X-44 manta F-22 spinoff.

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 20:23

The national interest put out a decent article highlighting
The Manta, which was a proposed F-22 alternative.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ter-161911

Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?

1. The added wing area would have likely allowed the plane to reach the 140 knot trap speed required to get back on board.

2. If stability in roll axis was an issue the navy could have
Simply put the vertical tails back on.


3. The added wing could hold alot of weapons and fuel.

I hope the navy revisits the concept and we can get shared avionics and maybe a joint aircraft from this design.
What was the reason the navy passed?
Attachments
x44socialmedia.jpg
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 21:15

X-31 VECTOR aside, the Navy has been since at least JAST very hostile to powered lift.

It's why the F-35C and F-35A have different planforms.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2797
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 22:21

jessmo112 wrote:Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?


NIH & NIMBY
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 23:39

marauder2048 wrote:X-31 VECTOR aside, the Navy has been since at least JAST very hostile to powered lift.

It's why the F-35C and F-35A have different planforms.



Was there a way to throw 2 vert stabilizers on this thing and get it to trap under 140 knots? IYO coyld you control it without the fancy TV gimmicks?
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 23:40

madrat wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?


NIH & NIMBY


Translate please. My aviation forum geek speech is limited.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6443
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Jun 2020, 00:35

jessmo112 wrote:
madrat wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?


NIH & NIMBY


Translate please. My aviation forum geek speech is limited.


Not
Invented
Here

Not
In
My
Back
Yard
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3135
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post10 Jun 2020, 02:43

There are alotta really intriguing looking jets that have some design feature that doesn’t translate to required handling/performance around the ship, including failure modes. My other offering is that there have been many enabling technological advancements since then (and that are now common, and thus taken for granted) that simply aren’t available then, particularly wrt flight controls.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post10 Jun 2020, 07:26

jessmo112 wrote:Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?


Probably because it was a concept that was never presented to the Navy.

You might as well ask why they never bought Colonial Vipers.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4153
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post17 Jun 2020, 15:55

jessmo112 wrote:The national interest put out a decent article highlighting
The Manta, which was a proposed F-22 alternative.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ter-161911

Does anyone know the primary reason the navy turned down such a good design?

1. The added wing area would have likely allowed the plane to reach the 140 knot trap speed required to get back on board.

2. If stability in roll axis was an issue the navy could have
Simply put the vertical tails back on.


3. The added wing could hold alot of weapons and fuel.

I hope the navy revisits the concept and we can get shared avionics and maybe a joint aircraft from this design.
What was the reason the navy passed?


Same reason the Navy passes on all designs with potential: The Hornet

Here are the rules:

1.) The Hornet/Super Hornet will be the platform that is chosen, regardless of its performance
2,) All possible roles for an aircraft (air superiority, strike, E/W, Tanker, Drone, AWACS etc.) will be fulfilled by the Hornet
3.) When in doubt, refer to rules #1 or 2

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests