With F-35 do we need F-22 anymore?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2019, 05:57

Not sure WHERE the search was meant to occur however I'm not trawling through 20 pages of search results here. Using search term online brought up first result from USNInews which is not detailed: https://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockhe ... -hook-f-35

At some point history is written if not by the winners then by the also-rans. Online there is a lot of misinformation about the F-35C hook initial issues. Them twere daze. Sure details are fudged from perspective of those writing the history.

This thread has some XMAS CHEER: viewtopic.php?t=16571

For example the talk above about 'Australian interest in F-22'. AFAIK only a new labor numnut defence minister expressed interest in writing a letter to the US gubmint but I don't recall any result. Officially according to the RAAF they have NEVER been interested in acquiring the F-22 - they need a multi-role aircraft. Only APA banged on about it and THE PIG.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 17 Dec 2019, 06:01

The F-35C discussion reinforces the points made earlier that making a jet carrier-capable isnt a stroll in the park, even when the intent is to do so from day one. I recall some wizards from down under suggesting some years that making a ‘Naval’ F-22 could be done with relative ease (I’ll see if I can find the quote).

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2019, 06:09

Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA? NO here:

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/251 ... 10c42eb04a

OK THANKS I see 'QS' has found it otherwise - easier to read there online.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 17 Dec 2019, 06:10

spazsinbad wrote:Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA?

Here ya go — http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

boogieman · by **boogieman** » 17 Dec 2019, 07:03

quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA?

Here ya go — <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html</span>

Oh dear lawd. SH and F35C can't out turn missiles(!?), Flankers have DRFM jammers (while ASQ239 apparently doesn't exist?), F35 VLO signature has (apparently) no appreciable effect on incoming radar AAMs, F35 lacks a towed decoy (it's called ALE-70 dummies), enemies use developmental AAMs while blue team gets bog-standard ones. Yup, sounds like APA to me!

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 17 Dec 2019, 07:36

quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA?

Here ya go — http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

Wow, so how much weight will the folding wing, strengthened landing gear, stronger arrestor hook, retractable canards add? F-22 is already 43,430 lbs, and with arrestor cable limit of 50,000 lbs, with all the things needed, can this thing even land on a carrier? In that Annex below did he really just say that structural enhancements on this "F-22N" have no significant basic empty weight (BEW) increase?? :lmao:

Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

There's a reason why the NATF F-22 and F-23 designs were so different from the USAF versions, but this guy thinks he can get away with just a few "bolt on" changes to F-22A?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2019, 08:43

This nonsense was very funny even all those years ago now. Taking the peepee is an not unusual Ozzie Trait. From PDF:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2019, 11:09

Youse'll note at least ONE famous name in this lot. No.67 RAAF+RAN Pilot Course Graduation Photo Dec 1968 RAAF Pearce.

HINT: TOP MIDDLE & earlier we wuz at POINT COOK:

An Interesting Point: a history of military aviation at Point Cook 1914-2014
2014 Steve Campbell-Wright

“....Australia’s commitment to the Vietnam War in the early 1960s increased the demand for pilots, and airline pilot recruitment campaigns accounted for many pilot discharges. So, pilot training at Point Cook was placed under considerable pressure as the expected annual graduation rate increased from 38 before 1964 to 100 by 1968. In addition to this, Point Cook trained pilots for the Navy and Army at a rate of 12 and 28 each year respectively. On busy days, it was not unusual to have four parallel runways operating at Point Cook as aircraft also departed for training at Laverton and Bacchus Marsh. There could be over a dozen aircraft in the circuit at one time....” (page 176)

Source: http://www.radschool.org.au/Books/An%20 ... 0Point.pdf (15.3 Mb)

madrat · by **madrat** » 17 Dec 2019, 13:48

So how do you deploy sidebay door when there is a CFT blocking it?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 17 Dec 2019, 15:57

disconnectedradical wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I know the ex-RAAFie Chappie from flight school who wrote that hilarious effort for APA. He is a good bloke but just a contrarian to get people off centre. I'll attach a PDF of it but probably the article is still online at APA?

Here ya go — http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

Wow, so how much weight will the folding wing, strengthened landing gear, stronger arrestor hook, retractable canards add? F-22 is already 43,430 lbs, and with arrestor cable limit of 50,000 lbs, with all the things needed, can this thing even land on a carrier? In that Annex below did he really just say that structural enhancements on this "F-22N" have no significant basic empty weight (BEW) increase??

Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

There's a reason why the NATF F-22 and F-23 designs were so different from the USAF versions, but this guy thinks he can get away with just a few "bolt on" changes to F-22A?

Would have been much needed comic relief had so many people not paid attention to them at the time...

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 17 Dec 2019, 19:42

disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 17 Dec 2019, 21:10

steve2267 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...

Actually after doing some reading the F-18L was actually 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A, so my bad. Still, that is a big weight different since F/A-18A empty weight is only 23,000 lbs, so over 10% weight difference.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 17 Dec 2019, 22:42

disconnectedradical wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Just to compare, Northrop's F-18L would have been 5,000 lbs lighter than F/A-18A. No significant weight increase my a$$.

That would do wonders for the Bug's T/W ratio.

Makes me wonders how an F-18L with F414-EPE motors would perform. Maybe Maveri, err Tom Cruise, would fund one... you know... for Top Gun III: Red Bull Racers...

Actually after doing some reading the F-18L was actually 2,500 lbs lighter than F/A-18A, so my bad. Still, that is a big weight different since F/A-18A empty weight is only 23,000 lbs, so over 10% weight difference.

According to that most authoritative source, Wikipedia:

New Fighter Aircraft Project

The resulting F-18L was about 30% lighter than the F/A-18A, about 27400 lb (12400 kg) take-off weight as opposed to 33700 lb (15300 kg) and as a result had considerably better performance and range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project

So... if Tom'll fork over the moolah... and we can get John Will to stuff a pair of GE F414-EPE motors in there... Tom will have approximately 52000lb of thrust for his 27,400lb take-off weight.

Might need to change the title of the next movie to: Top Gun III: Major Tom with title sound track by David Bowie. (I think Mr. Bowie would approve.)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Dec 2019, 23:01

'AstroBoyStevenEven' said: "....So... if Tom'll fork over the moolah... and we can get John Will to stuff a pair of GE F414-EPE motors in there... Tom will have approximately 52000lb of thrust for his 27,400lb take-off weight. Might need to change the title of the next movie to: Top Gun III: Major Tom with title sound track by David Bowie. (I think Mr. Bowie would approve.)"

They could rendezvous in orbit. Can you hear me Major TOM.

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 18 Dec 2019, 00:53

steve2267 wrote:So... if Tom'll fork over the moolah... and we can get John Will to stuff a pair of GE F414-EPE motors in there... Tom will have approximately 52000lb of thrust for his 27,400lb take-off weight.

Might need to change the title of the next movie to: Top Gun III: Major Tom with title sound track by David Bowie. (I think Mr. Bowie would approve.)

The gross weight difference is bigger because I think the F-18L also carries less fuel than F/A-18A. For empty weight the difference is 2,500 lbs.

Also, F-18L may not get full thrust benefit of the F414-EPE engine because the intake is not big enough for the increase airflow.