Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Navy Stealth Fighter  
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15406 times:

Does the Navy have plans to field a Stealth Multi-Role fighter similar in capability and performance to the F-22A? At one time there was discussion of putting a navalized F-22 into service but I don't know if that was just rumor or something being seriously considered. Is the navalized F-35 sufficiently capable to render an aircraft of greater performance unnecessary?


Dare to dream; dream big!
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 15345 times:

NATF

Went nowhere, unfortunately. Now we're stuck with the Super Bug.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 15321 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Went nowhere, unfortunately. Now we're stuck with the Super Bug.

For now, until the Lightning comes onboard.  Wink
I think the NATF was scrapped for good reason. The cost:benefit analysis didn't shake out that well. Putting a swing wing system on a Raptor would have been ridiculously expensive and would have seriously diminished it's LO capability.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15295 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
For now, until the Lightning comes onboard.

Yes, but the F-35, while a respectable replacement for the Hornet A/B/C/D, does not fill the interceptor role of the F-14 or the medium attack role that the A-6 has filled, and that the Hornet E/F miserably attempts to.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15282 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Yes, but the F-35, while a respectable replacement for the Hornet A/B/C/D, does not fill the interceptor role of the F-14 or the medium attack role that the A-6 has filled, and that the Hornet E/F miserably attempts to.

Yeah, I can't argue that. I wonder if maybe they shouldn't have just "kept it simple". Seems to me they could've (and still could) put a beefier undercarriage under it and instead of swing wings, simply larger surfaces a la F-35C.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14983 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4):
Yeah, I can't argue that. I wonder if maybe they shouldn't have just "kept it simple". Seems to me they could've (and still could) put a beefier undercarriage under it and instead of swing wings, simply larger surfaces a la F-35C.

I didn't realize they contemplated putting swing wings on the plane. Larger wings and tail surfaces just might be the answer. God knows the airplane has sufficient power. Wonder what the standard AF Raptor approach to runway and touchdown speeds are. Too fast to be easily reduced for carrier operations?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14981 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Yes, but the F-35, while a respectable replacement for the Hornet A/B/C/D, does not fill the interceptor role of the F-14 or the medium attack role that the A-6 has filled, and that the Hornet E/F miserably attempts to.

Big version: Width: 400 Height: 243 File size: 29kb
A-12 Avenger


Blame Dick Cheney for the Navy having to make due with the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. If inter-service rivalry, political agenda and ego had not over ridden Navy requirements, logic and reality, A-12 Avengers would be the mainstay for carrier attack, surveillance and refueling missions.

If any one really believes that the reason the A-12 was canceled was contractor issues or design problems, "Follow the Money". See where the defence dollars went following the most foolish political decision since the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14767 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 6):
If any one really believes that the reason the A-12 was canceled was contractor issues or design problems, "Follow the Money". See where the defence dollars went following the most foolish political decision since the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.

Have fun,

CTR

O.K. You sparked my curiosity. Just where did the money go? And is the Navy even interested in a multi-role fighter with super cruise capability and the kind of air-to-air ability the Raptor has? How competitive can the Super Hornet be in, say, 10 years?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14652 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
O.K. You sparked my curiosity. Just where did the money go?

In the late eighties the USAF and Navy were in fevered competition over DOD funding for new stealth aircraft programs. The USAF had the B-2 and ATF F-22/F-23 in work, but the USN was late to realize the benefits of stealth. Also the USAF was not about to share technology it developed with their money with the "enemy" (not the USSR, the USN).

Realizing that the USSR were in their economic death throes, the USN needed to act quickly to get a stealth aircraft into production before the flood of DOD dollars got shutoff. To speed the process the USN opted to fore go both a fly off competition and even a single prototype demonstrator. Instead, the USN awarded (after a paper competition versus Grumman and Northrop) a contract to MCAIR and GD build and flies two "production" fidelity A-12 Avengers within 40 months of award.

The A-12 design had an up hill battle to meet both schedule and weight contract requirements. But critical material delays and technology development cost over runs were caused by the USAF. Necessary special materials and components for manufacturing were delayed by competing for limited resources against the USAF B-2 and ATF programs (first come first served). And some how stealth technology developed by Lockheed and Northrop became held up for over a year or was never transferred at all due to "USAF security requirements. This forced MCAIR and GD to re-invent already developed technology.

So what do I mean by "follow the money?" If MCAIR and GD were truly guilty of lying about cost and schedule to the DOD as Cheney professed, Why was MCAIR awarded a no-compete contract to build the F/A-18 E & F? Also check the contracts awarded to GD Electric Boat Works and Missiles.

This is not just conjecture or theory. I was there....

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14610 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 8):
The A-12 design had an up hill battle to meet both schedule and weight contract requirements. But critical material delays and technology development cost over runs were caused by the USAF. Necessary special materials and components for manufacturing were delayed by competing for limited resources against the USAF B-2 and ATF programs (first come first served). And some how stealth technology developed by Lockheed and Northrop became held up for over a year or was never transferred at all due to "USAF security requirements. This forced MCAIR and GD to re-invent already developed technology.

Is there evidence the A-12 would have been able to operate off aircraft carriers with relative ease? Would it have been superior to the Super Hornet in weapons load and range capabilities? Did Northrop build into the design the ability to be adapted to fleet air defense? Was a significant performance increase possible or would the builders have had to do a major redesign?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7703 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14570 times:

I have another question in relation to the Navy, it's aircraft have been loosing "legs" - range - in a steady stream, the retirement of the F-14, A6 and S3 puts the carriers into the "brown water" area, or more politically correct out of the "blue water" area. Air to air refueling becomes mandatory for everything, not just major strike ops.

What value would a stealth a/c be to the current navy and it a/c fleet - mainly F-18's when the carrier would have to get so close? Has the navy now let another "boat" pass it by, I assume that we are talking about more than just combat recon.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14566 times:

The following information is provided courtesy of the Aviation Heritage Association which is building the Aviation Heritage Museum of North Texas. What is not mentioned is that the A-12 could carry the same payload as the A-6 'Internally' to maintain stealth. More information concerning the A-12 can be found at:

http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm

Prime Contractors:
General Dynamics Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas
McDonnell Aircraft Company, St. Louis, Missouri (a Division of McDonnell Douglas Corporation)

Type:
Two seat, two engine, carrier-based medium fighter for air-to-air or air-to-ground all weather day or night attack.

Power Plant:
Two General Electric F412-400 non-afterburning turbofan engines, each developing approximately 13,000 pounds of thrust.

Armament:
Up to two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
Up to two High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM)
Planned to accommodate a full range of air-to-ground ordnance including MK 82 and "smart" weapons

Avionics
Westinghouse AN/APQ-183 Multimode Radar.
IBM Mission Control Computer with VHSIC (Very High Speed Integrated Circuit) technology.
Kaiser wide field of view holographic Head Up Display (HUD).
Kaiser Multifunction Display (MFD) screens (7).
General Electric IRSTS (Infrared Search and Track System).
Integrated Electronic Warfare System.
AN/ALD-I I ESM (Electronic Surveillance Module) set.

Dimensions
Wing Span - Overall: 70 feet 3 inches
Wing Span - Folded: 36 feet 3.25 inches
Length: 37 feet 3 inches
Aspect Ratio: 3.75
Wheel Base: 19 feet 2.25 inches
Wheel Track 22 feet
Speed: 580 mph at sea level
Height (Overall): 11 feet 3.375 inches
Height (Folded): 12 feet 6.25 inches
Wing Area: 1,308 square feet
Design Load Factor: 9 Gs
Empty Weight: 39,000 pounds
Gross Weight: 80,000 pounds
Combat Radius: 920 miles

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14354 times:

Here's a report from FI regarding the competition at the time.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles.../09/580/Challenging+evolution.html

Quote:

CHANGING REQUIREMENT

"The original ATF requirement was for 750 aircraft, and the US Navy at one time was interested in 550 Naval ATF variants. The Navy dropped its interest before EMD award, to concentrate on the General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II Advanced Tactical Aircraft. After cancellation of the troubled A-12 programme, a derivative of the F-22 was proposed to meet the Navy's A/F-X requirement, but this was ultimately cancelled."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14228 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):

Oh my....  drool 


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14130 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Does the Navy have plans to field a Stealth Multi-Role fighter similar in capability and performance to the F-22A?

Yeah, Jessica Biel flew one...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/usnseallt82/stealthplane.jpg

Unfortunately all plans were scrapped after they realized what a shitty movie it was.  Big grin



Crye me a river
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Navy Stealth Fighter
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter posted Thu Mar 27 2003 17:15:51 by EastCoast
New Usaf Stealth Fighter posted Fri Nov 30 2001 15:38:08 by Soren-a
Carrier Capable Fighter For German Navy? posted Fri Sep 21 2001 10:29:04 by L-188
Becoming A Pilot For The US Navy posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:16:30 by Turpentyine
Fighter With The Highest Landing Speed. Which One? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:29:05 by Art
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Turkish Navy Orders 17 Seahawks posted Sat Nov 4 2006 15:22:30 by TK787
Croatia Future Fighter Purchase Options? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:03:18 by Mig21UMD
Fighter Almost Shoots Down Learjet posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:30:54 by Columba
U.S. Navy Launches First LCS, U.S.S. Freedom posted Sat Oct 14 2006 04:05:41 by AerospaceFan
Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter posted Thu Mar 27 2003 17:15:51 by EastCoast
New Usaf Stealth Fighter posted Fri Nov 30 2001 15:38:08 by Soren-a
Carrier Capable Fighter For German Navy? posted Fri Sep 21 2001 10:29:04 by L-188
Plans For A Stealth Refueling Jet? posted Mon May 5 2008 09:13:22 by DL767captain
F-106 As A Regular Fighter? posted Sat May 3 2008 09:30:21 by Blackbird
Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft? posted Tue Apr 29 2008 15:57:24 by Comorin
Lessons From The Navy's LCS Acquisition... posted Fri Apr 25 2008 10:07:27 by MedAv
Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X? posted Mon Mar 17 2008 18:17:39 by AirRyan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format