Jump to content

Lockheed Martin FB-22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FB-22
Lockheed Martin imagery of the FB-22-4 design as of 2005
Role Stealth regional bomber
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
Status Design proposal, canceled
Developed from Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing FB-22 was a proposed supersonic stealth bomber aircraft marketed to the United States Air Force. Its design was derived from the F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter. Lockheed Martin proposed its unsolicited design in the early 2000s as an interim "regional bomber" to complement the aging U.S. strategic bomber fleet. Lockheed Martin suspended work on the concept following the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which called for a new and much larger strategic Next-Generation Bomber by 2018; this program would eventually morph into the Long Range Strike Bomber.

Background

[edit]
Main article: 2037 bomber controversy

In 1999, the Air Force released a Long Range Bombers white paper stating that its current fleet of strategic bombers would be sufficient until around 2037, when they will need to be replaced by a new "capability".[1] However, this target date was challenged by the subsequent 2001 Department of Defense (DoD) Quadrennial Defense Review, which identified increasing threats to U.S. power projection and the Air Force's aging bomber fleet such as more sophisticated adversary air defense systems, with access to enemy denied areas limited to stealth aircraft. Furthermore, the paper also anticipated a strategic shift from nuclear deterrence to conventional bombing. Against this backdrop, some Air Force officials began considering an "interim" strike capability such as "regional bombers" to complement the existing fleet of strategic bombers while the service and the DoD explored ideas and timelines for a longer term replacement program.[2][3]

Design and development

[edit]

In 2001, Lockheed Martin began internal studies on the feasibility of the FB-22 as the company sought to leverage the design and capabilities of the F-22 Raptor. Although the studies focused on the ability to survive in contested environments against increasingly sophisticated air defense systems and adversary fighters, experience gleaned from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also demonstrated the value of a bomber that could reach targets quickly and remain in theatre in the absence of surface-to-air missiles. The F-22, while designed as an air superiority fighter, embodied some degree of air-to-ground attack ability through precision strikes with Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), with further strike capability improvements planned with upgrades.[4]

One primary objective of the internal studies was to exploit and further expand upon the F-22's high speed air-to-ground capability while keeping costs to a minimum. To this end, the company devised several concepts that saw significant structural redesigns with respect to the fuselage and wings, while retaining much of the F-22's mission system avionics. With an early design later designated FB-22-1, Lockheed Martin lengthened and widened the fuselage to increase the internal weapons load; another design, the FB-22-2, had a stretched mid-fuselage for increased main bay capacity and featured an enlarged delta wing with greater leading edge sweep angle. However, it was later found that doing so would have incurred a cost penalty of 25–30% in weight, materials and development. Instead, the company subsequently focused on leaving the fuselage intact as much as possible while enlarging the diamond-like delta wing with the same sweep angles as the F-22.[5][6]

Various FB-22 proposals from Lockheed Martin, with the later proposals retaining the stock F-22 fuselage to reduce costs.

Several proposals in this vein were investigated. The FB-22-3 used the stock fuselage with enlarged delta wings, while the FB-22-4 was similar to -3 but with maximal wing whose leading edge met with the upper edge of the caret engine inlet. The FB-22-4's maximal wing, which was around three times that of the F-22, enabled the storage of a much larger amount of weapons and fuel. In addition, as a stealth bomber, the FB-22 was designed to carry weapons externally while maintaining stealth with the assistance of detachable and faceted pods dubbed "wing weapons bay"; previously, an aircraft could only remain stealthy if it carried its weapons internally.[5] Various figures give the payload of the FB-22 to be 30 to 35 Small Diameter Bombs; this is compared to the F-22's payload of eight of such 250-pound (110 kg) weapons. The main weapon bay doors would also be bulged to allow internal carriage of 2,000-pound (910 kg) bombs in the fuselage. By employing the wing weapons bay, the FB-22 was designed to be able to carry bombs up to 5,000 pounds (2,270 kg) in size such as the GBU-37 GAM or two 2,000-pound bombs in tandem. With stealth, the aircraft's maximum combat load was to have been 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg); without stealth, 30,000 pounds (13,600 kg).[4][5]

Lockheed Martin imagery of the FB-22-4 from the bottom, showing the extended forward fuselage, wing weapons bays and the bulged main weapon bay doors.

Combat radius was almost tripled from 600 nautical miles (690 mi; 1,100 km) to more than 1,600 nautical miles (1,800 mi; 3,000 km), which could have been extended by external fuel tanks. This placed the aircraft in the category of a regional bomber, comparable to that of the F-111, as it was intended to replace the F-15E Strike Eagle and take over some of the missions of the B-1 and B-2. With the FB-22's greatly increased range and endurance, Lockheed Martin also extended the forward fuselage by 60 inches (1.5 m) to accommodate a second pilot in order to reduce workload and also act as a weapon systems officer (WSO).[4][7] According to Air Force Magazine, the combination of range and payload of the FB-22 would have given the concept a comparable effectiveness to that of the B-2 armed with 2,000-pound (910 kg) bombs.[3] The design was to still use the Pratt & Whitney F119 engines but modified for more power and optimized for subsonic efficiency rather than supercruise.[N 1] While some FB-22 concepts featured no tailplanes, most design proposals incorporated twin tailplanes and likely would have fixed axisymmetric engine nozzles as opposed to the thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22.[9] Though not designed for supercruise, the FB-22 would be capable of supersonic dash in afterburner for time-critical targets. Maximum speed varied based on the variant; faster versions such as the FB-22-2 was to have a top speed of Mach 1.92, while the FB-22-4 with maximal wing area would top out at around Mach 1.5.[6] Because the aircraft was to emphasize air-to-ground capability while maintaining stealth characteristics, the FB-22 would have lacked the F-22's dogfighting capability although it could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders and AIM-120 AMRAAMs for self defense against adversary fighters.[3]

One aspect that arose during the early stages of the design process was the consideration that Boeing would be responsible for the final assembly of the aircraft. At the time, Lockheed Martin was making the mid-fuselage at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, while assembling the F-22 in Marietta, Georgia. However, since Boeing was responsible for the manufacturing of parts of the fuselage and more crucially, the wings—as well as integrating the avionics—it was considered prudent to give final assembly to Boeing in Seattle, Washington.[7] Other than the wings, the aircraft would have retained much of the design of the F-22. This included 80% of the avionics, software, and flight controls. This commonality would have also significantly reduced the costs of software integration.[4]

In February 2003, during a session with the House Committee on Armed Services, Air Force Secretary James Roche said that he envisioned a force of 150 FB-22s would equip the service.[10] In 2004, Lockheed Martin officially presented the FB-22 to the Air Force to meet its requirement for a potential strategic bomber as an interim solution to become operational by 2018.[11][12] Because of the work already done on the F-22, the cost of developing the FB-22 was estimated to be as low as 25% of developing a new bomber,[5] with development expected to be US$5–7 billion (2002 dollars), including the airframe cost of US$1 billion (2003 dollars).[7][13] It was later revealed that six different versions of the bomber were submitted, as targets, payload and range had yet to be defined.[5] However, the FB-22 in its planned form was canceled in the wake of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and subsequent developments as the Department of Defense favored a new strategic bomber with much greater range that would enter service in 2018.[14][15][16] The Air Force would subsequently embark on the Next-Generation Bomber program to fulfill this goal, although the program was later re-scoped and became the Long Range Strike Bomber program.[17]

Specifications (FB-22-4, proposed)

[edit]

Data from Lockheed Martin,[18] Aerofax,[9] Air Force Association[5]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2 (pilot, co-pilot/weapon systems operator)
  • Length: 64 ft 4 in (19.61 m)
  • Wingspan: 73 ft 8 in (22.45 m)
  • Wing area: 1,757 sq ft (163.2 m2)
  • Airfoil: 4.45% thickness
  • Max takeoff weight: 120,000 lb (54,431 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 43,745 lb (19,842 kg) internal
  • Powerplant: 2 × modified Pratt & Whitney F119 afterburning turbofan[N 2]

Performance

  • Maximum speed: Mach 1.5+ at altitude[N 3]
  • Combat range: 1,480 nmi (1,700 mi, 2,740 km) (combat radius with 100 nmi supersonic dash)[5]
    • 1,800 nautical miles (2,070 mi; 3,330 km) subsonic
  • Ferry range: 3,600 nmi (4,100 mi, 6,700 km)
  • g limits: +6 g

Armament

  • Hardpoints: 8 internal hardpoints in three weapons bays, 4 underwing hardpoints with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) internal and in LO wing weapons bays, 30,000 lb (13,600 kg) total
  • Missiles:
  • Bombs:

See also

[edit]

Related development

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

Related lists

Citations

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The design might also have been adapted to use an even more powerful engine, such as the F-35 Lightning II's Pratt & Whitney F135, or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136.[8]
  2. ^ The modified F119 engines would have round axisymmetric nozzles and would not be optimized for supercruise.[5]
  3. ^ Faster proposed variants such as the FB-22-2 was to have a higher top speed of Mach 1.92.[5]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper (Report). U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense. November 2001. p. 27. Retrieved 28 April 2021 – via Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037
  2. ^ "RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 22 December 2009. Retrieved 13 September 2022.
  3. ^ a b c Tirpak, John A. (October 2002). "Long Arm of the Air Force" (PDF). Air Force Magazine. 85 (10). Air Force Association: 28–34. ISSN 0730-6784. OCLC 5169825. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  4. ^ a b c d Wolfe, Frank (26 April 2002). "Roche: FB-22 Concept Leverages Avionics, Radar Work On F-22". Defense Daily. Vol. 20, no. 214. Archived from the original on 4 January 2013.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i Tirpak, John A. (January 2005). "The Raptor as Bomber" (PDF). Air Force Magazine (magazine). 88 (1). Air Force Association: 28–33. ISSN 0730-6784. OCLC 5169825. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  6. ^ a b Trimble, Stephen (4–10 January 2005). "Lockheed refines FB-22 concept". Flight International. 167 (4966): 12.
  7. ^ a b c Whittle, Richard (30 July 2002). "Air Force Considers F-22 Bomber; Lockheed Would Be Prime Contractor". Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Archived from the original on 26 February 2017.
  8. ^ Sweetman, Bill (12 June 2002). "Smarter Bomber". Popular Science. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
  9. ^ a b Miller 2005, pp. 76–77.
  10. ^ Cortes, Lorenzo (28 February 2003). "Air Force Leaders Address Potential For 150 FB-22s". Defense Daily. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  11. ^ Doyle, Andrew; La Franchi, Peter; Morrison, Murdo; Sobie, Brendan (2–8 March 2004). "FB-22 proposed to US Air Force". Flight International. 165 (4923): 21.
  12. ^ Hebert, Adam J (November 2004). "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry" (PDF). Air Force Magazine (magazine). 87 (11). Air Force Association: 26–31. ISSN 0730-6784. OCLC 5169825. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  13. ^ Cortes, Lorenzo (10 March 2003). "Air Force Issues Clarification On FB-22, FY '11 Delivery Date Possible". Defense Daily. Archived from the original on 8 March 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
  14. ^ "Quadrennial Defense Review Report" (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense, 6 February 2006. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
  15. ^ Hebert, Adam J (October 2006). "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends" (PDF). Air Force Magazine. 89 (10). Air Force Association: 24–29.
  16. ^ "Return of the Bomber, The Future of Long-Range Strike" (PDF). Air Force Association, February 2007. p. 28. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
  17. ^ Entous, Adam (11 December 2009). "Gates sees funding for new bomber in fiscal 2011". Reuters.com. Retrieved 6 September 2011.
  18. ^ "FB-22 (product card)". Lockheed Martin ADP. 2005.

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Miller, Jay. Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor, Stealth Fighter. Aerofax, 2005. ISBN 1-85780-158-X.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_FB-22&oldid=1241553952"