Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Skyhigh:

You know, I admire your enthusiasm but you sound like you've made up your mind that the F-22N is a fantastic idea and aren't interested in hearing anything else.

Exactly on what basis do you think the associated weight changes will be neglible? You know the structures are designed to carry anticipated load paths. It's POSSIBLE that the whole bloody thing would have to be designed but you describe the problem as 'neglible'. Look at the wheel wheel. It's designed to handle the landing gear with not a lot of extra room. What if sink rates for carrier aviation require a longer compression stroke for the gear?

As for not fielding as many, why is the Marine Corps going to develop a separate training program for air dominance and take on another supply chain to field a couple of squadrons of F-22Ns? If air dominance is a problem against a peer competitor, it's going to take combined operations anyways to get things done.

The task of the USMC (as I understand it) is to support ground operations, not field a do-everything air arm. In an alternate universe they might want some C-17s too but they're likely not willing to pay for them and maintain a separate training and logistic chain when they get 'good enough' support from the USAF.

The USMC likely is most interested in a small, dedicated air arm SPECIALIZED in CAS for its troops. It wants to be able to use that air arm with versatility and not only from Navy carriers. Look at how Harriers have been used: off LHAs and improvised air strips. The F-35B is infinitely better suited to the needs of the Marines. If you offered them 50 F-22Ns along with the associated development, training, and logistic costs OR 300 F-35Bs, which do you think they'd prefer?

Again, I respect your creativity but the defense budget is a zero-sum game and I just can't see anyone wanting the F-22N with the alternatives that are available (well, except possibly LM).

YOU say that the Marine Corps would benefit giving up a few billion dollars of its budget for the ability to achieve air dominance on its own but I think you're in the minority.

F-16.net Sponsor

skyhigh wrote:

Too heavy to fly?

You mean the Sea Raptor would dip twenty, maybe thirty degrees nose down then pitch up upon catapulting from a carrier?

In fact, using TVC and speedbrakes would make it easier for a Sea Raptor pilot to land on the deck of a carrier by reducing the approach speed to a controllable level, 145 knots (260 km/h).

I'm not sure that they'd do that. The USAF has made it clear that thrust vectoring is not to be used to expand the flight envelope in case it fails and aerodynamic surfaces cannot recover the aircraft.

You mean you would risk stalling the Sea Raptor upon approach to a carrier and crashing? Or even attempting a post-stall maneuver?

I give up................. Bang Head

. Skyhigh, you seem to live in a money is no object, unrealistic world. The Sea Raptor would have to be strucurally strengthend (both airframe and landing gear) for carrier operations, HENCE IT WILL BE HEAVIER. Then there are corrosion and coatings issues involved with sea ops. Look @ the USAF's FMC rates right now with the Raptor(62%). Being stealthy isn't cheap. Flight control surfaces would have to be redesigned for carrier ops. Need I go on????????? And how much would it add to the Raptor's already substantial cost (R&D of said sea raptor plus actual purchase of airframes and flight testing). And how long do you think it would take to go from development to actual operations? It isn't going to happen in a week. Hell, just converting the superbug to a Growler took years, and thats mostly internal stuff. Dream on..... "Oh waiter, I'll have a Sea Raptor with a side of seaweed". By the way, the Raptor doesn't have a dedicated speedbrake. It uses a combination flight control deflections for the same effect. Doh

cywolf32 wrote:

I give up................. Bang Head

. Skyhigh, you seem to live in a money is no object, unrealistic world. The Sea Raptor would have to be strucurally strengthend (both airframe and landing gear) for carrier operations, HENCE IT WILL BE HEAVIER. Then there are corrosion and coatings issues involved with sea ops. Look @ the USAF's FMC rates right now with the Raptor(62%). Being stealthy isn't cheap. Flight control surfaces would have to be redesigned for carrier ops. Need I go on????????? And how much would it add to the Raptor's already substantial cost (R&D of said sea raptor plus actual purchase of airframes and flight testing). And how long do you think it would take to go from development to actual operations? It isn't going to happen in a week. Hell, just converting the superbug to a Growler took years, and thats mostly internal stuff. Dream on..... "Oh waiter, I'll have a Sea Raptor with a side of seaweed". By the way, the Raptor doesn't have a dedicated speedbrake. It uses a combination flight control deflections for the same effect. Doh

Just give up dude....

skyhigh wrote:

You mean you would risk stalling the Sea Raptor upon approach to a carrier and crashing? Or even attempting a post-stall maneuver?

No, but aren't you the one that suggested using thrust vectoring to lower the approach speed of your F-22N? If you have to use thrust vectoring to get the aircraft into a landing configuration it follows that LOSS of thrust vectoring risks the aircraft.

Someone should check my figures but my guess is that typical carrier approach speeds are 135 KIAS. I believe that the Raptor lands at about 150 KIAS. If you need thrust vectoring to keep the aircraft aloft and controllable at a lower speed, than loss of thrust vectoring means the aircraft is going to fall. This isn't a problem at an airshow where the F-22 has altitude to recover but it will be a problem when the plane is a few hundred feet above sea level.

The Navy has rules regarding maximum approach speeds, sink rates, roll and pitch rates, and likely other things I know nothing about. It's unlikely that the Raptor can do these things since it was not a design requirement. Strengthening the landing gear and slapping on a tail hook are certainly not all that will be required. If you need larger control surfaces, you need more powerful actuators and control laws.

Again, I respect your creativity and enthusiasm. No one is trying to rain on your parade. But you do seem to be repeatedly suggesting that this is a relatively simple thing to do when many others are disagreeing with you and you don't seem interested in learning.

How about you respond to some of my other comments about cost trade offs? Do you think the USMC should have a few C-17s too? Is the USMC complaining about their inability to achieve air superiority or go into a heavily defended IADS environment alone? OR do they prefer to concentrate on their mission of providing support for their ground troops? Do you think Marine aviation wants to be even MORE dependent on the Navy? Or would they rather have F-35Bs that can operate off LHAs and improvised airstrips?

I think the F-22N is your dream, not the Marine's.

Skyhigh:

A you getting your ideas off the defpro website? I was trying to look up the approach speed for the F-22 and that came up on google. It doesn't seem very thoughtful. I'm not sure it's practical to replace the Raptor's nose gear doors with canards to increase pitch authority so that it can land on a carrier. Perhaps the structure was not designed or built to handle those kinds of loads.

I'd also like to see where they came up with the $230 million dollar design and testing costs. Even more incredible they slap on some kind of confidence intervals (-10%/+30%). Wasn't the development contract for the Super Hornet something north of $4B?

Sigh.

Mike

The F-22 Raptor is capable of sinking enemy ships simply by dropping a 1000 lb JDAM or 250 lb SDB straght into the smokestack of the target vessel and fused to detonate upon hitting the keel, guaranteeing a total sink.

This capability would apply to the F-22N Sea Raptor. A squadron of these launched from one carrier could sink an enemy squadron of surface vessels.

Enough of these in Navy and Marine hands and they could stealthily annihilate an armada with not much more than GPS or datalink guided SDBs and JDAMs!

Amazing!

http://www.ausairpower.net/Raptor-ASuW.html Cool

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Mar 25, 2009 - 05:36 PM; edited 1 time in total

duplicate

Skyhigh - The F-35 could do that with 2000 lb bombs.... seems like just another reason to go with the F-35 Smile

fyi, the photos in your linked site are from the 2000 lb JDAM, not the 1000 lb.

The F-35 can also use it's DAS and EOTS combo to find and prosecute the mission without ever having to go active. The F-22 will ALWAYS have to co active with it's radar in order to prosecute the mission.

psychmike wrote:

Exactly on what basis do you think the associated weight changes will be neglible?

Of course it's negligible. Anything in Air Power Australia's fantasy land is "easy".

Apparently re-engining the F-111 to rid itself of the TF-30 and install the F119 requires nothing more than a "few sheet metal changes". (Direct quote from Air Power Australia).

Integrating modern weapons and sensors is "easy" because the F-111 now operates the Mil-Std-1760 databus, according to the inestimable Dr Kopp. (Whose experience of ACTUALLY doing such work is exactly: NIL).

Reality shows that despite this claim, it STILL took $600 MILLION and 8 years of work to integrate one SINGLE weapon system (the AGM-142 Popeye) and despite these FACTS, the presence of such has rarely ever swayed a fanatic.

I fear the same for poor old Skyhigh. Nothing as irrelevent as "facts" will ever change his set, mind...

What LM engineers thought as being possible only by total redesign of basic ATF, with those swept wing and 25% design commonality, in APA land happens with adding two canards to FLG doors and putting it into MSFS or kinda of.

Oh, if life would be so easy...

SpudmanWP wrote:

Skyhigh - The F-35 could do that with 2000 lb bombs.... seems like just another reason to go with the F-35 Smile

fyi, the photos in your linked site are from the 2000 lb JDAM, not the 1000 lb.

The F-35 can also use it's DAS and EOTS combo to find and prosecute the mission without ever having to go active. The F-22 will ALWAYS have to co active with it's radar in order to prosecute the mission.

Unless the F-22 also shares the DAS and EOTS duo.

skyhigh wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Skyhigh - The F-35 could do that with 2000 lb bombs.... seems like just another reason to go with the F-35 Smile

fyi, the photos in your linked site are from the 2000 lb JDAM, not the 1000 lb.

The F-35 can also use it's DAS and EOTS combo to find and prosecute the mission without ever having to go active. The F-22 will ALWAYS have to co active with it's radar in order to prosecute the mission.

Unless the F-22 also shares the DAS and EOTS duo.

It doesn't.

It can't and never will be able to carry 2000lbs class weapons internally either.

Skyhigh, got yourself a hot thread here Smile

Perhaps in reality, the only feasible and reasonable chance to get anything 'F-22' related on a carrier, would be to design any hypothetical future FB-22 from scratch as a 95% commonality USN/USAF platform (with 5% being specified add-ons of choice, e.g.).

I'm currently in the camp concluding FB-22 (equally an EA modular and long-duration Intercept capable platform) as more prudent choice over a hypothetical NGB - for one reason being just this, an at-sea naval operated capability. That added deterrence value could not be duplicated by a ground based medium bomber with limited basing, let alone at an R&D savings of what $10billion at least?

Under such a proposal, it could be considered to replace Hornets with block II Super Hornets and additional Growlers (at cost of forfeiting F-35C) and then replace older Block I Super Hornets, say around 2020 with the FB-22N. (maybe 10-12 per CVN deployment)? E-2 could be replaced by unmanned Early Warning blimps/airship recovering extra deck space for larger jets. (maybe 6' wider folding-wing-span than F-35C)?

And Conan, I know this is an endless debate, lol Bang Head

with regards to F-22 and 'EOTS' (a Raptor equivalent model FLIR/IRST), but its perfectly plausible by the time USAF is flying 100+ upgraded block IV/V F-35, Raptor could be upgraded with such sensors. (I'll concede DAS not for Raptor, yet Raptor could naturally settle with specific similar system)

And true, 1,000 lb JDAM-ER (later with seeker-variant for maritime) will have to suffice for clean sortie. Not bad for an air dominance jet? And perhaps clearance could be given Raptor for external JASSM-ER by the time F-35 is FOC and cleared for same payload?? But let's please not go in further circles about how many AAMs or how many SDBs or how many gunpods etc, etc eh! That discussion is a sure brick-wall hitter.