Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:50 am

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

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:01 am

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!
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:31 am

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?
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:01 pm

It was rejected so that all eyes would stay focused on the Super Hornet program.
 
Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:18 pm

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?
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:31 pm

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?
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:34 am

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

Andrea Kent
 
Blackbird1331
Posts: 1740
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:47 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:17 am

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

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:09 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:07 am

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.
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:54 am

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.
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:25 am

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?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:24 pm

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

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:13 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:07 pm

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.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:15 pm

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]
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:19 pm

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:33 pm

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?
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:00 am

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.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:02 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

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?
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:44 am

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.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:14 am

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
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:40 am

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
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:03 am

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?"
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:38 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
Is the F/A-18E/F faster than the F/A-18-A/B or C/D models?

Marginally.

AESA Radar
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=4789
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:09 am

Quoting Beta (Reply 11):
The decision not to replace the F14 has degraded naval aviation capability, and compromised fleet defense.

Yeah they can't even hold their own against a Japanese Zero.



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 19):
Too bad, it would have been extremely cool to see this bad ass.....
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 22):
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.

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, Check. You're sharp but you're very overbearing. We don't all know what you seem to think you do!
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting CF188A (Reply 10):
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, .

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 Raptor doing cobras and hammer head stalls (tail slides) at high altitude.

Quoting CF188A (Reply 17):
thanks for the info . 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?

Correct. The preproduction aircraft are being built now. 15 is the latest number IIRC. AA-1, the F-35A prototype first flew last December. The X-plane tech demonstrators haven't flown in years, so it was the first flight of a JSF is awhile.

The preproduction aircraft will test production, as well as the finalized systems of the program. Once that's all worked out, the F-35 Lightning II enters full scale production. Learn more at http://www.jsf.mil.

sheesh, I sound like a freakin' commercial there...  Yeah sure

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 20):
Too bad, it would have been extremely cool to see this bad ass.....

That is the picture I was looking for!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:35 pm

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
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.

???? I spent 22 years in the USAF, and worked many times with the premadonna USN officers who know everything. The issue was purely politics. Modifying an F-15C to an F-15N would take some upgrades to some bulkheads, strenghtened landing gear, and a stronger tail hook (yes USAF fighters have a hook). A folding wingtip option could also work into the airplane. That is essentially all you would need to make the F-15 a Naval fighter for use on CV/CVNs. Former Sec of Defense Robert McNamara tried to end all of this "we need our own airplane design crap" He made the USAF buy the F-4 and adjust it to their needs, then tried to get the USN to buy the F-111B, with the stubby nose. The Navy said it was to big and heavy for the CV/CVNs, then went out and bought the heavier and larger F-14 (when compared to the F-111B).

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
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.

The A-6 replacement didn't come off because the USN did not exercise control over the A-12 project, and huge cost overruns killed it, above the Department of the Navy.

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.

You do not want to fold wings on a stealth aircraft. That makes seams that reflect radar energy and defeats the stealth abilities. The F-23 package was good, but the F-22 package is a lot better, that is why the USAF selected it. Lets go back to the YF-16 and YF-17 fly-off. The YF-17 lost that fly-off and the USAF (and a lot of the world) bought the F-16, except the USN (save a few F-16Ns they bought for their land based aggressor squardrons). Instead the Navy took the losing aircraft in the compitition and modified it into a good duel role (but not master at any role) F/A-18. They could have done that with the smaller F-16, if size on the carrier is a real issue, and for a lot less costs.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
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.

No, the F-22N was not a swing wing aircraft. Swing wings present the same compromise to stealth as folding wings do. The USN flew the swing wing F-14 and the USAF flew the swing wing F/EF/FB-111 for decades. The wing sweep machinery was not a real maintenance problem in either aircraft. The RAAF still flys the F/RF-111 today.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 20):
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?

Unfortunately, yes. The USN has forgotten the early lessons from Vietnam, missiles are not the end all to all problems.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 21):
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.

???? Where are you getting all of this? Air superiority/supremacy (two different things) is maintaned by an airborne presence of AWACS, fighter CAP (combat air patrol), and sometimes dedicated tankers. Precision munitions (like cruise missiles, JDAM, etc.) are used against targets on the ground that you want or need to take out. They cannot give you air superiority or supremacy, but can help achieve it. The CAP will carry missiles, but those will be AMRAAM, Sidewinders, Sparrows, ect. depending on who's aircraft are providing the CAP (USN, USAF, Allied, etc.), but they will also carry guns. CAP is flown by dedicated fighter aircraft, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 (without a bombing mission), F-22, etc. As for who your adversary is, the US maintanes a defensive posture to defeat anyone, including China and Russia, if needed. You don't defend against "most nations" you defend against every nation. "Most nations" will never be a problem for you.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 21):
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.

Pretty good is not good enough. The USN lost 12 CVs during WWII. The USN CVNBGs of today have many threats that they have to deal with. An overwelming force of attacking aircraft can take them out easily, even with a 60% loss to the attackers, the cost benifit easily out ways the loss of aircraft and crews to the attackers. Todays modern SSNs and SSKs are getting quiter everyday. A single SSK or SSN can sink the CVN easily, thus defeating the whole battle group. Recently a Chinese SSK surfaced just 6 miles from the USS Kitty Hawk. No one knew he was there until it surfaced. So the CVNBG can not operate with impunity, anywhere. Again, you don't build your defense against most nations, you build it against all nations.

The USN fleet of CVBGs is nothing more than a forward operating force, that can begin combat operations quickly. They can neither maintane long term combat operations, nor be a substatute for a much broader military force. The CVBG is a first response force, in many, but not all cases.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:04 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
No, the F-22N was not a swing wing aircraft.

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) was proposed for the U.S. Navy as a carrier-borne variant of the F-22 to replace the F-14 Tomcat, though the program was subsequently canceled in 1993."

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5.htm
"The most difficult issue proved to be the wing - the unhappy experience of the USN with blown flaps on the F-4 series, the obvious solution to achieving the required recovery speeds for trapping such a large aircraft, led to the adoption of a swing wing configuration. This in turn pushed up the cost of the redesign, since the stealth characteristics (ie shaping) would have to be completely requalified, adding already to the considerable costs of a structural redesign and avionic system redesign. In effect the F-22N would be a new aircraft, resulting in little saving through commonality. Given the required number of aircraft, this proved to be unaffordable to a USN already under major budgetary pressures."


"KNOWN VARIANTS:
YF-22 Prototype evaluated under the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition; 2 built
F-22A Production model with a slightly shorter fuselage, reduced wing sweep, and the cockpit shifted forward to improve visibilty; approximately 180 to be built
F/A-22A Designation given to the F-22A in 2002 to highlight the plane's air-to-ground combat capabilities, but dropped upon service entry in 2005 when the design was again called the F-22A
F-22B Proposed two-seat combat-capable trainer; cancelled
F-22E Lockheed proposal for an upgraded version based on the F-22A but with improved ground attack capability
F-22N Proposed navalized variant with variable-sweep wings for operation from US Navy aircraft carriers; not developed
F/A-22X Proposed advanced variant that would add a synthetic aperture radar, moving target indicator, and additional ground attack capability
FB-22 Lockheed concept for a long-range high-altitude bomber based on the F-22; design would eliminate all tail surfaces, incorporate a new delta wing with increased fuel capacity, and employ a longer fuselage with room for stretched weapons bays carrying two AIM-120 missiles and up to 24 small diameter bombs; the Air Force has indicated that it will not order the design"



 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:30 am

The F-16 is faster than the YF-17 or F-18 I would assume, correct?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:32 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 32):
The F-16 is faster than the YF-17 or F-18 I would assume, correct?

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 (with YJ-101 prototype engines, later redesignated as the F-404 engine)

http://www.wmof.com/yf17.htm

The F/A-18 has a maximum speed of 1360+ mph

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa18.htm

So, yes the F-16 is much faster than the YF-17 or the F/A-18. But, if the USN developed the YF-17 into the F-17, it would have been faster than the F-16.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 27):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 22):
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.

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, Check. You're sharp but you're very overbearing. We don't all know what you seem to think you do!

What aggressive stance?? Its public information that NATF was outright rejected because of the Superhornet program. Further many people here know people in the military/aerospace industry...hence my suggestion to contact one of them or a PA person from the respective companies....Check
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:14 am

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 speeds. What would be nice is to have a chart that lists combat carry/max speeds...Check
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:28 pm

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 35):
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 speeds.

That is correct, the maximum speed of any jet usually does not mean much, unless you are running from someone.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
That is correct, the maximum speed of any jet usually does not mean much, unless you are running from someone.

The F-22 and F-35 go some way towards changing that, since their normal mode operation will be clean.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5255
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:17 pm

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-resumes-flight-tests.html

[Edited 2007-03-13 13:21:50]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:35 pm

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 37):
The F-22 and F-35 go some way towards changing that, since their normal mode operation will be clean.

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 clean.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4852
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
I spent 22 years in the USAF, and worked many times with the premadonna USN officers who know everything.

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 civilian leadership at the Department of the Air Force was getting a briefing from the Navy recently on that very subject.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
The issue was purely politics. Modifying an F-15C to an F-15N would take some upgrades to some bulkheads, strenghtened landing gear, and a stronger tail hook (yes USAF fighters have a hook). A folding wingtip option could also work into the airplane. That is essentially all you would need to make the F-15 a Naval fighter for use on CV/CVNs.

It's more than just "politics". The Navy thought that it could get off cheap by modifying the BAE Hawk for carrier use. It ended up being much harder, costing more money, and taking more time that they thought it would. Modifying an F-15 for carrier use would involve more than just strengthened bulkheads, landing gear, tail hook and folding wingtips. I've been up close to F-15's, there's no way you are going to stuff navy issue nose and main landing gear into one. Getting the main gear to fit is going to take some modification to the fuselage. With nose gear you are pretty much going to have to redesign the entire nose section in order to get it to fit along with all the avionics. Then there's the issue of approach speed. In order to get it down to a suitable speed for carrier landings you would probably have to add slats to it. Which of course mean some serious redesign to the wing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
The Navy said it was to big and heavy for the CV/CVNs, then went out and bought the heavier and larger F-14 (when compared to the F-111B).

I'm not sure where you got your information but the F-111B, otherwise known as Sea Pig, was much larger and heavier than the F-14. The only area where the F-14 was "larger" was when the wings were swept back. And on a carrier deck the F-14 could put it's wings into oversweep. Then there's the issue that the F-111B had poor all around visibility when compared to other fighters like the F-14. All I can say is thank god for Admiral Connolly sacrificing his career and standing up to that blowhard McNamara.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
The A-6 replacement didn't come off because the USN did not exercise control over the A-12 project, and huge cost overruns killed it, above the Department of the Navy.

If the same standards were applied to USAF programs as were Navy programs under Bush 1 the C-17, ATF and B-2 would have been killed as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
Instead the Navy took the losing aircraft in the compitition and modified it into a good duel role (but not master at any role) F/A-18. They could have done that with the smaller F-16, if size on the carrier is a real issue, and for a lot less costs.

The decision on what aircraft would replace the A-7, F-4 and A-4 occurred almost thirty years ago. Back then engine technology is not what it is today. There were numerous cases of F-8, A-7 and A-4 pilots having to chuck perfectly good jets because the engine crapped out. That's what one of the major factors in not picking a navalized F-16.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:37 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
Is the F/A-18E/F faster than the F/A-18-A/B or C/D models?

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; the first Navy fighter since the late '50's that can't go supersonic on the deck. It has too much drag.

Quoting Beta (Reply 11):
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?

The navy has abandoned the fleet defense concept. Even the Tomcat 21 competitor to the F-18E/F was designed with the strike role in mind, rather than the fighter role and the F-14D's were all outfitted to carry bombs, the Phoenix having been eliminated a number of years ago now. The Navy is now solely focused on offensive and strike warfare instead of defense. This decision was made by the Navy brass in the early '90's, and the current administration is a proponent of that strategy.

There is nothing "defensive" about naval aviation anymore.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:45 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 40):
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 civilian leadership at the Department of the Air Force was getting a briefing from the Navy recently on that very subject.

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-6B decision? Now that was smart, use a slow airplane that is well worn out, 4 crew members, because it is currently CV capabile, instead of the USAF EF-111A (even though the USAF could have beefed up the EF-111 with landing gear and bulkheads from the FB-111S, and the nose gear from F-111Bs), that uses 2 crew, and keeps up with the strike package, including over Mach 1.5, if ever needed. That was a USN decision. Now they want the EA-18G (that uses the same ALQ-99 jammer package aboard the EA-6B, instead of an updated version). Do I need to go into the surface forces? Do we want to talk about the current management of the USN DD(X) and CVN(X) programs? The CVN(X) program has doubled (CVN(X) is only in the design phase, the "I want these toys aboard") and the DD(X) program is 400% over budget, for the first two ships. The F-22, by comparison is "only" 183% over the budget target price tag, per airplane.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 40):
It's more than just "politics". The Navy thought that it could get off cheap by modifying the BAE Hawk for carrier use. It ended up being much harder, costing more money, and taking more time that they thought it would. Modifying an F-15 for carrier use would involve more than just strengthened bulkheads, landing gear, tail hook and folding wingtips. I've been up close to F-15's, there's no way you are going to stuff navy issue nose and main landing gear into one. Getting the main gear to fit is going to take some modification to the fuselage. With nose gear you are pretty much going to have to redesign the entire nose section in order to get it to fit along with all the avionics. Then there's the issue of approach speed. In order to get it down to a suitable speed for carrier landings you would probably have to add slats to it. Which of course mean some serious redesign to the wing.

I don't know anything about the Hawk program, but the USN did have MacD MODIFY the two USAF YF-17As for the flight test program of the F/A-18A. The first two airplanes were not new builds, and both YF-17s (then called YF-18As) did land and take off from the Lexington. A new build F-15N is not out of our technological grasp. BTW, the approach speeds of the F-15A/B/C/D were comparable to those of the F-14A/B.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
The A-6 replacement didn't come off because the USN did not exercise control over the A-12 project, and huge cost overruns killed it, above the Department of the Navy.

If the same standards were applied to USAF programs as were Navy programs under Bush 1 the C-17, ATF and B-2 would have been killed as well.

Hmmm, President Bush-41 was a former WWII USN pilot. By that time both the B-2 and C-17 programs were entering the pre-production phase. The ATF (F-22) was threatened many times. The A-12 was canceled after it went well beyond 200% over budget. Even the F/A-18E/F program ended up well over budget, near the same percentage of the F-22 (although it does costs a lot less), and the current EA-18G program is over budget, too. Is that the fine Navy Officer Management you talk about? The USAF KC-X (2002 version) program had a lot of problems, but it ended up not costing the US one cent. People went to jail and others were fired. But, no USAF Officers were involved in those decisions.

I might add, the ATF program continued to trudge along during President(s) Clinton's administration, and they hated the military, and looked at every oppertunity to cut good programs, like the Army's Crusader cannon.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 40):
The decision on what aircraft would replace the A-7, F-4 and A-4 occurred almost thirty years ago. Back then engine technology is not what it is today. There were numerous cases of F-8, A-7 and A-4 pilots having to chuck perfectly good jets because the engine crapped out. That's what one of the major factors in not picking a navalized F-16.

I would say, that even though there have been F-16 losses due to engine problems, those 1970s era engines it has, were 4X as reliable as the engines developed during the 1950s for the A-4, F-4, A-7, and F-8. I would also add the USN has no problem with the single engine AV-8B used by the "Gator Navy" and the USMC. But, even in a twin engine airplane, like the F-14 and F/A-18, a single engine loss can also result in the loss of the airplane, esspiecally at slow approach speeds.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4852
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Which programs are those? The F-35 program is run by a USAF General, who has USAF, USN, and USMC officers on his staff.

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 $2.5 billion through FY 2011. In FY 2005 $50 million went from naval aviation accounts to the surface Navy. This has not only attracted the attention of the rest of the Navy but the USAF as well. Admiral Massenburg who is in charge of Naval Air Systems Command was slated to brief the Secretary of the Air Force on how Naval Aviation does things. The Air Force needs it, especially with the prospect of cutting tens thousands of personnel to pay for procurement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Are you talking about the EA-6B decision? Now that was smart, use a slow airplane that is well worn out, 4 crew members, because it is currently CV capabile, instead of the USAF EF-111A (even though the USAF could have beefed up the EF-111 with landing gear and bulkheads from the FB-111S, and the nose gear from F-111Bs), that uses 2 crew, and keeps up with the strike package, including over Mach 1.5, if ever needed. That was a USN decision.

The Navy did a much better job keeping the systems on the EA-6B. It's also capable of firing the HARM while the EF-111 was not. Before you start talking about "well worn out" EA-6B let me point out that the last one rolled off the production line in 1991. The EF-111 on the other hand were rebuilt F-111A'.s. Don't forget that there were more EA-6B's around that EF-111's. Once again it's not just a case of beefing up landing gear and bulkheads to make an aircraft carrier suitable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
I don't know anything about the Hawk program, but the USN did have MacD MODIFY the two USAF YF-17As for the flight test program of the F/A-18A. The first two airplanes were not new builds, and both YF-17s (then called YF-18As) did land and take off from the Lexington. A new build F-15N is not out of our technological grasp.

Did I say it was beyond our technological grasp? No I did not. However as I pointed out in order to make an aircraft carrier suitable it takes more than just beefed up landing gear and bulkheads. In the case of the F-15 it would have required redesign of the nose to fit the gear. Along with serious modification to the fuselage to fit the main gear. Then there's the issue of the wing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
BTW, the approach speeds of the F-15A/B/C/D were comparable to those of the F-14A/B.

Are you sure?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Hmmm, President Bush-41 was a former WWII USN pilot. By that time both the B-2 and C-17 programs were entering the pre-production phase.

Bush 41 being a former Navy pilot is irrelevant. The fact that the B-2 and C-17 were entering pre production means what? Does it mean that even if a program is over budget and behind schedule as long as a prototype is flying it's untouchable? The F-14D was in production, on schedule and under budget but Dick Cheney killed it. Wonder why, maybe a close relative had MD stock.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
The ATF (F-22) was threatened many times.

Then why wasn't it killed?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
I would say, that even though there have been F-16 losses due to engine problems, those 1970s era engines it has, were 4X as reliable as the engines developed during the 1950s for the A-4, F-4, A-7, and F-8. I would also add the USN has no problem with the single engine AV-8B used by the "Gator Navy" and the USMC.

Ever hear of institutional memory? The brass that were part of the decision making process that choose the twin engine aircraft were fleet pilots in the fifties and sixties. They remember either friends having to punch out of single engine jets or having to do so themselves because the engine died. As for the AV-8B that was a USMC decision. I have to wonder how many have gone in the drink because the engine failed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
But, even in a twin engine airplane, like the F-14 and F/A-18, a single engine loss can also result in the loss of the airplane, esspiecally at slow approach speeds.

You might end up losing a twin engine aircraft out at sea because you got behind the power curve and ended up hitting the round down. Or in an F-14 you might give it a bit to much throttle and end up losing control due to asymmetric thrust. However with both the F-14 and F-18 you have the chance to bring it back and give it a shot. In an F-16 over the ocean you are going for a swim.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:45 am

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 by hanging 7 racks on it making a tanker or bomb truck. So it takes more gas and flys as far the A-D's so what is the advantage besides send less Hornets on a strike package. My DOD contract has us working F-22's more regular now and my familiarization with the acft the USAF has a winner. The F-18 is just a mere snack for the F-22 after feasting on F-15' and 16's. What I here from F-22 mx troops that there is a RAF pilot on exchange flying the F-22 and through 2nd hand info the Euro Typhoon can't touch it.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:13 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 43):
In the October 30, 2006 edition of AV Week there's an interesting article on how Nav Air has turned it's ship around.

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 superior to the F-15 it replaces. The C-17 is superior to the C-141. Meanwhile, the Navy has fielded only the F-18E/F, an airplane that is in no way superior to either the A-6s or the F-14s it replaces, and was not immune to development problems (i.e., the "wing drop" design flaw.) Sure, the Navy hasn't suffered a debacle on the scale of the KC-767 (USAFies will be taking lumps for that fiasco for years to come), but what exactly is the Navy being congratulated for? Bringing online one mediocre fighter, an (albeit distant) derivative of an Air Force 1970s reject?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:47 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 43):
Naval Aviation expects to save $2.5 billion through FY 2011. In FY 2005 $50 million went from naval aviation accounts to the surface Navy.

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 bought another 1.25 F/A-18Es for the money (no I am not making light of that, but the $50M coupled with another $25M would push that to 2 complete airframes). It would not even make a down payment on a new construction Burke class DDG (cost approximately $1.1B per ship). Is the entire $2.5B going from NAVAIR to the surface fleet over the next 5 years? Is this for the DD(X) program? I would think the Navy could put that money into the P-8A developement, or buy some more C-40As, rather than flush it down the DD(X) toilet.

If the Surface Navy buys more Burkes, LCSs, or San Antonios with that $2.5B, then that would be a smart move. If it is going to R&D of future surface combatants (DD(X), CG(X), CVN(X)), I think I would hold off for a little while before spending it.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5255
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
or buy some more C-40As

Maybe they could borrow two of the C-40Cs still to be delivered to the AFRC.  Wink

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070228a_nr.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
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 .

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 a 1v1.

The entire premise of the Super Hornet revolves around a sham in so many ways. About the only thing it has going for it is that its a recepticle taht can accomodate new avionics and equipment, other than that it's nothing but new. The program bypassed Congress and thereby a fighter competition (so much for competition) because they duped the dumbassed politicians who often know little to nothing about the military by calling the Super Hornet an "upgrade" program taht was going to save the Navy "millions" versus an outright all new aircraft design.

The only thing similar between a legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet is that it sort of resembles it's predecessor - everything else is new from the ground up and parts commonality between the two is nothing short of Boeing propoganda. Sure, as you might expect from a modern aircraft built with AutoCAD and who's production line is still in full motion (read: spare parts) the program seems great today. The sad thing however is that the F-14 was a fundamental better airframe design and it would have been a better basis in which to have upgraded it with all the latest high-tech goodies that makes the Super Hornets "super."

From what I have gathered over the years basically McDD and Boeing finally ganged up on the arrogant execs at Grumman and Grumman just couldn't pull their heads outta their asses soon enough to save themselves; such a tragedy for a company that had up until then been part of US Naval Aviation since it's early days when carriers were converted cruisers with a flat deck on the top.

The US Navy lost a significant punch when it traded in their Intruders and Tomcats for Hornets and "Super" Hornets and the only maintenance issues on the Tomcats were those that came about after Dicky Cheney stabbed the Navy in the back and cancelled the F-14D while it is in the middle of production; for this I blame the Grumman dumbasses as well as the Hornet Mafia who accepted fat concessions from McDD/Boeing at the expense of the US Navy.


 
SCAT15F
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: The F 22 And The US Navy

Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:58 pm

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 engine with its 46.5" diameter is designed to fit in the F-15/16. The F-14 was designed for the and P&W F401, which is 50" in diameter (and has a 3" larger fan). In 1973 the P&W F-100 produced 22,900lbf thrust and the F401 produced 28,100lbf thrust and they shared the same core. The F401 was dropped for lack of funding. The F100 now produces 32,500lbf thrust. If the F401 had been adopted, it would theoretically be producing 38,500lbf compared to the 27,500lbf of the F110-400. That would give the Tomcat a thrust to weight ratio of over 1 to 1 even at max tow!!!

So putting the F110 in the F-14 was certainly an improvement, but still fell far short of the design potential, and the F-14 gained 4000lb between the F-14B of 1973 and the F-14A+/D of 1988. It would be like putting the F414 in the F-15E or F-16 block 60.

Better yet- the F-135 and F-136 engines for the F-35 JSF are both the same diameter as the F401- 81,000+ pounds of thrust in an F-14!!! That would give it the best thrust to weight ratio of any fighter aircraft in existence!!!  bigthumbsup 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests