting edge technology.

Bottom Line: The FB-23 would be the better bet in the long run! Now, let's see if the Pentagon and the US Air Force are smart enough to see it. I fear that all of the intelligent people are leaving the government for the private sector. So much for Military Intelligence.

Tim

Originally posted by Murcielago

I Dissagree, If you cant control the skies...you control nothing.

I agree with having to control the skies, but if the enemy's planes won't come up to fight and you have to get them on the ground then you need a good strike aircraft. There is way too much invested in the F-22 program now for it to be cancelled. The F-35 on the other hand I am not too sure about.

The main problem with using a varient of the YF-23 is not the aircraft itself. It is the cost. If you go with the F-22 and make a bomber varient you can use many of the same parts and systems in both aircraft. This would result in a great cost savings in spare parts and in training of the flight crews and maintainence people.

JIMC5499
The F-35 on the other hand I am not too sure about.

I dont think it will get cancelled. Because of its international support, and the fact it comes in 3 flavors, helps to spread itself across the board quite good.