FB-22, is this a real picture?

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I see that you accidently fell into a time machine about a year ago, and just woke up today.

Its F-22, they dropped the F/A.

WHOAH!!!! No need to be so harsh...

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by flakbait
You're thinking of the CBU-97 with BLU-108 bomblets. When released, each CBU-97 releases ten sub-munition dispensers. Each one of those springs out four arms with 4 BLU-108s attached for a total of 40 "skeet" submunitions. Each dispenser fires it's own rocket motor before launching the "skeet." Individual submunitions scan out using IIR imaging cameras to search for a target. Once it finds a target, it fires a forged copper penetrator down through the engine deck. Thus far it has only ever been dropped once, on a column of Iraqi vehicles during the initial invasion. Two CBU-97s obliterated half of the column, causing the remainder to either split or surrender. They are expensive as all hell to use; clocking in at around $400,000 a pop. For reference, a Mk. 82 500lbs bomb costs somewhere between $900-1,200 to acquire. Adding a JDAM kit to that Mk 82 balloons out to $18,000.

Submunitions are bomblets (mini-bombs) and do not individually count towards the aircraft munitions load.

And the F-22 can't carry them. It will be able to haul JDAM and the new SDB once it is placed in production. Beyond that? Forget it. The "F/A" designation throws a lot of people off, making them think the "F/A-22" will have the same ground pounding ability of the F/A-18. Ground attack functions were added to the F-22 as an after-thought. Primarily, it is an air-superiority fighter, not a mud-mover. They may design mod kits permitting increased ordnance options in the future, but for now all that thing can carry is JDAM.

However the F-15E, F-16C/D, B-2, B-52, A-10A and most likely F-35 can haul the CBU-97.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

I posted this about a year ago.  Here is a GREAT animation of the BLU-108

http://www.systems.textron.com/videos/530.1-SFW-in-OIF.wmv

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
.

Its F-22, they dropped the F/A.

It is referred to as F-22, F/A-22 at Boeing. Both terms are used and both are correct.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
It is referred to as F-22, F/A-22 at Boeing. Both terms are used and both are correct.

actually rip, the USAF is dropping the Attack designator, it's specific designator for the USAF is F-22A.  Why they are doing this....I have no Idea, it's a hellof an attack plane.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
actually rip, the USAF is dropping the Attack designator, it's specific designator for the USAF is F-22A.  Why they are doing this....I have no Idea, it's a hellof an attack plane.

I was talking within the confines of Boeing and Lockheed. F-22A is also used.

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
actually rip, the USAF is dropping the Attack designator, it's specific designator for the USAF is F-22A.  Why they are doing this....I have no Idea, it's a hellof an attack plane.

Well... Okay, some other interesting tidbit i saw earlier about the F-117's designation is similar:

F-117: They called it F because when they first asked for it, they had just got the B1. But that wasnt good enough so they wanted another. When they asked congress, congress said "no." So they thought, well, how about a fighter? congress said "sure". So, they named the B-117 the F-117 and congress never realized it wasnt a fighter.

The F-22:  The military just wants to be a bit more traditional, and, im sure they are thinking of leaving some loopholes for the future similar to the one that let the F-117 be created.