1. 皇家海航預定採購150架F-35短場起飛／垂直降落多用途戰機，以取代現役的獵鷹式GR7/GR9垂直起降戰鬥攻擊機，並於2012年起和研發中的CVF未來空母一同成軍服役。

2. 英國的參與F-35計畫的企業公司預期將能從中獲利達423億美金（這是老英目前投資購買F-35所需花費至少三倍的回饋....真是賺翻了，特級老美盟邦不一樣就是不一樣。），並且增加八千五百多個工作機會。。

3. 在搭配航空母艦方面，CVF的滿載排水量將介於五萬五千至六萬噸之間，且單艘造價預定將不超過四十七億美金（三十億英鎊）；英國方面希望，兩艘CVF與150架F-35短場起飛／垂直降落多用途戰機的搭配將能滿足至少五十年的戰術需要；更有甚者，雖然已經選定垂直起降構型戰機作為下代主力，但是英國國防部仍然屬意並繼續推動傳統起降型的CVF設計，其目的是為了讓新航艦保持最大的操作彈性，若有必要，能在最短的時間內以最經濟有效的方式從垂直起降戰機母艦升級改裝為傳統起降戰機母艦，以因應萬一F-35退役時（？），其後繼者（無人戰鬥攻擊機、王爾古雷、英格蘭姆、VF-91、剛彈.......）若非短場／垂直起降時之需........

F-35都至少要服役到2050~2060年了，CVF計畫居然還在肖想F-35後繼者的換裝應用問題？？想得可真是遠啊........看來CVF頗有希望以七八十歲的高齡之身，參與0083星辰墜落作戰行動了。

Britain chooses Lockheed jets to replace Harriers

BLACKPOOL, England, Sept 30 (AFP) - 18:05 GMT - Britain will buy up to 150 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing versions of the new Lockheed Martin F35 military aircraft to replace its Harrier jump jets, the defence ministry said Monday.
Defence Minister Geoff Hoon said Britain had chosen new US-made F-35 jets to replace British Harriers on aircraft carriers.

The minister said the government had selected the short take off and vertical landing version (STOVL) of Joint Strike Fighter jets, known as F35, which will begin flying from 2012.

I can confirm that we have decided to enhance that mobility and flexibility further by choosing an adaptable design for two future aircraft carriers as part of the largest shipbuilding program this country has seen in years, Hoon told the Labour Partys annual conference in Blackpool.

His deputy, Defence Procurement minister Lord Bach said of the new plane: We have chosen this variant, which is the one being bought by the US Marine Corps, because it fully meets our military needs.

And it builds on Britains unique and valuable knowledge of STOVL aircraft acquired during nearly four decades of operations with Harrier on land and at sea, he added.

Bach said the two new aircraft carriers needed to house the F35 must have the maximum flexibility to meet our defence needs throughout their service lives of up to 50 years.

That is why weve decided they will be built to an innovative adaptable plan so that they will operate STOVL F35 aircraft, but can be modified to fly the generation of aircraft - which might possibly be unmanned combat aerial vehicles - even beyond the F35, whether or not these too are STOVL, said Bach.

Industry estimates that some 3,500 jobs could be created or sustained by work on the Lockheed F35 in Britain rising to 8,500 once the aircraft moves into production and then into service.

The total value of the F35 program, including exports, to British industry could be as much as 27 billion pounds sterling (43 billion euros/42.3 billion US dollars), the defence ministry said.

Ministers will announce early in 2003 which of two competing prime contractors, Thales Naval and BAE Systems, will be responsible for the ships design and construction.

BACKGROUND NOTES:

--STOVL aircraft are launched over a ski-jump and land vertically on aircraft carriers, as on the current Invincible class. The US Navy Carrier Variant aircraft use catapults to take off. They land on decks fitted with arrestor wires, as in current US Navy and French carriers.

--On current assumptions the two new carriers, known in MoD as the CVF project, are expected to displace between 55,000 and 60,000 tonnes. On this basis we expect these immensely powerful and impressive aircraft carriers will be largest warships ever built in the UK, or indeed anywhere outside the USA and the Russian Federation. They are expected to cost no more than about £3 billion to build.

--Ministers will announce early in 2003 which of two competing prime contractors, Thales Naval and BAE Systems, will be responsible for the design and build of the ships. A contract for the design & build of both ships is expected to be placed in 2004 with the chosen prime contractor.

--The two competing carrier contractors have each been developing alternative designs based on STOVL or CV aircraft. The CV designs could be adapted to operate STOVL aircraft with minimum change and could be modified if necessary with catapults and arrestor gear to operate a future generation of assisted launch & recovery aircraft. MoD has decided to take forward the CV design, modified to operate STOVL in the short to medium term, but with the flexibility to operate other types of aircraft after the F35 has left service.

>>>使用短場垂直起降構型戰機，但發展的航艦卻是具有CV特色的STOVL，
只要有必要，可以輕易的在兩者間變來變去........

即使如此, 老英理想中的下一代航母卻比老法的理想下一代航艦
(是傳統起降設計吧?)足足重上10000-15000噸......

可能原因（個人觀點）：
1. 法國過去四十多年來所用的航艦主力，克里蒙梭級的噸位是32,700噸級，因此法國方面與航艦相關的維修支援設備與船塢乃至基地港口停泊適合的也是三四萬噸級大小的航艦，是以法國的新世紀第一艘新航空母艦戴高樂級的噸位也是四萬零五百噸級上下﹔如果其要採用五萬五千至六萬噸級的二號空母的話，在後勤維修支援上想和戴高樂艦一線共通可能會有所
困難。

2. 老法的經濟體質不如老英，能維持兩艘四萬噸級中型空母的編制已經是其能力極限，而為了維持航艦兵力於二艦體制而不墜，法國海軍迄今已付出刪除兩艘凱旋級SSBN，一艘紫水晶級SSN，取消M-5 SLBM發展計畫，艦載疾風採購數量由86架刪減至60架，二號空母可能無法採用所費不貲的核子動力設計，且服役年代比首號艦至少晚上16年等等代價。無法和老英那種三年內成軍兩艘五六萬噸級中重型空母，一次就150架F-35B，未來甚至還打算在航艦上起降剛彈那種大氣魄，大手筆相提並論。

150架F-35B的量產服役取代計畫，總價竟高達100億英鎊，合計美金約160億！！分攤在每架戰機上的話，平均每架戰機的造價超過一億美金，絲毫不讓RAFALE與EF2000專美於前....

根據英國國防部的報告，役齡為五十年的兩艘大型航空母艦造價為三十億英鎊，航艦排水量在五萬五千至六萬公噸之間，艦身長度為兩百九十公尺，比英國現有的航空母艦增加四十六公尺。完工啟用後，艦上將配置許多直升機與F-35聯合攻擊戰機。未來如有需要，航艦上的跑道可以更換成彈射式起飛所使用的傳統型跑道。

一百五十架F-35 JSF戰機的總預算為一百億英鎊，其中二十億英鎊用來和洛克希德馬汀公司及BAE系統公司共同研發此一新型戰機，三十億英鎊用來購買戰機，其餘的五十億英鎊用於戰機二十五年服役期間的維修。

A: 原來如此，如此一來，F-35B就算含研發成本的單價也不過五千多萬美金，誠然是價廉物美。只是老美生產三千架JSF的平均成本單價是6600~6700萬美金一架，而老英在買理論上是F-35家族最貴的成員（垂直起降型）時，單價居然只要5000多萬美金？？特級盟國果真不是當假的啊........

英國國防部長胡恩表示，皇家海、空軍原先並未決定採購短程起飛/垂直降落型 (STOVL)的F-35 JSF戰機，而是因為美國空軍的一項會計錯誤，使得傳統起降型的F-35 JSF戰機生產計畫比原先估計延後兩年。英國因為不願為了等候此一機種而使空防多出現兩年空窗期，因此決定採購STVOL型。

A: 艦載傳統起降型的發展，干美國空軍何事？？不解..........

皇家海軍目前仍在使用的二十九架鷂式戰機將在二○○六年屆齡除役，新的F-35 JSF戰機必須等到二○一二年才能交貨，因此英國艦隊有六年必須靠陸地起飛的戰機保護，或者仰賴美國與法國兩個盟邦的海軍提供空中掩護。

The heart of the F-22s electronics capabilities is the APG-77 radar system, though it is so much more than a radar that some prefer to call it a multifunction RF system instead.

With the APG-77, the F-22 will be able to detect an enemy aircrafts radar from distances of up to 460 kilometers (250 nautical miles). It will be able to acquire an enemy aircraft with radar at distances of up to 230 kilometers (125 nautical miles), while its low probability of intercept radar signal will be very difficult to detect and the stealthy F-22 will remain invisible to the enemys radar.

（利用被動偵搜感應的方式，AN/APG-77可以探測到460km範圍內敵機所散發的雷達波，若以主動探測的方式，則能探測到230km範圍內的敵機.......LUZE君的想法似乎被印證了。）

Once AIM-120 Extended Range Air To Air Missiles (ERAAM) are available, the F-22 will be able to destroy that enemy at a range of 185 kilometers (100 nautical miles). In many cases, the enemy will be hit without warning.

（.........這段文章的真實性，在下持高度懷疑：軍武文獻中找不到ERAAM有此驚人射程的記載，就算F22的超音速巡航能顯著延伸AAM有效射程，這個數據也委實太誇張。果真如此的話，那以老英老德為首的歐洲各國致力研發因科技尖端複雜，服役時程一延再延，從2008延到2012年之後的METEOR之舉動簡直和白癡無異。）

The APG-77 is built around an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), which consists of an array of about 2,000 transmitters-receiver (T/R) modules that are linked together by high-speed processors. The AESA can obtain electronics intelligence; jam enemy electronic systems; provide surveillance; and perform secure voice and datalink communications, all that the same time. The AESA can simultaneously emit several tight beams to perform different functions. Anything that can be done with X-band RF can be done with that antenna, one program official commented.

（簡單一句話........神！！）

Although the Air Force considered auxiliary side-mounted arrays for the APG-77, they were abandoned due to cost, and the AESA is limited to a field of view 120 degrees across in the forward direction. Other antennas provide missile and radar warning behind the aircraft.

（真的只有120度？？在下似乎快要聽到看到老法對其最大搜索角度140度的新型RBE-2 AESA雷達大吹特吹、洋洋自得的言行神態表情了。）

When operating as a radar, the APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If the enemy does manage to detect the signal, he or she must then try to get a radar lock on the F-22 so it can be attacked. The F-22s stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemys radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again.

（.........這段文章的真實性，在下持高度懷疑：軍武文獻中找不到ERAAM有此驚人射程的記載，就算F22的超音速巡航能顯著延伸AAM有效射程，這個數據也委實太誇張。果真如此的話，那以老英老德為首的歐洲各國致力研發因科技尖端複雜，服役時程一延再延，從2008延到2012年之後的METEOR之舉動簡直和白癡無異。）

==

http://www.global-defence.com/missiles/missile8.htm

Overall the FMRAAM boasts a 250-per-cent improvement in the no-escape zone of current missiles (AMRAAM)
--
It (ERAAM) provides 80 per cent of FMRAAM performance for 50 per cent of the cost
--

也就是ERAAM的射程是AMRAAM的200%
以你貼的文上的100nm射程反算，AMRAAM的射程將為50nm，不過沒寫狀態是什麼
如果以30K ft. M2頭對頭接近，AMRAAM射程50nm.. 我覺得蠻合理的(還覺得好像少了點)

當然，AMRAAM的射程到底有多少，NEZ有多大... 謎呀!!!

不過.. FMRAAM 125nm的接戰距離這還叫做MRM.. 那AIM-54叫啥？SRM？
100nm的界線該畫一下啦... 明明就是LRM了還掛羊頭賣狗肉說自己是MRM...:ppp

Analysis has shown that Meteors performance is many times greater than current medium-range air-to-air missiles including the US AMRAAM, and it also has been optimised to have excellent no-escape-zone performance.

若TTSO君的說法成立的話，那打敗FMRAAM的METEOR真的是全世界最會裝蒜的武器系統了，明明有著少說三百公里級的最大射程，竟然在截至目前所有的公布資料中，宣稱自己的最大有效射程僅≧100km？？真是太深藏，太不露了。

The heart of the JSFs sensors will be the Raytheon Multifunction Integrated Radio-Frequency System (MIRFS), based on the APG-77 active electronically scanned array (AESA) developed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The JSFs MIRFS will provide a range of functions, acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, passive electronic defense system, and communications system. MIRFS will generate signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure low probability of intercept, allowing the F-35 to see but not be seen.

An AESA consists of an array of transmitter-receiver (T/R) modules linked by high-speed processors. Different T/R modules in the array can be allocated to different tasks, with more modules allocated to tasks that require greater power or sensitivity. The JSFs MIRFS will use improved technology compared to the F-22s APG-77, but airframe constraints mean that it will have fewer T/R modules, limiting it to about two-thirds the range (165 kilometers / 90 nautical miles) of the APG-77.
（在下所看到的第一篇對F-35雷達偵搜距離有所描述記載的軍事文獻資料.......）

The F-35 will also be fitted with additional sensor systems, including a an infrared search and track (IRST) system for defense and air-to-air combat, and a targeting system for precision attack on ground targets.

The IRST system is known as the distributed aperture infrared system (DAIRS or DAS). DAS includes of six IR sensors mounted on different points of the fuselage to provide full-sphere IR detection and tracking. It will be able to identify and pinpoint both incoming missiles and airborne targets.

KS-172與AIM-155的在天英靈啊，你們可以安息了........

==

我原本的算法是基於能量需求比下去算，不過後來想一想發現我忽略了速度變數

假設兩種飛彈對於NEZ的定義一樣
兩種飛彈NEZ的大小比例可以被想為擁有的能量比

不過我當初忽略了速度這個因素
因為即使兩種飛彈在同發射態下對靜止目標的最大射程相同，飛行速度比較快的會有比較大的NEZ，因為飛抵目標鎖需要的時間比較少，相對的目標可以產生的逃離扣除量也比較少

所以如果FMRAAM的NEZ是AMRAAM的280%，這個數值還得去除FMRAAM:AMRAAM的飛行速度比值後才會是同狀態下的最大射程比

當然這些的前提是NEZ的定義要一樣，如果一枚用的目標機航速是M1.2另一枚是M0.8
那就差一大截了，特別是飛彈飛行速度越慢的差越多...

所以，METEOR和FMRAAM之所以能擁有AIM-120數倍的NEZ，應該不是因為其能量比較AIM-120高上數倍，而是因為其懂得節約能源，不是一個勁的埋頭猛衝，將速度能量浪費在半途上。

==

RAMJET飛彈NEZ之所以會比傳統火箭高這麼多，是因為它可以長時間燃燒，保持長時間的高速中途歸向，並不是說中途以較低的巡速飛行

Also, 「可以該快（終端飛行殺敵時）的時候才快」這段話基本上是有問題的
對於火箭發動機的飛彈而言，在終端歸向前發動機就已經cuteoff，靠的是動能飛行，所以才要在cuteoff前去搶動能與位能.
但是AAM終端歸向時「並不需要」整段飛行的最高衝刺速度，這跟反艦飛彈不一樣
你的飛速越高，等G下的迴轉半徑越差，換句話說：實際的機動性越差
反艦飛彈的終端衝刺用在AAM上反而不好，甚至連RAMJET AAM的中途巡速去歸向都不適合
AAM要的是終端推力去彌補歸向動作所造成的能量損失，而不是反艦飛彈要的終端最高飛速。

Also2, RAMJET的比衝比固態火箭發動機好，至於AMRAAM vs FMRAAM/METEOR的發動機比衝到底差多少，我不知道，我猜也不會有外人知道...
不過就發動機特性來看的話，RAMJET的可輸出總能量的確比固態火箭高，而且高很多...

固態火箭要一開始就衝高空高速不是它的錯，是因為這就是它的天性
可變推力的固態火箭... 這種東西太貴了，不可能用在飛彈上
現在用的頂多是藥柱預先成型，這已經比從前的好很多了..

當年AIM-155在尚未取消之前，便有一組勇者團隊挑戰過這不可能的任務......

1. 通用動力／西屋集團：使用多脈衝式固體火箭馬達推進設計，發射初期加速性能快。

2. 休斯。雷神。麥道集團：
使用固體火箭／衝壓式發動機混合推進設計，雖然其初期加速性能不及通用動力／西屋集團的設計，但是當飛彈飛過最大射程2/3的距離，衝壓發動機點火啟動之後，休斯。雷神。麥道集團的設計反倒會使飛彈有著更高的終端速度與獵殺動能。

假設你的目標機可以做M0.8 13G瞬間閃避動作
相同迴轉半徑下M3要...183G才達的到(M2要81G，M4要325G)
就算彈體的終端歸向極限迴轉半徑放大到目標的6倍，還是得承受30G才能達到
(M4則要承受54G，M2只要13.5G)

Rocket AAM還沒到終端就cuteoff，終端空速老早掉到M2以下.
RAMJET AAM如果到終端時發動機都還可以繼續燒，用巡速(M3 M4)去撞，那歸向的機動半徑會可憐的要死，而且可以承受30G、50G的彈體絕對沒有20G的來的輕，重量又是射程的大忌

與其這樣，RAMJET AAM還不如在TOA或TOA後降縮油門，用慣性減速飛最後那10nm或者是更短的距離，降速到M2 M2.5後開最大推力，反正高機動歸向一定會花一堆能量，就一路點著最大推力去減低機動歸向的能量損失..

可以用資料鏈將飛彈拉回來嗎？

與第四代戰機相比，飛彈的確是高翼負荷設計，但是卻不一定是低推重比，這跟發動機有關
rocket AAM可能是低推重比，特別是當發動機已經cuteoff下，推重比根本就是0
RAMJET AAM不一樣，只要終端引擎還在燒，你就有與發射起始時相同的推力，also，RAMJET AAM的終端前推重比一定是全段飛行中最高的，蓋終端時燃料消耗使彈體最輕

RAMJET推力控制能力讓你可以選擇要以多少速度終端、並且讓你終端時還有推力去推飛彈，這是除了高射程短飛行時間外最大的優點

全長..............18.90m
全高.............. 5.08m
翼展..............13.56m
翼面積............78.03m2
機身空重..........14360kg
全備起飛........≧35000kg
標準空戰..........21700kg
內載燃油..........14375L
搭載彈量...........2270kg（全內載）
搭載彈量.........≧9000kg（含外掛，一說可達12tons）

二、基本飛行性能：

高空最高時速...........≧1.8M（2.0M+）
低空最高時速...........800kts
超音速巡航..............1.58M (在標準空戰重量下, 可只憑八成軍推便獲致1.5馬赫以上的超音速巡航)

海平面爬升率.............350m／sec
實用升限.............≧15240m

空戰推重比..............1.46／0.98（後燃／最大軍用）
耐Ｇ限...................－3／＋9g（正常操作限度）
瞬間迴旋角速率.........≧30度／sec
空戰翼負荷...............275kg／m2
加速能力：自200kts加速至 Mach 1 → ≦30 secs

航程......................≧4000km（無副油箱）

三、機載引擎：Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100渦扇引擎*2

後燃推力.......15875kg*2，未來可能會提升至18144kg*2
推重比.........................................10:1
壓縮比.........................................35:1
引擎最大操作溫度.........................攝氏1770度

四、機載雷達：AN/APG-77主動陣列雷達

偵測距離（最大距離）...............≧400km（一說460km以上）
偵測距離（一般戰機）...................230km
偵測距離（RCS1m2目標）..............166km
雷達尖峰功率........................≧1MW
同步追蹤能力..................≧100個目標

# 在使用資料鏈網路作戰系統與整合式被動電戰系統之下, 猛禽戰機據說甚至可在不開雷達以更增匿蹤能力的情況下, 依據友軍資料或是目標的電磁信號特徵, 於460公里範圍內察覺發現敵機存在，230公里範圍內予以定位。拜其優異的超音速巡航能力之賜, 猛禽能充分發揮AIM-120C有效射程的極限, 於距敵機四五十公里外開火殺敵 (若使用即將量產成軍, 更新的AIM-120改型, 例如C5, PIP3, PIP4等等, 則其有效射程更可望拓展至六七十公里以上......), 而在猛禽舉世無雙的匿蹤性能面前, 目前各國時下第一流的戰機雷達理論上都得靠近猛禽至20公里以內才有可能初步察覺其存在.

# 根據某些大陸軍武文獻的說法, 猛禽戰機上的整合式被動電子戰系統可以在收集記錄敵機的電磁信號特徵之後, 用於導引發射AIM-120, 此時的AIM-120有如一款反輻射飛彈, 順著敵人的電磁信號追尋殺敵, 本身無須開啟尋標器, 因此更加不易洩漏飛彈蹤跡, 敵人也更容易死得不明不白.

# 為了因應先進感測器所帶來的大量資訊之處理整合問題, 猛禽戰機上有四具相當克雷二型超級電腦等級的任務電腦與超高速光纖資料排流匯, 運算速度, 處理能力與擴充升級潛力無與倫比; 其亦十分重視人機介面的整合工作, 希望透過簡易明白的重大資訊呈現方式與傻瓜式戰機操作, 讓資質普通的飛行員亦能輕易將猛禽操作上手, 且成為空戰王牌飛行員.

五, 猛禽的匿蹤性能描述:

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/archive/MILITARY/AA/flanker.html

簡而言之:

NO11雷達(SU-35的雷達配備)能偵測的最大距離 / R-77尋標器(AGAT9B-1103M / 9B1348)能追蹤到的最大距離 / R-77尋標器能鎖定的最大距離

F15/SU27 (正面RCS: 5~10m2): 180~200KM / 70~80KM / 15~20KM

F/A-18 C (正面RCS: 1~2m2) : 140~165KM / 45~55KM / 10~15KM

RAFALE B/C (正面RCS: 0.5m2): 90~95KM / 25~35KM / 8~10KM

F/A-18 E/F (正面RCS: 0.1m2): 75~85KM / 20~25KM / 7~8KM

F-22A (正面RCS : 0.001m2以下): 15~18KM / 5~6KM / 1~2KM

六, 標準武器配備與整體戰力:

1. 機腹彈艙可容納四枚AIM-120A/B AAM, 或是六枚AIM-120C AAM
2. 進氣口兩側彈艙可各容納一枚AIM-9X短程IIR AAM
3. 必要時, 兩翼下可各加裝兩具多重掛架, 每具掛架上可以各自攜帶一具2,270公升的副油箱與兩枚AIM-120C AAM, 所以在極端狀況下, 猛禽可攜帶11,375公升的內載燃油, 9,080公升的外載燃油, 高達十四枚的AIM-120C AAM以及兩枚AIM-9X.
4. 固定武裝: 20mm M-61A2火神炮, 砲彈480發

# 美空軍宣稱, F-22的整體造價比F-15E (單價約一億兩千多萬美金)高出35%左右, 但是整體致命威力 (Lethality)則將是F-15E的九倍; 英國方面的電腦模擬則顯示: 在和Su-35/37等級的對手交鋒時, F-22的的獲勝機率高達91%, 換算成交換比的話則高達10.2:1 !!

# 目前首批量產的23架F-22A, 單價高達兩億零六百多萬美金一架; 美國空軍目前預定採購339架猛禽F-22A, 但是其最終需求則將介於390至762架之間.

# 今年九月中旬，老美空軍正式將猛禽的代號更改為F/A-22戰鬥攻擊機，並宣稱在全新的微型精確導引對地攻擊武器的協助下，猛禽將成為無與倫比的唯一真正匿蹤打擊戰機，除了稱霸天空外，亦將在今後三十年內欺凌蹂躪敵國下兩個世代的地對空防空系統。

================================================================================

依照F-119引擎研發公司發言人於九零年代末期的說法, F-119引擎的推力提昇階段目標為：
2000年：35000磅級　-->　40000磅級，也就是現在的Ｆ１３５。

2005年：提昇至45000磅級

A:既然八成軍推已經可以超過1.5M了，要到1.7M應該也不是太大的問題，何況推力又有所提昇........
對了，F/A-22的最大推力從35000Ib*2升級成39000Ib*2的正式外電證明可在哪邊看到??在下先前在網路上搜尋，卻始終未能發現。

最近AWST有一篇讀者投書：「如果掛兩枚1000磅炸彈的F-22可以改叫F/A-22的話，那掛五枚2000磅JDAM還可以同時攻擊五個目標的F-15E不就是FB-15了？」

來自 Bill Sweetman 某本 F-22 的書吧？他在 IAPR 5 裡是寫 38000 全
後燃， 25500 軍用。目前一般公開的應該還是 35000 吧？

因為大部份我們常看雜誌的 F-22 文章都是 Bill Sweetman 寫的啊..:p

Lockheed Martin Delivers First F/A-22 for Initial Operational Testing

(Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued Oct. 24, 2002)

The F/A/FB/EF/RF-22 Raptor
Brendan Rivers

At the 2002 Air Force Association National Convention on September 17 in Washington, DC, Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper announced that the F-22 Raptor would no longer be called the F-22. Rather, to reflect its multiple roles and many dimensions, the Raptor will now be designated the F/A-22 -- A for attack. But wait. Wasnt the Raptor supposed to be a pure air-superiority fighter? Wasnt that supposed to be the reason the Air Force needs it? How did this new letter get tacked on to its designation, and why?

For years now, budget hawks have tried to cut the Raptor program -- by either scaling back the number of aircraft to be procured or by terminating the program entirely -- but have met with only success in reducing the number of Raptors the Air Force will buy. However, with the recent successes in lining up international participation for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, the Raptor camp must be getting nervous. Until this recent change in designation, the F-22 was said to have been designed as a pure air-superiority fighter. The JSF, on the other hand, is more of a multirole aircraft with ground-attack capabilities, as well as air-to-air. Now, suddenly, we are supposed to believe that the Raptor is a multirole aircraft, too.

The Raptor camp must sense danger. Over the past few years, every time it seemed as though some cuts to the program might be on the horizon, the Air Force and Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the Raptor, were quick to point out other roles that the controversial fighter might fill. In 1999, the notion of an RF-22 was floated (see A Reconnaissance Role for the F-22?JED , July 1999), and sources indicate that Lockheed Martin is still chatting up this idea. When the joint Airborne Electronic Attack Analysis of Alternatives (AEA AoA) was released earlier this year, it noted the possibility of creating an electronic-attack variant of the Raptor, dubbed the EF-22. As recently as August, frequent JED contributor Bill Sweetman penned an article for Popular Science discussing the notion of converting the Raptor into -- get this -- the FB-22, a bomber. For a pure air-superiority fighter, the Raptor sure seems versatile, doesnt it?

Now the Raptor, in addition to being an air-superiority fighter, is a ground-attack plane as well -- the F/A-22. But isnt that exactly what the JSF is? Why does the Air Force need the Raptor then? Why should the Air Force (or more accurately, the US taxpayer) shell out $45 billion to get 295 Raptors? Do the math. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin need to do more than tack an A on the aircrafts designation to justify such an exorbitant per-unit cost.

Defenders of the Raptor will be quick to point to the aircrafts stealthiness, noting its advantage over the JSF in that area, and theyre right. But so what? Stealth is a desirable characteristic in a long-range bomber, which may need to penetrate deep into hostile territory to reach its target. Stealth would also benefit a reconnaissance or surveillance aircraft so that what its looking at doesnt know its being looked at. But a stealthy fighter? Whats the point? If theres going to be a battle for control of the skies, the enemy will know youre up there anyway.

As for the Raptors potential as a stealthy strike platform (the purported reason for the new A designation), lets look at armament. For every Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) carried internally, the Raptor loses two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs). Moreover, the Raptor can only carry one JDAM in each weapons bay. Of course, the Raptor also has four external hardpoints that can be used to carry ordnance, but doing so would compromise its stealth profile.

So why the A designation? Its clearly another attempt by the Raptor camp to justify the continuation of the program and the eventual expenditure of heaps of cash. Raptor can be modified for attack missions, it would be an overlapping capability, duplicating that for which the F-35 JSF was specifically designed. Right now, the Air Forces ground-attack missions are being carried out by a mix of aircraft that includes F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16CG Fighting Falcons, and A-10 Thunderbolts. When the JSF enters service, the Air Force will have another ground-attack aircraft. It doesnt need the Raptor for this mission, too.

For many years now, the Raptor has been billed as an air-dominance fighter. But the US Air Force already dominates any skies in which it chooses to fly. From the outset, then, the Raptor was being designed for a mission that is already accomplished (and with less expensive aircraft). Adding yet another overlapping capability to its repertoire wont make it any more useful and actually serves to underscore the Air Forces lack of a need for the F-22, or whatever designation is chosen.

不過身為歐洲三代半的支持者，在下十分支持此等高論.........P

But a stealthy fighter? Whats the point? If theres going to be a battle for control of the skies, the enemy will know youre up there anyway.

1. 48架F-35短場垂直起降型多用途戰機

a. 空對空任務：
可內載兩枚AIM-120與四枚ASRAAM，其兩翼翼下與翼稍合計四個掛架，必要狀況下可以犧牲匿蹤性為代價，內外掛攜帶四枚AIM-120與六枚ASRAAM。此外，老英亦想把流星中長程空對空飛彈整合為其標準武裝，只是其能否順利內掛仍有待研究。

b. 空對地任務：
標準匿蹤構型武裝為兩枚AIM-120加上兩枚1000磅級炸彈，其兩翼翼下的掛架則可攜帶各一枚的SCALP-EG或JAASM陸攻巡航飛彈。

2. 4架空中預警機：E-2C已經幾乎確定遭到淘汰，目前剩下波音集團的V-22鶚式傾斜旋翼機改和歐洲直昇機公司的EH-101梅林改對決。

重量諸元：
戰機空重：13,925kg
內載燃油：6,078kg
外掛燃油：4,536kg
外掛彈量：6,804kg
全備起飛：大於22,680kg
攜回籌載量（垂直降落模式）：約 2,268kg payload plus fuel reserves

尺寸諸元：
翼展寬：10.668M
機全長：15.392M
機身高：4.572M
翼面積：42.735M2

性能諸元：
最高時速：Mach 1.8（clean）
作戰半徑：929 km (496 nm) unrefueled.
Buddy air-to-air refuelling system available.
離陸單位費用：$46m (FY2002)

武器配備：

1. 兩具內載彈艙，每具各可攜帶一枚AIM-120與454kg級JDAM GPS-guided bomb。

2. 至於英國方面則計畫將把英製標準千磅炸彈（每具彈艙攜帶一枚），ASRAAM（每具彈艙可攜帶兩枚）， 硫磺反戰車飛彈，Storm Shadow巡航飛彈（只能外掛，且只能攜行一枚）流星中長程AAM（截至目前，無法確定其是否能順利內載）等裝載於其上。

3. 兩翼之下各有四個掛架，可用犧牲匿蹤為代價大幅增加武裝籌載﹔翼下內側掛架的最大掛載重量為 2,270 kg (5,000 pounds)，並且有油路線而能攜帶副油箱﹔至於翼下外側掛架的最大掛載重量則為 1,135kg (2,500 pounds)，且無油路線。此外，英國版F35B也打算在兩翼翼尖安裝掛架，以攜行短程AAM或是電子夾艙。

4. 固定武裝方面，垂直起降型將無內載機炮設計，但可以在其中一具內載彈艙安裝機炮艙夾以玆彌補。

Crew: Single-seat version only.

Recognition: Similar appearance to the F-22 Raptor also designed by Lockheed Martin. Slim profile with large forward-angled intakes mounted on fuselage. Large vertical and horizontal rear surfaces extending aft of single jetpipe.

Officials note that advances in technology and emerging Air Force doctrine make todays Raptor, being developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (Marietta, GA), very different from the fighter envisioned when the program was first planned. Technological advancements in the fire-control radar and integrated avionics, combined with the advent of smaller, very precise munitions, create a far more powerful air-to-ground strike system, Jumper said in a written statement. One change will be the insertion of the new, evolved radar being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This sensor has an air-to-ground mode not available in the AN/APG-77(V) that is currently being installed in the new fighters. There will be some software changes, according to Lockheed Martin spokesman Greg Caires, and the new radar will be smaller and lighter that the current system. These changes will also be needed to accommodate the new, small-diameter bomb. There are also some inherent EW capabilities in the F-35s sensors which may be carried over into the Raptor.

(Source: Raytheon Company; issued Nov. 11, 2002)

1. 美國空軍官員於本月七號表示：F/A-22猛禽戰機在engineering, manufacturing and development phase可能將預算超支達六億九千萬美金（超過一個中隊的經國號戰機的總價，卻不過是猛禽計劃研發階段的又一小小超支.........）。

(Source: William Arkin; published Nov. 27, 2002)

(Reproduced by kind permission of the author)

The Air Force announced last week that it was shaking up the management team for the F/A-22 Raptor, the new super-fighter jet now in development. Two new generals and a new Lockheed-Martin executive were put in charge. Typically for a mammoth Pentagon weapons program, the word only later dribbled out that the F/A-22 was over budget, behind schedule, and under assault from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds office.

Now comes the real war.

Rumsfeld, looking at some $25 billion of the taxpayers dollars already spent on research and development, is likely to order a reduction in the number of planes to be purchased. The Air Force wants to procure at a minimum 295 F-22 fighters; Rumsfelds office is floating a proposal to buy less than 200.

Although Rumsfeld lives and breathes the language of military transformation, there is little chance that he will cancel the F/A-22 program outright. For all of the Rumsfelds rhetoric about shaking up the Pentagon, a troubled and expensive program conceived during the Cold War will remain in place. Rumsfeld was bolder when he cancelled the Armys dubious Crusader artillery gun earlier this year. So what is the reason for his timidity now? The F/A-22 is the Holy Grail of the so-called fighter mafia in the upper ranks of the Air Force. The Secretary may exude decisiveness and abuse the uniformed leadership and even occasionally make an unpopular decision. But again and again he has proven unwilling to make the toughest decisions or to back up his own staff when going toe to toe with the armed services.

Disparaging the F/A-22 is sure to get me cut from the Air Forces Christmas card list. But I want to make one clear: Ive never been in the ranks of the F/A-22 haters. I have come to see that the plane sucks up money that might otherwise be used to leapfrog to a next generation of technology. It also promotes the notion in the Army and Marine Corps that the Air Force doesnt really care about them, and that the precision weapons revolution isnt for real.

There is no question that the F/A-22 will be the best fighter the world has ever seen. Originally known as the plain old F-22, it was designed as air superiority fighter. It was renamed the F/A-22 only after September 11, and as the plane started to run into flak at the Pentagon, to emphasize the addition of air-to-ground functions. Given the enemies that the United States is likely to face in the next 20 years, America doesnt need a fighter that is both the best dog fighter in existence and one that is such an expensive (though limited) bomber.

In a time of perpetual war on terrorism and with scores of cheaper alternatives in the form of heavy bombers and long-range smart weapons, the F/A-22s ability to stealthily attack the toughest air defenses on the ground is extravagant. The Air Force should focus instead on improving and extending the life of its current F-15 and F-16 fleet of fighters, and prepare to purchase a much larger number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which were designed for ground attack. This solution wont put the triple somersaulting F/A-22 in the air by 2005, but the United States just doesnt need the acrobatics.

The fact is, were at too critical a stage of this program to accept anything less than absolutely stellar performance, and were holding people accountable, Air Force spokesman William Bodie said last week about the $690 million unanticipated Raptor overrun.

It is admirable that the Air Force is holding people accountable. But it is the concepts behind the fighter that have as much gotten it into trouble. F/A-22 proponents argue that enemies will be dissuaded from even attempting to compete with the United States in the arena of aerial dog fighting if it is purchased. They say that for the first time the United States will have the ability to put stealth jets in the air 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They stress the plane will be able to cruise faster than the speed of sound for longer periods of time and will be able to bomb heavily defended ground targets.

The Air Force Transformation Flight Plan asserts: Most U.S. tacair [tactical aircraft] is vulnerable to rapidly improving enemy [air defenses] and cannot achieve air superiority in most well defended areas in [the] future. But whose integrated air defenses are we talking about?

The fact is that United States (and Israel) pilots flying the venerable F-15 have a perfect unbeaten record against enemy fighters. There really isnt much difference between the Mach 1.6 speed of the F/A-22 and the Mach 1.4 that the F-35 will attain.

（There really isnt much difference between the Mach 1.6 speed of the F/A-22 and the Mach 1.4 that the F-35 will attain...........如果不是F-35的超音速巡航能力真的將出乎意料的驚人的話，這句話根本是顛倒是非，別有居心的刻意侮蔑貶低猛禽戰機......F-35可以在戰鬥重量下玩Mach 1.4超音速巡航？？若此為真的話，F/A-22和颱風戰機是可以都去死了..........）

And is there any conceivable military scenario in which the United States current nighttime stealth capabilities, plus cruise missiles, plus new satellite-guided weapons, wouldnt be good enough to prevail? If the answer is China, then we are building the wrong military anyhow.

The Air Force is also making other arguments. Perhaps the most compelling is contained in its October 21 Paths to the Future briefing, which decries the age of the overall U.S. aircraft fleet. According to the briefing, though the objective of average U.S. fighter jet is 12.5 years old, Air Force planes currently average 15 years in age.

But this is the territory of lies, damn lies, and statistics. The brief posits that the only way that the Air Force can achieve its goals for reducing the average age of its fleet (to 12.2 years by 2030) is to purchase 762 F-22s. This argument depends on a bit of sleight of hand. Up to now, the assumption has been that the Air Force would buy more than 1,700 F-35s. By quietly assuming it will only buy 956 F-35s, the Air Force makes the purchase of more F/A-22s seem more urgent than it really is.

On the issue of fleet age, one retired Air Force senior officer said, I guess its an argument.

But if you really want to do something about your average airframe age, start buying block 60 F-16s [a new production more capable model of the aircraft] tomorrow. Trying to fix the problem with a high-end fighter is kind of crazy. It prices the Air Force out of existence.

And why do we continue to make believe that a silver bullet airplane will win wars rather than the proven combination of intelligence, air surveillance, networks, and tactics? The whole concept of defense transformation that Rumsfeld expounds recognizes it isnt hardware that is decisive but operational concepts, training, organization, culture, and experience.

Sure some F-22s will be purchased because the production line is already open, and so much has already been invested. But the best decision Rumsfeld could make now is indeed limit the number of planes that America will buy, and order the Air Force to upgrade and extend the life of its F-15s, renew the F-16, and plan to buy lots of F-35s when they are ready. By not sucking up even more money, more emphasis could then be placed on unmanned systems and new weapons to defeat better air defenses in the future.

ＦＯＡＳ計畫，定案！！？？

繼英國海軍決定購買F-35隱形戰機後 英空軍也將採購
2002-11-27

要多加一個例外式:
<除非USAF確定能在2030年前完成UCAV空戰化>

其研發階段的未預期超支幅度高達七億至十億美金，分攤到老美空軍原先所預定採購的295架猛禽之上，足可使每架猛禽的單位總成本爆增2400萬至3400萬美金．

這下連老美空軍也難以替猛禽戰機的採購訂單護航開脫了...........

Air force will build fewer F-22 fighters because of cost overruns

WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (AFP) - 22:09 GMT - The air force will build fewer F-22 fighter aircraft because of an unexpected cost overrun estimated at between 700 million and one billion dollars, a senior air force official said Friday.
The air forces premier fighter program itself could be at risk if manufacturer Lockheed Martin fails to keep costs under control, said Marvin Sambur, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisitions.

This program is more fragile than a lot of people believe. So we have to have optimal performance on all sides, Sambur said.

The cost overrun late in the development phase of the 63 billion dollar program surprised the air force leadership, which shook up management and ordered an investigation by financial and technical experts.

They found that a fin buffet problem and delays in de-bugging avionics software had pushed back scheduled completion of the aircrafts development from March 2004 to November 2005, driving up costs.

The magnitude of the increase is estimated to be about 700 million dollars with a risk range up to one billion dollars, Sambur told reporters.

Sambur said the air force would make up for the shortfall by building fewer of the aircraft, possibly five or six fewer over the next three years.

The F-22, which combines stealth with a capability to cruise at supersonic speeds, is the air forces next generation interceptor and the cornerstone of its plans for modernizing its tactical fighter fleet.

The air force had planned to buy 339 of the aircraft in all, but Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, the Pentagons acquisition chief, is considering proposals to reduce the buy.

Critics have question whether the threat justifies the high cost of the aircraft, with a fly-away price of 100 million dollars. The cost per plane is actually about 200 million dollars apiece when total development and production costs are taken into account.

新加坡、以色列正和美國防部官員就參與F-35隱形/匿蹤戰機計劃談判
2003-01-07