Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I had the opportunity to take a brief on the NATF many years ago. It was a Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter or Navy F-22. The briefer was Tom Burbage who has been a leader in both F-22 and F-35. The concept was to strengthen structure for carrier landings and expand fusulage for additional fuel capacity for the longer legs that the Navy required. Although it was close to what the Navy wanted, the range was not quite there. Would have been a wonderful plan and a true joint program with many common parts. Now look where we are..... F-22 being killed off and the Navy having a much less capable aircraft.

F-16.net Sponsor

johnwill wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

If you really want to see what swing wings can get you, look at the empty weights of an F-14 and an F-15, and then try and find the mission readiness rates for the F-14.

And right after that, try to land the F-15 on a carrier.

Honestly, comparing the 14 and the 15 is useless. They are completely different airplanes, with completely different missions, operating in completely different environments.

True, but the swing wings are a big factor for all that weight (25% more in total), and they do add a lot of maintenance problems. I've been knee deep in F-14/15 stuff, so I know how futile that battle is, but I was trying to make the point that variable geometry isn't really the answer to this problem, or at least a very good one.

Folding wings! Try folding wings like that of the Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D.

Refer to my last post on this thread, and you'll see what I mean.

While you're developing a stronger landing gear, why don't think at the ability of modify the elevation of the jet on parking?..

In this way you could have a parked NF-22 taller then the next one or vice-versa and so on, so you could partially put the wing of a parkied raptor over the wing of the next one..

This variable height landing gear @ max height also could be useful for easier mantenance on the jet bottom.

As an alternative cheaper solution you could put the jet on three external gear (each one capable of carring a third of the raptor wheight) .

skyhigh wrote:

Folding wings! Try folding wings like that of the Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D.

Refer to my last post on this thread, and you'll see what I mean.

The problem isn't storage, it's sufficient slow speed handling without killing your overall performance envelope. VG and folding are not related here.

Skyhigh, did you make that model!?! That's a freaking beautiful mod, if you did - nice work man (and if not, can you say which main site you find these models?)

Prinz - I think the balanced solution we're all trying to accomplish would be found in a joint-FB-22 (common frame/gear) upgrade.

An adequate sized/shaped delta-configured wing could provide sufficient 'low-speed' stability, while equally dominating in super-sonic performance. Old School F-16XL taught us this way back... yet few seemed to listen.

A joint USAF/USN FB-22x could be funded in part with tradeable F-35A/C budgets... and in part with reduced KC-X procurement (given semi-tanker-autonomous performance) and in part with reduced or cancelled NGB. (If such an FB-22x proved successful enough to justify cancelling the NGB outright... well then you're talking at least $15 billion savings in unnecessary R&D alone.

And with regards to the Navalized capable FB-22x, you're talking an unprecedented 1,400+ mile combat radius capable LO interceptor/CAP or deep-strike asset. An actual 'game-changer' and true asymmetric deterrent (given increased internal loadout capacity as well).

http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/su33mw_1.htm

Hyperscale 1/48 Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D.

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

skyhigh wrote:

http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/su33mw_1.htm

Hyperscale 1/48 Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D.

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

Thanks for link.. and you, Skyhigh, do indeed do your homework. Good inputs made on these threads..

I'll keep it that way.

skyhigh wrote:

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

Arguable, but I digress. Anyway, thing's don't occur in a bubble. I'd take the Block II's avionics/weaponry with a USN aviator and western support systems any day.

skyhigh wrote:

http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/su33mw_1.htm

Hyperscale 1/48 Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D.

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

What rubbish, reading too much Carlo Kopp i say!

Quote:

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

Since you speak of range over water, I assume that you are referring to the Su-33 when you say "Flanker". It is not clear that the Su-33 would "outclass" the F/A-18E/F in terms of maneuverability. The Su-33's canards and TVC may give it an edge in some areas of the flight envelope, but the F/A-18E/F has the advantage in thrust-to-weight ratio (which helps in acceleration and energy retention).

One of the biggest weaknesses for the majority of the Flanker family would big their very large RCS (on the order of 15 m^2). Although some variants (J-11B and Su-35BM) have a reduced RCS (on the order of 1-3 m^2), that is still about 10 or 30 times larger than the Super Hornet's RCS. That's not including the Super Hornet's AESA with LPI.

skyhigh wrote:

FYI, the Flanker outclasses the Super Hornet in every flight regime, from speed, maneuverability, TVC, Sura-K HMD with R-73 (AA-11 Archer) and most importantly when operating over water, range.

1. The chance of the Flanker getting in close enough to actually use any of that is doubtful and depends on how good the BVR missiles really are.

2. There's nothing to say the latest R-73/74 is anywhere near the JHMCS + AIM-9X combo Im afraid.

Don't some of the latest Super Hornet models have an electronic attack mode capability in their AESA radars too?
(not talking about 'Growlers' either)

Let's not forget that the Su-33 can't takeoff with much of a loadout or that much gas. I'm sure it's unrefueled range is much closer to the SH when it's flying off a boat, if not plain inferior.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Does the USN Need a Navalized F-22?