ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

Navy Stealth Fighter

Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:55 am

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!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:04 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:28 am

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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:00 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:14 am

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
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:17 am

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!
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:27 am

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,,,
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:28 am

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!
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:48 am

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,,,
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:52 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6662
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:33 pm

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.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:47 pm

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,,,
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:15 am

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
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):

Oh my....  drool 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Navy Stealth Fighter

Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:06 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JJV and 13 guests