Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Fair enough, geogen.

The F-35C Lightning II would not be as well suited to maritime carrier operations due to its single powerplant and shorter range than the F-22N Sea Raptor.

Some of them could be equipped with EA (electronic attack) capability like the Growler, but on a stealthy platform.

F-16.net Sponsor

Skyhigh,

Again your answers and assumptions are wrong. Why would a single powerplant offer less. Its been told time and time again by pilots that the F-35 has excellent acceleration. Today's engine technology pretty much eliminates the two engine bring back point. Recent F-18 crashes over land have proven that it is not a decisive advantage. I have read an article by an F-22 pilot saying that there is pretty much nothing they can do to to screw up engine parameters as the engines simply won't let it happen. The F135 has all the advantages the F119 has and then some. And everything out there so far says that the Lightning actually has better range than the Raptor (B model aside). Avionics wise, there is really no comparison at this point. The F-22 will be looking for "avionics advice" from the F-35, not vice versa. I love the F-22 just like any other person rightly should, but just as the F-16 proved its point beyond a reasonable doubt to the skeptics, so will the F-35. As has been said before, your enthusium is well noted and not without merit, but time will show what an outstanding platform the F-35 truly is just as the F-16 and F-18 did. Here's a good one for you. Why did the Navy decide to do an evolution of the F-18 (Super Hornet) and not the F-14???? Why did the USAF continually improve on the F-16 vs. the F-15?????? If you really think about it and read your history, you will see what I am talking about. The problem with these type of forums is that its all based on assumptions, with no real data to back it up. Pictures and graphs always paint a pretty picture when someone is trying to sell you on their idea. Obviously, Mr. Kopp has done his job on you and left you with no other alternative than the F-22N.

Look if anything I'm prety sure the Navy is probably going to update and or retrofit there existing fleet of F/A-18F/G Super Hornet's to BLOCK 2 aircraft, the Air Force is doing something similer with it's ageing F-15 platform. Since the demise of the F/A-22 program @ the hand's of Obamanation, the AF has invested in the F-35A to replace it's ageing A-10's & F-16's, & the "NEW" F-15SE Silent Eagle to fill the gap the Raptor demand was suppose to. As for the Marines they want nothing to do with the F/A-18 anymore, they want to go to an all STOVAL F/A-35B fleet to replace there F/A-18A+'s, F/A-18C's, F/A-18D's, AV-8B's Both Night Attack & 2+ Harier'[Link pending approval] The Navy hasn't fully counted out the Super Bug nor fully committed to the F/A-35C yet, because Boeing has been working with GE on the development of a new vectored thrust variant of the F414 engine with 20% more thrust, improved reliability, and lower fuel burn. The improved engine variant will operate at higher temperatures and will have a more efficient fan / compressor stage. It will have a common form factor with earlier variants, meaning it should be a drop-in replacement. Other upgrade's include more stealth, because while the Super Hornet has a substantially smaller radar cross section than the original Hornet, Boeing engineers believe that it can be cut further. Boeing has introduced new conformal fuel tanks for the F-15SE that incorporate "stealthy" weapons bays for an AAM or light munition, and that is a proposed option for the Super Bug as well. The new avionics of the Block 2 Super Hornet, particularly the AN/APG-79 AESA, the BLOCK 2 variant will also have radar absorbing material where needed, boeing speculates that this stealth will only be in the range of fifth generation aircraft such as the F-35 but well beneath that of the Raptor since the it will be available for purches by other cuntries as will be the F-15SE. These 2 aircraft will be mass produced & retrofitted to existing aircraft @ a fraction of the cost it would be to devlope a "SEA BASED RAPTOR" & be just as capible of dealing with the existing & future threat's of the Sucoy & MIG [Link pending approval] Cool

validator32!!! wrote:

the BLOCK 2 variant will also have radar absorbing material where needed, boeing speculates that this stealth will only be in the range of fifth generation aircraft such as the F-35

Do you really believe that???

Validator:

Contrary to your claims, the USAF has NOT invested in the F-15SE. The Navy placed another order for Super Hornets and Growlers in September 2010. I'm not too sure what else you would want to see in terms of a 'commitment' to this platform. Its stated commitment is to operate the F-18E/F/G alongside the F-35C and to use the former as a hedge against delays of the latter. I have never, never, never heard anyone claim that the Superhornet would be "comparable" in stealth to the F-35. Boeing has instead said that a balanced approach to survivables would lower cost. Please cite your sources.

I have not heard that Boeing is developing a combined CFT / weapons bay ala the F-15SE as you claim. There is a proposal from Boeing to use a stealthy weapons pod which would contain 2 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs along with topside mounted CFTs.

PLEASE stop presenting your opinion as facts. Provide references for unheard of claims or present them as your opinion. Aren't you the one who earlier said that EAST GERMANY flies F-16s and WEST GERMANY had Su-27s???

All of validator's contributions to the forum - a whopping 3 posts - have been real whoppers to say it nicely.

madrat wrote:

All of validator's contributions to the forum - a whopping 3 posts - have been real whoppers to say it nicely.

Hey..come on now. I like whoppers every now and then..especially with cheese, although I am a Wendy's guy Laughing

Raptor USAF about 31,670 empty
To all my Navy buds, please take the below rantings for what they are.
No, I'm not saying it's a bad idea - just not workable under the listed constraints. (I've prolly missed a "ton" of stuff the Navy requires but it's just to illustrate how difficult this project really is)

To survive a carrier landing:
a) The aircraft descends on glide slope to the carrier’s deck tail hook down at under 135 knots.
b) The hook catches the wire while the aircraft is still several feet in the air.
c) The aircraft crashes to the flight deck at over 12gs (Why the long stroke gear).
d) The aircraft needs the tail hook to absorb MAX AB when catching the wire.
e) Once the aircraft is safely on deck, it must raise the hook back up with no damage.

To get safely below decks and work in the confines of the very tight flight deck
a) The wing must fold at some point.
b) The wing fold must be pilot controllable.

To survive a carrier take-off:
a) The aircraft requires a launch bar.
b) The aircraft required dual nose wheel trucks to accommodate the launch bar.
c) The nose gear requires enough strength to take the cat shot.

The F-22N must last over 6,000 flight hours to make it worth the Navy’s while.

You’re looking a minimum 20% increase in empty weight to absorb all the changes needed, not to mention a redesigned wing and flight control surfaces to keep the aircraft controllable on glide slope to the carrier in bad weather and sub-optimal visibility. The aircraft needs brand new high stroke landing gear to absorb the landing loads (about 1,500Lbs above the conventional landing gear weight). Let’s not forget the new tail hook and launch bar (about 1000 lbs) and the new wing fold system (500 lbs).
Sea Raptor about 6330 lbs extra airframe weight + the new landing gear 1,500 lbs = Fly back is now 7830 lbs. With the “light weight” tail hook and launch bar at 1000 lbs + the 500 lbs wing fold system, 9330 total Fly back.

Good luck explaining to your industry partners why an F-22N with a 41,000 lb empty weight is a great idea.

Would not any fighter in that size category have the same weight penalties and higher empty weight? In terms of weight and size the F-22N you describe is roughly comparable to an F-14...

Correct, was simply illustrating the not so simple task ahead. Thanks for spotting the not so subtle comparison. You’d have to convince the Navy it’s a great idea to resurrect an airframe configuration that is such a “blast from the past”. The thread started off on how only “minor” changes would be required to “Navalize” the F-22, that’s all.

To Rpgrynn Thanks for you earlier post stating (very succinctly I might add) why it's next to impossible and financial suicide to try to navalize the F-22 Raptor. I might add that in addition to your points there's also the cost of navalizing the engine (which is doable but adds to the price) AND the stealth materials see http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest
And squirl while they have been aircraft even bigger than an F-14 on the carrier deck (A-5 Vigilante was pretty big and then there's always the C-130 landing see http://www.theaviationzone.com/factshee ... estal.asp) that doesn't make it practical (or affordable).
And yeah, I know the F-22 wouldn't have been so overpriced it the they didn't cut back from a planned 450/500 planes to 183(?) but still....

Fair enough. Great breakdown of the specifics.

So would it be fair to say today's Navy wants only small(er) aircraft to keep costs down? I read a Dew Line article recently that implies the Navy is getting a steal.

According to USAF data sheet raptor is already over 40k lbs. 43,340 is the listing. You want to add another 4 tons on to that? Navalizing the raptor would be no easier than taking an F-35A and creating an F-35C from scratch (whereas in reality they where co developed and are still different).

imho, it's more rational and justified to study feasibility of an accelerated, joint USN/USAF operable FB-22nx concept from scratch, albeit based on at least some commonality with the F-22's airframe and sharing as much tooling(?) as possible, etc. A nominal Streching and re-wing design could allow for the opportunity to exploit a simultaneous strengthening and space required for new gear, a la F-111B's gear.

Target delivery date: 2020 (in line with a modified - "Sprey'd and Spinney'd down" - 2018 NGB plan), albeit at a bargain.

Such timing could thus allow for a potential GE F110-advanced Variable Cycle engine (@ 39-40k lbf) as a candidate?

Two Cents

Validator: No offense taken and none intended. As feedback, I would suggest that you moderate your claims instead of bustin' in, guns blazing. Saying "The Navy will do this" or "The Air Force will do that" are pretty strong claims to make and strong claims require a higher standard of evidence. There are some really knowledgeable and experienced people on these forums (I am not one of them) so you'll learn a lot if you ask questions and stay humble. I am not a grammar fascist but it is difficult to read your posts. Please re-read them before posting.

Plural of bee = bees. "There are too many bees"
Possessive of bee = bee's. "Those are the bee's knees"