Stealthy external pod seen on a F-22

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 11 Feb 2022, 07:31

WAG:
Could it be for communication? Connecting to F-35 without using L16?

my 0 cent.

madrat · by **madrat** » 11 Feb 2022, 13:50

I would speculate a more general purpose role, forward facing EOTS, MADL links, and anything it would need to command modern standoff missiles. Perhaps they will rethink JSOW and bring it back into the USAF for the F-22A?

They probably will only need one when they lug around a JASSM under the opposite wing.

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 10 Apr 2022, 17:37

Maybe it's just a stealthified fuel tank, to aid the limited range on internal fuel, without impacting performance to much?

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 12 Apr 2022, 18:34

Scorpion82 wrote:Maybe it's just a stealthified fuel tank, to aid the limited range on internal fuel, without impacting performance to much?

18000lbs of internal fuel doesnt seem like the F-22 has "limited range". Why stealthy EFTs? From my understanding EFTs on F-22s are normally used for ferry flights. Even IF the F-22 were to go into combat with EFTs, i dont think having EFTs will make the F-22 unstealthy all of sudden (less stealthy than it normally is yes). After all F-35s can have external sidewinders and gunpod and the F-35 is still considered stealthy compared to non-stealthy 4th and 4.5gen aircraft.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 12 Apr 2022, 20:09

madrat wrote:I would speculate a more general purpose role, forward facing EOTS, MADL links, and anything it would need to command modern standoff missiles. Perhaps they will rethink JSOW and bring it back into the USAF for the F-22A?

They probably will only need one when they lug around a JASSM under the opposite wing.

F-22s don't carry JASSM, JSOW, etc.... Those pods are for A2A/EA/EW functions.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 12 Apr 2022, 20:25

charlielima223 wrote:18000lbs of internal fuel doesnt seem like the F-22 has "limited range".

and yet it only has a range equivalent to an Eagle, and not a Strike Eagle. It weighs 43,000lb bone dry, 18,000lb of gas with 8 AAMs only gives a fuel fraction of about 28%. Not stellar. If I assume a sidekick weighs 500# per bay and that the external pylons are 150# each then an F-35A with the same payload has a fuel fraction of 36%. The F-22 has lower bypass ratio, which implies higher TSFC at cruise. I would be surprised if the F-22 had a significantly different cruise L/D to the F-35A too.

You want to know what determines range? Fuel Fraction, TSFC, L/D, and speed for that L/D.
Fuel Fraction is in F-35 favor by 29%.
TSFC is likely in F-35 favor but I would guess by 5%, just a WAG.
L/D will favor the F-22 by maybe 10%.
Speed will favor the F-22 by maybe 5%. You want supercruise, get ready to kill that L/D by a LOT.

Throw this together for a quick guess and you get that the F-35 should outrange the F-22 by 17%, and how many people/agencies say the F-35 range isn't enough.

But wait, there's more! Reserve Fuel is largely a function of empty weight (~7% of empty weight is the average I have seen) so that means 3,000lb of fuel for the F-22 is not used for any phase of flight and 2,000lb of fuel for the F-35 isn't available (coincides with a leaked report that 1,900 is std reserve). This means the useful fuel fractions are actually 23.6% for the F-22 and 32.2% for the F-35. Now fuel Fraction favors the Lightning by 36% and range estimate favors the F-35 by almost 25% (23.6%).

The smaller fighter, that "doesn't have enough range", outranges the Raptor by a quarter as much again. I think finding a way to get enough extra fuel with low enough drag (want to improve FF with the minimum hit to both L/D and speed) onto the F-22 is a good idea.

A JTAC (IIRC) has also been credited with saying the Raptor time on station is nothing special, but the Lightnings was.

Remember, I only bring up the Lightning because it is often cited as not having enough range in spite of having unparalleled range for it's size (only Mudhens and bombers are going farther, and Mudhens not by much)

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Apr 2022, 01:11

Sadly, too few Raptors left to upgrade with an Adaptive Cycle Engine either....Which, would have help considerably with range!

madrat · by **madrat** » 13 Apr 2022, 04:42

Corsair1963 wrote:Sadly, too few Raptors left to upgrade with an Adaptive Cycle Engine either....Which, would have help considerably with range!

Adaptive cycle does not imply magical thinking. Why would an engine that can adapt to different speeds of airflow want an airframe that is tuned to a specific speed range to be most effective? You cannot expect to reach optimal performance when the airflow is adapted before the adaptive engine has a chance to modulate with that airflow. The adaptive engine could actually perform worse than the original in that situation.

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 13 Apr 2022, 05:02

Adaptive engine upgrade would give F-22 about 18% more range.

F-22 design is really focused on supersonic performance over range. I think the range is about the same as F-15C with wing tanks, or just a single tank.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Apr 2022, 09:25

madrat wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sadly, too few Raptors left to upgrade with an Adaptive Cycle Engine either....Which, would have help considerably with range!

Adaptive cycle does not imply magical thinking. Why would an engine that can adapt to different speeds of airflow want an airframe that is tuned to a specific speed range to be most effective? You cannot expect to reach optimal performance when the airflow is adapted before the adaptive engine has a chance to modulate with that airflow. The adaptive engine could actually perform worse than the original in that situation.

What? The F-22 indeed performs well high and fast. Yet, it still has to operate across the entire spectrum. The Adaptive Cycle Engines give performance advantage across the board.....(both in economy and performance)

Remember, while the ACE will fit in the F-35. Its primary user will be the F-22s successor the NGAD!

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 13 Apr 2022, 14:02

F-22 on internal fuel only has the range of an F-15c with 2 bags. That's actually quite good IMO, especially considering they shaved off a good 5,000lbs of internal fuel from the YF-22. Hindsight being 20/20, they probably should have kept that but that ship sailed long ago.

NGAD and evolved F-35's will have to carry the day. The F-35 in particular IMO, as their numbers will be much larger. Let's just hope USAF learned its lesson cutting the F-22 buy so short, and we procure enough NGAD's to make it meaningful.

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 13 Apr 2022, 14:20

USAF has said that they won’t repeat the mistake with the F-22 in the NGAD and want at least 300 of them. They seem to be putting quite a lot of effort and money into the program which is a good sign. Just hope there won’t be a situation where you have Secretary of Defense like Rumsfeld and Gates trying to sabotage the program.

The real worry is that Navy F/A-XX funding is much lower for some reason.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Apr 2022, 22:56

mixelflick wrote:F-22 on internal fuel only has the range of an F-15c with 2 bags. That's actually quite good IMO, especially considering they shaved off a good 5,000lbs of internal fuel from the YF-22. Hindsight being 20/20, they probably should have kept that but that ship sailed long ago.

NGAD and evolved F-35's will have to carry the day. The F-35 in particular IMO, as their numbers will be much larger. Let's just hope USAF learned its lesson cutting the F-22 buy so short, and we procure enough NGAD's to make it meaningful.

That is why it may be a good idea to acquire some Adaptive Cycle Engines for the F-35. So, they can push the numbers up and the price down. This of course would help lower the cost of the NGAD. Which, in all likelihood will be pretty pricy!

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 14 Apr 2022, 15:25

Yeah, I agree. The F-35 with new, more powerfult engine is a great investment. It will also likely benefit other aircraft, in the same way evolved F-100's, 110's and 404's have. Plus, we need to keep our edge and there's no better way than to keep upping our game on the cornerstone of western airpower.

I would expect our allies would also re-engine their Lightening's at some point, considering its planned service life.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 14 Apr 2022, 23:33

@sprstdlyscottsmn

I have no disagreement than an F-35A can outrange an F-22. It carries a little more fuel internally and has a single engine that runs efficiently in the subsonic range.

What annoys me is that now all of a sudden the F-22 is "limited on range". I agree with mixelflick that the F-22 has comparable fuel and range than an 2 bag F-15C, no one complained about the combat range of an F-15C for years. More over I asked an F-22 pilot during an open house event at Nellis what the F-22 is like a few years ago. I cant remember word verbatim but he did say the Raptor gives you more range than what the flight manuel says. Something about how he didnt have to spend so much time tapping on the gas. The F-22 Fighter Pilot Podcast episode guest did say that the F-22 is equal to his F-15C with to tanks on it. Then later on when he was talking about ferry flights in the F-22 he remarked that the F-22 has so much fuel that they often dont need to make a divert.

Seems like people forget about this chart and what it said at the bottom...