Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The F 22 And The US Navy  
User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19702 times:

I remember a while back LM tried to pitch the F22 to the Navy to replace the F14, but the Navy rejected it, and went with the Superbug. I am not sure I fully understand the reasons behind it, but IIRC it had to do with the size, and maintenance of the F22 on the carriers. Now, given that the F22 is fully operational, and from what given out to the public it is a winner in terms of being a fighter. My question is: do you think the Navy should have explored the F 22 instead of rejecting out of hand? The argument of maintenance difficulty for a stealthy aircraft at sea on carriers goes out the window once the F35 starts joining the fleet. Furthermore, had the Navy gone with the F22, I am sure that would have made the price tag to go down considerably. And I imagine if the Navy really wanted, LM would find a way to navalize the F22 suitable to carrier ops. Would that be an awesome, unbeatable combo of F22 and F35 on the deck of a supercarrier (Nimitz, Teddy Roosevelt, G.Washington, etc)? Instead of the duo of jack of all trades and master of none Superbugs and the F35, both with similar profiles. I would like to hear from people who are more knowledgeable re. these matters. Hope for a good discussion. Thanks.

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19685 times:

Quoting Beta (Thread starter):
Would that be an awesome, unbeatable combo of F22 and F35 on the deck of a supercarrier (Nimitz, Teddy Roosevelt, G.Washington, etc)? Instead of the duo of jack of all trades and master of none Superbugs and the F35, both with similar profiles. I would like to hear from people who are more knowledgeable re. these matters. Hope for a good discussion. Thanks.

Some years ago General Dynamics offered a navalized version of the F-16 to the Navy and it was turned down as well as being nothing like the performer the Air Force model is. The additional structural strengthening and added required equipment added a lot of weight to the basic F-16. It might be the same would be true if the effort was put into navalizing the F-22. More power from the engines might solve part of the problem, but the engines aren't available yet ... I don't think.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19664 times:

what is happening with the F-35 i mean.. It has been tested, proven effective..... ? Why the delay? Is it not one of the cheapest fighters to build?

User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19648 times:

It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program.

User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19638 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 3):
It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program

Which in my layman thinking is a poor decision. The F18, while a very capable aircraft, is not as dominant in the air as the F14 was, and the F22 is now. I believe back then a carrier air wing of F14 and F18 could achieve air dominance in any given mission; now it is all F18, and facing competition from the latest fighters out there, I'm not so sure. And with the F35, I do not understand why the Navy wants 2 aircrafts with similar mission profiles, and no dedicated fighter. Would a carrier air wing comprised of F22 and F35 enhance the chance of success in any given mission?


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 19557 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 4):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 3):
It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program

Which in my layman thinking is a poor decision. The F18, while a very capable aircraft, is not as dominant in the air as the F14 was, and the F22 is now. I believe back then a carrier air wing of F14 and F18 could achieve air dominance in any given mission; now it is all F18, and facing competition from the latest fighters out there, I'm not so sure. And with the F35, I do not understand why the Navy wants 2 aircrafts with similar mission profiles, and no dedicated fighter. Would a carrier air wing comprised of F22 and F35 enhance the chance of success in any given mission?

the F-14 was not nearly as maneuverable as the FA/18C/D/E/F, this is the only solid concrete fact I witnessed with my own eyes . Perhaps the F-14 could carry the larger payload but in today's theatre of war I do not think you will be carrying more than one needs. Can someone also please fill me in... why do so many say the FA/18 is a miserable excuse for a navy and marine corps aircraft? Reading this forum over the years, many describe it in simplistic terms of "not being able to accomplish the USN mission" . In dogfighting it is one of the most maneuverable fighters of the day at "lower speeds" etc etc, however if the F-35 is that good would it not have been shot into full scale production?


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19488 times:

But the F-18 didn't have AIM-54 Phoenix's, and the AAAM program was cancelled. So it has just AMRAAM

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19474 times:

The F18 is not that bad as I hear it. Anyway, I thought the objective was for the JSF to replace the F16, F18 and the A10, and the F22 would replace the F15.
Why would the Navy need the F22? The F35 is an attack/ defense weapon, the F22 a pre-emptive attack weapon. In pre-emptive warfare, it is the Marines and AirForce who need the stealth and technology offered by the F22. Once the crap hits the fan, the F35 will be enough to carry on the fight.



Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19402 times:

One only needs to closely watch a 5 second video of a F/A-18 landing on a carrier to understand why modifying an F-22 to do the same is no simple task.

The F-22, fantastic airplane that it is, is only now 16 years after it's prototypes first flight entering service. If the USN had chosen to Navalize the F-22, they would have been very lucky to get their first aircraft in service by 2010.

Waiting this long for new aircraft would have left the USN carriers without any aircraft. The A-12 was supposed to have replaced the aging A-6, but it was canceled. The F-14 was kept in service as long as possible until operating costs and availability became untenable.

So in short, the main reason the Navy shunned the F-22 is time. The F/A-18 E and F was a low technical risk and relatively quickly available aircraft.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19397 times:

The fact is that USN politics will not allow the buy of a USAF aircraft, that is why the USN will not get a F-22N.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 2):
what is happening with the F-35 i mean.. It has been tested, proven effective..... ? Why the delay? Is it not one of the cheapest fighters to build?

The F-35 has not proven anything yet. The first model, the F-35A just started flying last month. So the jury is still out on the F-35A/B/C.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
why do so many say the FA/18 is a miserable excuse for a navy and marine corps aircraft? Reading this forum over the years, many describe it in simplistic terms of "not being able to accomplish the USN mission" . In dogfighting it is one of the most maneuverable fighters of the day at "lower speeds" etc etc, however if the F-35 is that good would it not have been shot into full scale production?

The F/A-18E/F is a Navy bomber. It is not manuverable until the bombs are released. The "E" is a single pilot operations and in heavy combat, could end up in an overtasked pilot. While it is manuverable at lower speeds, that is not the only arena to fight in. Look at the F-16 or F-15. Both excell in all flight profiles, the F-22 is at the top end of the fight, like the F-14 WAS.

The USN decision has left the fleet exposed to attacking bombers and stand off aircraft. The SM-2 missiles can only do so much. That is why the F-14 was so good. The Tomcat was a pure interceptor before some became Bombcats.


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19385 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The F-35 has not proven anything yet. The first model, the F-35A just started flying last month. So the jury is still out on the F-35A/B/C.

then why did I see it flying on the discovery channel a few years ago? The aircraft has been in operation (flying) , VTOL ,etc, for some time now. The last time I watched the military channel was over 8 months ago and I remember seeing an F35 special on. On a side note, how can the F-35 replace the A-10 warthog as stated above. Last I checked there was no 30mm cannon being attached to the front of the F-35?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
the F-22 is at the top end of the fight,

I saw the F-22 fly at Andrews A.F.B. last year both days... followed by the F-16 , F-15, and FA/18... I saw twin F-22s fly in Toronto last year during the C.I.A.S. followed by the F-16 / F-15 / CF-18, and I still find it hard to believe the F-22 can out perform the F-16/F-18 in an actual raw dogfight.... (the F-22 not playing an offensive role) . I have never seen a smaller minimum radius turn, than that of the F-16 followed closely by the F-18. The the F-22 just seems to be a VERY loud, installable F-15 lol. I really did not visually witness any maneuvers which could out perform the F-16 and they were indeed doing a few runs afterwards. Please fill me in,  Smile.


User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19372 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The USN decision has left the fleet exposed to attacking bombers and stand off aircraft. The SM-2 missiles can only do so much. That is why the F-14 was so good. The Tomcat was a pure interceptor before some became Bombcats.

That's my argument. The decision not to replace the F14 has degraded naval aviation capability, and compromised fleet defense. The F18 is great, but is not a dominant fighter as the F14 was, and the F22 is. And add in the F35, the Navy will have 2 aircrafts with similar mission profiles, essentially strike platform, as opposed to air superiority and interception. I wonder who made this decision?

Quoting CTR (Reply 8):
One only needs to closely watch a 5 second video of a F/A-18 landing on a carrier to understand why modifying an F-22 to do the same is no simple task.

I'm sure if the Navy had wanted, LM would have made a navalized F22. Engineering problems can be overcome. As far as timing, LM has pitched the naval F22 long before, from almost the beginning, but the Navy turned it down and chose to go with the F18 to save a few bucks, i guess. IMHO, big misjudgment! What do you guys think?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 19355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is nothing flying that compares with the F-22, including the F-14. The Navy can't afford to buy enough F-22's to equip one squadron per carrier plus a couple of reserve units, so it's doing the next best thing after they decided to abort the SuperTomcat program (which was the worst error of SECDEF Cheney's career).

F/A-18e/f's are very capable, and have a very high availability rate. Their equipping with the AESA radars gives them an edge, although we sure could do with some Meteor class missiles since we've strayed from the long range, hypersonic AAM that we gave up with the Phoenix. I hate giving up capability when we still have potential enemies capable of inflicting harm on our national strategic assets with relatively little cost.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 19333 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 11):
As far as timing, LM has pitched the naval F22 long before, from almost the beginning, but the Navy turned it down and chose to go with the F18 to save a few bucks, i guess. IMHO, big misjudgment! What do you guys think?

Beta, sorry but you are very wrong. I was there for both the ATF and the ATA compititions. During the ATF competition, all the USN money was invested in the ATA competition and the resulting winner the A-12 Avenger. First on the USN priority list was a A-6 replacement, the F-14 replacement could wait. The A-6 re-wing program was a bust and Desert Storm 1 was using up what little fatigue life was left in the old birds. After the A-12 cancelation it was too late to try to make the F-22 a dual service aircraft.

Think about it this way. There are currently zero A-6s and F-14s in service. The USAF is just now getting their F-22s. So if the USN followed your judgement they would currently be flying only F/A-18 C & Ds.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19313 times:

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
then why did I see it flying on the discovery channel a few years ago? The aircraft has been in operation (flying) , VTOL ,etc, for some time now.

That was a continuation from the X-35 program. The first pre-production F-35A flew it's first flight last month from Carswell AFB, opps, I mean NAS Fort Worth. It has been doing some high speed taxi tests lately, and I have not scene it fly again. I think the second flight is scheduled next month, then it formally enters flight testing at Edwards AFB.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19302 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 11):
then why did I see it flying on the discovery channel a few years ago? The aircraft has been in operation (flying) , VTOL ,etc, for some time now. The last time I watched the military channel was over 8 months ago and I remember seeing an F35 special on.

That was the X-35 you were seeing, not the F-35. I have recently seen a new documentary on the F-35 and F-22, and they were still showing the X-35 as the F-35 is barely off the ground and flying, not several years.

The X-35 is the same as the YF-22 in that it was a experimental prototype. The YF-22 vs the YF-23 and the X-35 vs the X-32. Once the winner was chosen, it went into a extended test program, they learned from the designs, made refinements to the design and started a pre-production prototype.

The F-35 has taken so long because it was severely overweight and was having engine issues which took time and more money to iron out.


X-35A and the F-35A


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Lockett
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tristan van der Vlugt





As for the F-22N, wasnt it a swing-wing variant of the F-22? The navy turned it down because it would have taken alot more development ($$$) and as they discovered, swing wings are maintainance hogs.

[Edited 2007-03-10 08:22:05]

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19238 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
As for the F-22N, wasnt it a swing-wing variant of the F-22?

 Wow!  Wow! That's news to me. If it's true it would explain why they took a pass on it. I guess the thing will be to wait and see how this plays out. I imagine it's possible that the USN could go back to LM and apologize and order a few, but I think it's going to take a few years of seeing what a dog the f-35 is/isn't first.


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19234 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
That was a continuation from the X-35 program. The first pre-production F-35A flew it's first flight last month from Carswell AFB, opps, I mean NAS Fort Worth. It has been doing some high speed taxi tests lately, and I have not scene it fly again. I think the second flight is scheduled next month, then it formally enters flight testing at Edwards AFB.

thanks for the info Smile . So X-35 was just the test variant and the F-35 is now the actual designated fighter? They are exactly the same thing I imagine, or a few adjustments here and there?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19228 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 3):
It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program.

Not really. The USN had a strike plane as its main focus during the F-22 development. Not to mention the USN needs a lot of airframes to replace A-6 and the old F-18's.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The fact is that USN politics will not allow the buy of a USAF aircraft, that is why the USN will not get a F-22N.

Wrong in many ways. The USN has historically not bought USAF aircraft because they are technically not suited to the USN's needs. The USAF can buy a USN aircraft with little modification. The F-22 would need heavy modification to make it work for the USN.

Quoting CTR (Reply 8):
So in short, the main reason the Navy shunned the F-22 is time. The F/A-18 E and F was a low technical risk and relatively quickly available aircraft.

Correct.

Quoting Beta (Reply 11):
That's my argument. The decision not to replace the F14 has degraded naval aviation capability, and compromised fleet defense. The F18 is great, but is not a dominant fighter as the F14 was, and the F22 is. And add in the F35, the Navy will have 2 aircrafts with similar mission profiles, essentially strike platform, as opposed to air superiority and interception. I wonder who made this decision?

I agree that this was a mistake but you have to look at it in context. The Navy was probably planning to replace the F-14, but they needed to replace the A-6 first. This did not come off and now they are trying to replace the A-6 and the F-14 and the F-18 with one AC. Honestly I think they will mostly just replace the F-18 and if a threat matures they will need a new long range fighter as well.

Having studied the issue I actually think that the F-23 is more suited to naval needs than the F-22. It is slightly wider and longer but it is much shorter than the F-22 which is a good thing for a naval AC that needs to fit in a deck. The wings are more suited to being made capable of folding up. I think the F-23 would have been more of an interceptor than the F-22 which is what the USN really needs.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19213 times:

Too bad, it would have been extremely cool to see this bad ass.....


Big version: Width: 550 Height: 377 File size: 30kb



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6728 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19173 times:

The primary a/c of the Navy is now the F-18E, an a/c which is being shopped around the world, unlike the high tech F-22, which if sold will only go to "primary" allies. How does this affect the effect of the carriers when the 911 call comes in and they are sent somewhere where the technology of their a/c is already know and probably countered for? The navy does not have a air superiority a/c, which places them in stark contrast to the air force and other typical military thinking. In a conflict, the first thing seems to be to gain air superiority, how will the navy do this? There have always been manuverable a/c at slower speeds, and higher speed less manuverable a/c, and strategies have evolved to combat both, is the navy now betting on the quality of its missiles?

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 19161 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 20):
The primary a/c of the Navy is now the F-18E, an a/c which is being shopped around the world, unlike the high tech F-22, which if sold will only go to "primary" allies. How does this affect the effect of the carriers when the 911 call comes in and they are sent somewhere where the technology of their a/c is already know and probably countered for? The navy does not have a air superiority a/c, which places them in stark contrast to the air force and other typical military thinking. In a conflict, the first thing seems to be to gain air superiority, how will the navy do this? There have always been manuverable a/c at slower speeds, and higher speed less manuverable a/c, and strategies have evolved to combat both, is the navy now betting on the quality of its missiles?

Air Supremacy in the sense that the US looks at it is gained and maintained by the use of precision guided munitions rather than any specific airframe. Against most nations, ie pretty much everyone but China and Russia, it would be acheived before the USN even had to get within range by a combination of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft droping JDAM's all over the place.

Beyond that its not as if you can just know the details of the F-18 and prepare against it some sort of unpenetrable defense. First, we have been selling the F-16 for years and its a comprable aircraft, yet people are not shooting them down by the hundreds. Second there are smart people on our side as well. Just because someone has a nicer newer fighter will not give them an edge.

It is the integrated package that makes the carrier group as deadly as it is. The integrated power of the E-2C, sat recon, AEGIS, and the F-18 is pretty good. Would it be better if it had a stealthy, modern interceptor? Certainly, but it is still a pretty tough nut to crack and it can still hit hard enough that one or two carrier groups could pretty much operate with impunity against most nations.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 19154 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 3):
It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program.

Not really. The USN had a strike plane as its main focus during the F-22 development. Not to mention the USN needs a lot of airframes to replace A-6 and the old F-18's.

Yes, really. Contact anyone that was in the NATF program and they'd be happy to tell you. Or just ask LM or Boeing.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
Having studied the issue I actually think that the F-23 is more suited to naval needs than the F-22. It is slightly wider and longer but it is much shorter than the F-22 which is a good thing for a naval AC that needs to fit in a deck. The wings are more suited to being made capable of folding up. I think the F-23 would have been more of an interceptor than the F-22 which is what the USN really needs.

The '23 was longer (which is not what you'd want for space issues) but not wider than the '22. I guess you might not have ever been inside an aircraft carrier...vertical space is there, its the floor space thats at a premium....Check


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19147 times:

Quote:
F/A-18e/f's are very capable, and have a very high availability rate. Their equipping with the AESA radars gives them an edge, although we sure could do with some Meteor class missiles since we've strayed from the long range, hypersonic AAM that we gave up with the Phoenix. I hate giving up capability when we still have potential enemies capable of inflicting harm on our national strategic assets with relatively little cost.

What's an AESA radar? Also, what's a meteor-class missile? Why did they give up the AAAM missile-- it sounded like an extroardinary design, using rocket and ramjet technology, a long range and a lighter weight than the AIM-54 Phoenix.

Is the F/A-18E/F faster than the F/A-18-A/B or C/D models?

Andrea K


User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3076 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19134 times:

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
then why did I see it flying on the discovery channel a few years ago? The aircraft has been in operation (flying) , VTOL ,etc, for some time now. The last time I watched the military channel was over 8 months ago and I remember seeing an F35 special on.

Um becasue that show was based on the prototype that was used to win the compatition.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
25 Post contains links KevinSmith : Marginally. AESA Radar http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=4789
26 L-188 : Yeah they can't even hold their own against a Japanese Zero.
27 EBJ1248650 : Ease off the aggressive stance! And stop acting like the folks in this forum would really know who to contact in the NATF program. Give us a break, C
28 Post contains links and images Boeing4ever : F-22s are not yet authorized to do full on air show aerobatics yet. The capabilities are still kept under wraps. However, there is video of the Rapto
29 Oroka : That is the picture I was looking for!
30 KC135TopBoom : ???? I spent 22 years in the USAF, and worked many times with the premadonna USN officers who know everything. The issue was purely politics. Modifyi
31 Post contains links and images Oroka : You sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22 (I know, wikipedia is evil) "Based on the F-22, the swing-wing Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF)
32 Blackbird : The F-16 is faster than the YF-17 or F-18 I would assume, correct?
33 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The F-16 has a maximum speed of 1500 mph, Mach 2.0 http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103 The YF-17 had a maximum speed of Mach 1.95 (wi
34 Checksixx : What aggressive stance?? Its public information that NATF was outright rejected because of the Superhornet program. Further many people here know peo
35 Checksixx : I'd ease off the maximum speeds discussion as it really has no bearing on performance. Those are bare airframe max speeds and certainly not combat spe
36 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the maximum speed of any jet usually does not mean much, unless you are running from someone.
37 Rwessel : The F-22 and F-35 go some way towards changing that, since their normal mode operation will be clean.
38 Post contains links DEVILFISH : An update on the status of the first and second JSF, and the F-35C carrier variant design stage.... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rst-f-35-re
39 KC135TopBoom : The F-22 surely will, but the F-35 will be near it's fighting weight, so it may not go as fast as advertised. But, you are correct, both are very cle
40 LMP737 : Those "premadonna" naval officers must be doing a better job running their programs than USAF officers are at running theirs. Guess that's why top ci
41 SCAT15F : The A/B/C/D models can do mach 1.1-1.2 on the deck and mach 1.8 at altitude The E/F can only do mach .9 on the deck and can do mach 1.8 at altitude;
42 KC135TopBoom : Which programs are those? The F-35 program is run by a USAF General, who has USAF, USN, and USMC officers on his staff. Are you talking about the EA-
43 LMP737 : In the October 30, 2006 edition of AV Week there's an interesting article on how Nav Air has turned it's ship around. Naval Aviation expects to save
44 Venus6971 : IMHO lets the future decide ifm the Navy regrets going with the Rhino, its not as fast as the first Hornets, its bigger but this advantage was offsett
45 Thorny : With what, exactly? The USAF in the last 15 years has fielded the B-2, C-17, F-22, and is now putting the F-35 through flight testing. The F-22 is su
46 KC135TopBoom : While that looks impressive (and I think it really is), some $50M to either NAVAIR or the Surface Fleet does not last very long. The USN could have b
47 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Maybe they could borrow two of the C-40Cs still to be delivered to the AFRC. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070228a_nr.html
48 Post contains images AirRyan : Well than they either were not very good pilots (FNG's) or the Tom's didn't have the GE engines - an F-14B could really embarass any Super Hornet in
49 Post contains images SCAT15F : AirRyan; Finally someone speaks the truth! What's even sadder is that the F-14 was designed to acommodate a larger engine than the F-15/F-16. The F110
50 Oroka : IMO the F-14 was not a huge loss. Sad to see her go, but not a big loss. There are many capacities that have left the US military inventory over the y
51 Thorny : Maybe the USN is doing a half-assed job (with the F-18E/F there is a strong case for this), but the USAF currently has the world's finest fighter (th
52 Checksixx : Not in WVR combat...No Tomcat has the AoA authority of a hornet much less a super hornet. -Check
53 SCAT15F : During a NASA program in the mid-80's the Tomcat demonstrated sustained and controlled aoa of 77 degrees. The wing gloves and wing glove vanes functi
54 AirRyan : With AIM-9X it wouildn't really matter, would it?! The Hornet's low speed AoA ability is more of an asset to an airshow than it is in a real world sc
55 Checksixx : The Tommy didn't carry 9X....Check
56 AirRyan : The Hornet Mafia saw to it too that it didn't sling the AMRAAM although it very well could have; 9X is just hitting the fleet right now and my point
57 LMP737 : May I sugest that you read the article May I sugest reading the article I mentioned. Does the fact that the F-22, B-2 and C-17 are better than thier p
58 Oroka : I dont think the USAF can park a AFB next to a war zone, they are at the mercy of allied bases or making the long trip from the closest base. The USN
59 KC135TopBoom : The USN will not park a CVN within 250-300nm of the combat area, either. They don't want bog threats aginst their ships. In fact, even the 'gator Nav
60 GDB : The history of adapting land based aircraft for carrier use, is not a happy one. Even the Seafire version of the dear old Spitfire was not really idea
61 KC135TopBoom : I think you mat be correct, with the lone exception being the Hawker Hurricane developed into a very good CV based airplane for the FAA. So, the USN
62 GDB : No need, the F-35 is on it's way hopefully. If the intial reports about it's good performance from the, albeit very early tests flights are true, the
63 LMP737 : That would be nice but the chances of it happening are slim. The odds of the AWG-9/AIM-54 being used against swarms of aircraft and anti-ship missile
64 Checksixx : NASA is now using the AIM-54 on the F-15...pretty cool seeing it on the plane.
65 Blackbird : VADM Connoly had the callsign "Tomcat" right? If I recall he was the VCNO and when asked on whether the F-111B could hack it, he said "There's not eno
66 Mike89406 : Thats actually incorrect the F-35 protypye model is being tested as mentioned. The reason I know the F-35 is alive and well is becuase there was a mu
67 Lotsamiles : I saw the F-22 demo at Point Mugu yesterday and it was very impressive, easily more maneuverable than the F-15 and F-16 (Thunderbirds) also performin
68 747400sp : Wow! SCAT15F are you telling us that the engine on the F-35 are the same size as the oringnal engine of choice for the F-14? I thought with it high a
69 L-188 : And in fairness several of those losses where to subs, including the Wasp and arguably the Yorktown, and one of those escort carriers was lost to nav
70 Post contains images SCAT15F : Absolutely! the max diameters of the TF-30 (original F-14 engine) F401, AND F135/136 are all 50 inches. The max diameters of the F100, F110-400, F119
71 747400sp : You got that right about CVN! Even on two to three week underways we realy get close to land. We do not even catch jet until we far out to sea. When
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The F 22 And The US Navy
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...
Showdown Brewing Over US Export The F-22 Sales... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:09:05 by AirRyan
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
US Navy To Sink The USS America posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:30:32 by Boeing4ever
What Are The Designations 4 US-milt-vehicles posted Wed Sep 11 2002 21:44:10 by Lehpron
What's The Latest News About The F-22 And RAH-66 posted Fri Apr 5 2002 23:04:55 by Planelover
After The Bombers-The 10 Greatest Fighters. posted Sat Feb 24 2007 08:27:47 by L-188
3 US Navy (?) Planes At SFO posted Sat Oct 7 2006 16:13:40 by Leamside
US Navy C9B posted Sun Jul 23 2006 19:13:31 by Kchs29418
US Navy Fokker 27 posted Tue Jun 6 2006 21:21:33 by Columba
Fokker F28 Carrier Tests For US Navy! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 23:05:24 by BuyantUkhaa

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format