Lockheed Martin FB-22

{{main|2037 bomber controversy}}

In March 1999, the Air Force released a Long Range Bombers white paper in response to a Congressional mandate for the service to update its bomber roadmap. The paper stated that the service's current fleet of strategic bombers consisting of the B-52, B-1, and B-2 would be sufficient until around 2037, when they will need to be replaced by a new "capability" with an acquisition program starting in 2019.{{cite news |last1=Tirpak |first1=John A. |title=The Bomber Roadmap |url=https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0699bomber/ |work=Air Force Magazine |date=1 June 1999 |access-date=29 April 2021}}{{cite report |title=U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers |url=https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/bmap99.pdf |publisher=U.S. Air Force |date=1 March 1999 |access-date=14 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230428001123/https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomber/bmap99.pdf |archive-date=28 April 2023}} However, this target date frustrated members of Congress who hoped to see greater budgetary emphasis on the bomber mission. Furthermore, the subsequent 2001 Department of Defense (DoD) Quadrennial Defense Review identified increasing threats to U.S. power projection, and the Air Force's aging bomber fleet. One of the key threats identified by the review was the increasing prevalence of sophisticated air defense systems which could deny airspace access to any aircraft without stealth capability.{{cite book |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA395236.pdf |title=2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report |date=30 September 2001 |publisher=Department of Defense |pages=30–31 |access-date=4 May 2021}} In November 2001, the Air Force released an updated white paper on Long Range Strike Aircraft, which acknowledged these challenges and also anticipated a strategic shift from nuclear deterrence to conventional precision bombing and network-centric warfare for global power projection in potentially unexpected conflict zones. Although the updated paper identified the possibility of a replacement "capability" entering service in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, it cautioned that this was not an in-depth or detailed bomber roadmap.{{cite report |title=U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=usafresearch |via=Digital Commons University of Nebraska-Lincoln |publisher=U.S. Air Force Research - U.S. Department of Defense |page=27 |date=November 2001 |access-date=28 April 2021 |quote=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}} 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.{{cite web|url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL34406.pdf |title=RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress |publisher=Congressional Research Service |date=22 December 2009 |access-date=13 September 2022 |df=dmy }}{{cite journal |author= Tirpak, John A. |publisher=Air Force Association |journal= Air Force Magazine |access-date= 8 March 2017 |date= October 2002 |oclc= 5169825 |pages= 28–34 |title= Long Arm of the Air Force|url= http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2002/October%202002/1002longarm.pdf |volume= 85 |issue= 10 |issn= 0730-6784}}{{cite journal |last1=Watts |first1=Barry D. |title=Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options |pages=15 |url=https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2005.04.06-Long-Range-Strike.pdf |access-date=10 May 2021 |journal=Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments |date=April 2005}}

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, the result of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. The studies primarily focused on the ability to survive and perform bombing missions (i.e. air interdiction) in contested environments, in both day and night, against increasingly capable air defense systems and adversary fighter aircraft. Furthermore, 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. Though initially unsolicited, the studies attracted the attention of several Air Force leaders, including Secretary of the Air Force James Roche in 2002.{{Cite news |last= Wolfe |first= Frank |url= https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85125159.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130104165633/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85125159.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 4 January 2013 |title= Roche: FB-22 Concept Leverages Avionics, Radar Work On F-22 |work= Defense Daily |issue= 214 |volume= 20 |date= 26 April 2002}}

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 while the horizontal tails (stabilators) were removed. 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.{{Cite journal |last= Trimble |first= Stephen |title= Lockheed refines FB-22 concept |journal= Flight International |date= 4–10 January 2005 |volume= 167 |issue= 4966 |page= 12}}

File:FB-22 proposals.jpg

Several proposals in this vein were investigated. The FB-22-3 used the stock fuselage with enlarged delta wings and no stabilators, while the FB-22-4 was similar to -3 but with maximal wing whose leading edge met with the upper edge of the caret 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 quantity 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. 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 {{Convert|250|lb|kg|sigfig=2|adj=on}} weapons. The main weapon bay doors would also be bulged to allow internal carriage of {{Convert|2000|lb|kg|sigfig=2|adj=on}} bombs in the fuselage. By employing the wing weapons bay, the FB-22 was designed to be able to carry bombs up to {{Convert|5,000|lb|kg|sigfig=3}} in size such as the GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munition (GAM) or two 2,000-pound bombs in tandem. With stealth, the aircraft's maximum combat load was to have been {{Convert|15,000|lb|kg|sigfig=3}}; without stealth, {{Convert|30,000|lb|kg|sigfig=3}}.

File:FB-22_bottom.jpg

Combat radius was almost tripled from {{convert|600|nmi|mi km|sigfig=2}} to more than {{convert|1600|nmi|mi km|sigfig=2}}, which could have been extended further by the use of external fuel tanks. This range capability 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 {{convert|60|inch|m}} to accommodate a second pilot in order to reduce workload and also act as a weapon systems officer (WSO).{{Cite news |url= https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-89874016.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170226131218/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-89874016.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 26 February 2017 |title= Air Force Considers F-22 Bomber; Lockheed Would Be Prime Contractor |last= Whittle |first= Richard |work= Knight Ridder Tribune Business News |date= 30 July 2002}} 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-lb bombs. The design was to still use the Pratt & Whitney F119 engines but modified for more power and optimized for subsonic efficiency rather than supercruise.{{refn|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.{{cite web |last= Sweetman |first= Bill |author-link= Bill Sweetman |url= http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2002-06/smarter-bomber |title= Smarter Bomber |work= Popular Science |date= 12 June 2002 |access-date= 13 July 2011}}|group=N}} While some FB-22 concepts featured no tailplanes (using research originally under the X-44 MANTA program), 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.{{Cite book |last=Miller |first=Jay |title=Lockheed-Martin F/A-22 Raptor: Stealth Fighter |date=2005 |publisher=Aerofax/Midland Publishing |location=Hinckley, UK |isbn=978-1857801583 |pages=76–77}} Though not designed for supercruise, the FB-22 would be capable of supersonic dash using afterburners. Projected maximum speed varied depending on the variant; faster versions such as the FB-22-2 would have had a top speed of Mach 1.92, while the FB-22-4 with maximal wing area would have topped out at around Mach 1.5. 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 fighters.

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. 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.

File:Desktop model of FB-22-3.jpg

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.{{cite journal |last= Cortes |first= Lorenzo |url= http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100568978.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160505231535/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100568978.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 5 May 2016 |title= Air Force Leaders Address Potential For 150 FB-22s |journal= Defense Daily |date= 28 February 2003 |access-date= 3 May 2015 }} 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.{{Cite journal |author1= Doyle, Andrew |author2= La Franchi, Peter |author3= Morrison, Murdo |author4= Sobie, Brendan |title= FB-22 proposed to US Air Force |journal= Flight International |date= 2–8 March 2004 |volume= 165 |issue= 4923 |page= 21}}{{Cite journal |last= Hebert |first= Adam J |journal= Air Force Magazine |publisher=Air Force Association |type= magazine |date= November 2004 |oclc= 5169825 |pages= 26–31 |title= Long-Range Strike in a Hurry|url= http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2004/November%202004/1104strike.pdf |volume= 87 |issue= 11 |issn= 0730-6784 |access-date= 11 March 2017}} 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, with development expected to be US$5–7 billion (2002 dollars, ~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=5000000000|start_year=2002}}}}–{{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=7000000000|start_year=2002}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}), including the airframe development cost of US$1 billion (2003 dollars, ~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=1000000000|start_year=2003}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}).{{cite journal |first= Lorenzo |last= Cortes|url= http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100568877.html |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160308232300/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100568877.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 8 March 2016 |title= Air Force Issues Clarification On FB-22, FY '11 Delivery Date Possible |date= 10 March 2003 |journal= Defense Daily |access-date= 1 May 2015}} It was later revealed that six different versions of the bomber were submitted, as targets, payload and range had yet to be defined.{{cite journal |author= Tirpak, John A. |journal= Air Force Magazine |publisher=Air Force Association |access-date= 8 March 2017 |type= magazine |date= January 2005 |oclc= 5169825 |pages= 28–33 |title= The Raptor as Bomber |url= http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.pdf |volume= 88 |issue= 1 |issn= 0730-6784}} 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.{{cite web |title=Quadrennial Defense Review Report |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA442905.pdf |access-date=13 July 2011 |work=U.S. Department of Defense, 6 February 2006}}{{Cite journal |last= Hebert |first= Adam J |url= http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2006/October%202006/10062018.pdf |title= The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends |journal= Air Force Magazine |publisher=Air Force Association |pages= 24–29 |date= October 2006 |volume= 89 |issue= 10}}{{cite web |url= http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/0207bombers.pdf |title= Return of the Bomber, The Future of Long-Range Strike |page= 28 |work= Air Force Association, February 2007 |access-date= 13 July 2011 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110629152341/http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/0207bombers.pdf |archive-date= 29 June 2011}} 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 resulting in the B-21 Raider.{{cite report |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44463/14 |title=Air Force B-21 Raider Long-Range Strike Bomber |last1=Hoehn |first1=John R. |last2=Gertler |first2=Jeremiah |date=22 September 2021 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=1–2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208101148/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44463/14 |archive-date=8 December 2023 |url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BA30920091211?type=politicsNews |title=Gates sees funding for new bomber in fiscal 2011 |publisher=Reuters.com |date=11 December 2009|access-date=6 September 2011 |first=Adam |last=Entous}}{{Cite news |last=Insinna |first=Valeria |title=Top secret B-21 Raider stealth bomber finally revealed in high-powered ceremony |agency=Breaking Defense |date=2 December 2022 |url=https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/top-secret-b-21-raider-finally-revealed-in-high-powered-ceremony/ |access-date=2 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321002413/https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/top-secret-b-21-raider-finally-revealed-in-high-powered-ceremony/ |archive-date=21 March 2023 |url-status=live}}

{{Aircraft specs

|ref= Lockheed Martin,{{cite web |url=https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/237/237388-e89279f43425bec55da596997d3a3dc1.jpg |title=FB-22 (product card) |work=Lockheed Martin ADP |date=2005 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240821201024/https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/237/237388-e89279f43425bec55da596997d3a3dc1.jpg |archive-date=21 August 2024}} Aerofax, Air Force Association

|prime units?= kts

|genhide=

|crew= 2 (pilot, co-pilot/weapon systems operator)

|capacity=

|length m=

|length ft= 64

|length in= 4

|length note=

|span m=

|span ft= 73

|span in= 8

|span note=

|height m=

|height ft=

|height in=

|height note=

|wing area sqm=

|wing area sqft= 1757

|wing area note=

|aspect ratio=

|airfoil= 4.45% thickness

|empty weight kg=

|empty weight lb=

|empty weight note=

|gross weight kg=

|gross weight lb=

|gross weight note=

|max takeoff weight kg=

|max takeoff weight lb= 120000

|max takeoff weight note=

|fuel capacity= {{convert|43745|lb|kg|0|abbr=on}} internal

|more general=

|eng1 number= 2

|eng1 name= modified Pratt & Whitney F119

|eng1 type= afterburning turbofan{{refn|The modified F119 engines would likely have had round axisymmetric nozzles and not optimized for supercruise.|group=N}}

|eng1 kn=

|eng1 lbf=

|eng1 note=

|thrust original=

|eng1 kn-ab=

|eng1 lbf-ab=

|more power=

|perfhide=

|max speed kmh=

|max speed mph=

|max speed kts=

|max speed note=

|max speed mach= 1.5+ at altitude{{refn|Faster proposed variants such as the FB-22-2 was to have a higher top speed of Mach 1.92.|group=N}}

|cruise speed kmh=

|cruise speed mph=

|cruise speed kts=

|cruise speed note=

|stall speed kmh=

|stall speed mph=

|stall speed kts=

|stall speed note=

|never exceed speed kmh=

|never exceed speed mph=

|never exceed speed kts=

|never exceed speed note=

|minimum control speed kmh=

|minimum control speed mph=

|minimum control speed kts=

|minimum control speed note=

|range km=

|range miles=

|range nmi= 3600

|range note=

|combat range km=

|combat range miles=

|combat range nmi= 1477

|combat range note=(combat radius with 100 nmi supersonic dash)

• {{convert|1574|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3}} (combat radius with 50 nmi supersonic dash)
• {{convert|1800|nmi|mi km|sigfig=3}} subsonic

|ferry range km=

|ferry range miles=

|ferry range nmi=

|ferry range note=

|endurance=

|ceiling m=

|ceiling ft=

|ceiling note=

|g limits= +6 g

|roll rate=

|glide ratio=

|climb rate ms=

|climb rate ftmin=

|climb rate note=

|time to altitude=

|lift to drag=

|wing loading kg/m2=

|wing loading lb/sqft=

|wing loading note=

|disk loading kg/m2=

|disk loading lb/sqft=

|disk loading note=

|fuel consumption kg/km=

|fuel consumption lb/mi=

|power/mass=

|thrust/weight=

|more performance=

|guns=

|bombs=

• Internal loadout: 12 × GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) or 2 × GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)
• Wing pylons: 12 x GBU-39 SDBs in LO wing weapons bays or 2 × GBU-31/32 JDAMs or 2 × GBU-37 GPS-Aided Munitions (GAM)

|rockets=

|missiles=

• Internal loadout: 6 × AIM-120 AMRAAM (2 × AIM-120 when carrying bombs) and 2 × AIM-9 Sidewinder (no AIM-9s when carrying SDBs in side bays)
• Wing pylons: 4 × AIM-120 AMRAAM and 2 × AGM-154 JSOW or 2 AGM-158 JASSM

|hardpoints=8 internal hardpoints in three weapons bays, 4 underwing hardpoints

|hardpoint capacity={{convert|15000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=2}} internal and in LO wing weapons bays, {{convert|30000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=3}} total

|hardpoint rockets=

|hardpoint missiles=

|hardpoint bombs=

|hardpoint other=

|avionics=

}}

{{Portal|Aviation}}

{{aircontent

|see also=

• Advanced Tactical Fighter
• 2037 bomber controversy

|related=

• Lockheed YF-22
• Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
• Lockheed Martin X-44 MANTA

|similar aircraft=

• General Dynamics FB-111
• Sukhoi Su-34
• Sukhoi T-60S
• Boeing B-1R
• Northrop Grumman FB-23

|lists=

• List of bomber aircraft

}}

{{Reflist|group=N}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite report |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS21848.pdf |title=Air Force FB-22 Bomber Concept |last1=Bolkcom |first1=Christopher |date=21 March 2005 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20221006213726/http://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS21848.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2022 |url-status=live}}
• {{cite web |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm |title=FB-22 Fighter Bomber |work=GlobalSecurity.org}}
• {{cite web |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/experimental-technology-could-be-applied-to-fb-22-bomber-variant/54562.article |title=Experimental technology could be applied to FB-22 bomber variant |work=Flight International |date=25 May 2004}}

{{Advanced Tactical Fighter}}

{{Lockheed Martin aircraft}}

{{USAF fighters}}

{{US bomber aircraft}}

FB-022

Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States

Category:Twinjets

Category:Tailless delta-wing aircraft

Category:Stealth aircraft

Category:Aircraft with retractable tricycle landing gear

Category:Two dimension thrust vectoring aircraft

Category:Twin-tail aircraft