Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

While we are getting off topic from the F-22N it can be pointed out for all interested, that the block III Super Hornet subject can be continued on the relevant threads.. Thumb

That being said, yes, I'd favor CFT on a 2020 FB-22N for 1,250nm+ radii Big No No

F-16.net Sponsor

That being said, I'm kinda confused was there 2 perposal's for the F/A-22N??? The one N the pic's here look's just like the standard AF model, the one I looked up on the net was a Variable Geometry Swept Wing like the Tom Cat??? What would the odd's of that happening if @ all possible & maintaining stealth???

Cleaned up this thread of all the off topic stuff that had nothing to do with the "F-22N Sea Raptor". A reminder to stay on topic. If you'd like to talk about something else, you are free to start another topic in the appropriate forum.

Psychmike's post stood because I think it's a good reminder for "validator32!!!" or "Drew" on how to consider and self-correct his own posts.

To the best of my knowledge, the swing-wing concept was the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), a proposal by LM to repackage the avionics and engines of the F-22 into a naval fighter. The picture at the beginning of this thread is an unofficial amateur proposal that suggests that the F-22 can be easily and cheaply modified for naval operations.

The only reasion I got way off topic is the fact that @ the beginning of the thread it stated that the F/A-18E/F wasn't capable of handling sutch threats as the SU-33 or a navalized SU-35 & that we absolutely "NEED" a Navalized Raptor, I know the BLOCK II's R more than capable of dealing with that threat due to the "SPIRAL UPGRADE PROGRAM" & the advanced training our pilots get @ places like TOP GUN, RED FLAG, & participation in exercises with other countries like Germany in Red [Link pending approval] I'm not saying that way off in the distant we wont need a Navalized Raptor to counter fighters like the SU-47 or TP-50 but for right now with the "SPIRAL UPGRADE PROGRAM" for the Super Bug & the Air Forces F-15SE our countries Air & Naval Air Forces are more than capable of MIG or Sukoi curent or projected near future aircraft like the MIG-35, or [Link pending approval] The Raptor officially put's the world on notice that they have to step up there [Link pending approval] When that time come's economy permiting, I can't wait to see a Navilized Rapror, however it's going to B a far more complex upgrade than to just a whole bunch of additions to make it sea [Link pending approval] Cuz if U look @ the varient's of the F/A-35, all three designed different aircraft from the word [Link pending approval] U can't just cut & paste the Raptor & say here U go Navy or here U go Marine [Link pending approval] I'd like to see that NATF that would be a trip & I wonder how much it would have in common with the [Link pending approval]

I know it just may be a bit of an optical illusion, but this kinda caught my eye. 1:04 of the video...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab2_1293401065

LOL, slick. Unless there is a black budget 2-seater Sea-Raptor wing in operation; that's clearly a mature, modern F-18F or G that you're lookin at.

Skyhigh, your name say's it all...

I remember taking a NATF pitch from a great Lockheed VP early in the F-22/ATF development cycle. Plane was enlarged some for improved range and made more rugged for carrier landings. Navy rejected it quickly due to range or legs issue. Think that they also saw it as a threat to the Super Hornet which they saw as a much faster and cheaper approach at that time.

validator32!!! wrote:

That being said, I'm kinda confused was there 2 perposal's for the F/A-22N??? The one N the pic's here look's just like the standard AF model, the one I looked up on the net was a Variable Geometry Swept Wing like the Tom Cat??? What would the odd's of that happening if @ all possible & maintaining stealth???

The official NATF proposal was the vg version, built on a separate line (the Northrop team proposal for NATF was a canard), built on a separate production line. There have been various proposals to "navalize" the F-22, but they have not elicited a lot of interest because they would be hideously expensive, not really meet the need (which is why the F-22 NATF was so different from the ATF) and the Hornet has always enjoyed incredible support in Congress and the bureaucracy.

Well, they do need a good justification for stowing the F-22 production tools. Why not preserve them while at the same time prototyping the F-22N? Give the tools a work out. Keep some designers at the top of their game if for nothing more than an intellectual exercise. That has to be far more efficient than maintaining the expertise of a dead program. And destroying the tooling is asinine if they can use it for other purposes.

/geek moment alert/
You know what would be cool, an F-22 variant that is STOL. Instead of F119's, the thing uses a pair of F135-PW-600 that drive a single forward lift fan. (You know every fan eventually wants an F135-powered F-22.) Doesn't allow VTOL, just lightens the load considerably. Fly like the heaviest of the heavy deck hogs, land like the bugs.
\geek moment alert\

madrat wrote:

Well, they do need a good justification for stowing the F-22 production tools. Why not preserve them while at the same time prototyping the F-22N? Give the tools a work out. Keep some designers at the top of their game if for nothing more than an intellectual exercise. That has to be far more efficient than maintaining the expertise of a dead program. And destroying the tooling is asinine if they can use it for other purposes.

/geek moment alert/
You know what would be cool, an F-22 variant that is STOL. Instead of F119's, the thing uses a pair of F135-PW-600 that drive a single forward lift fan. (You know every fan eventually wants an F135-powered F-22.) Doesn't allow VTOL, just lightens the load considerably. Fly like the heaviest of the heavy deck hogs, land like the bugs.
\geek moment alert\

The F-22 tooling is being preserved, as is common with in-service aircraft. The reasons are the same as usual: You may want to put the aircraft back into production and while expensive, nowhere near as expensive as building all the tooling again, and you want to be able to fabricate any structure that you might someday need to support the existing fleet.

No one's got the money to build an F-22N prototype, and anyone wanted production models it'd be late this decade before it entered service (assuming they could boost the strike capability) at which point it would be an obsolescent design.

Madrat: Why does the F-22 need the F135? The newer engine might have higher thrust but my bet is that it generates this thrust at lower velocity. I'm not sure it would supercruise with the F135 but I defer to Johnwill, The Engine Guy, and other true experts here on F-16.net.

A question on F-22 tooling:
Why would one use last decade's tooling when today's tooling offers the surface fit and finish that gives the F-35 superior stealth with less maintenance? I would think that anyone wanting to pay for new F-22s would want all that we have learned added to the product?
fisk

fiskerwad wrote:

A question on F-22 tooling:
Why would one use last decade's tooling when today's tooling offers the surface fit and finish that gives the F-35 superior stealth with less maintenance? I would think that anyone wanting to pay for new F-22s would want all that we have learned added to the product?
fisk

The tooling is unique to each aircraft and is built once for producing that aircraft. It is very expensive to produce and is part of the startup cost of the program. Once you've paid for it, you might as well keep it. While the F-35 may use more advanced manufacturing techniques, its tooling can not be used to build an F-22. To use those techniques you'd have to build the F-22 manufacturing tooling again from scratch. Compared to just using the existing tooling, it's financially impossible.

That it is so expensive is one reason why tooling is retained for many years after production ends. Once the tooling is destroyed it pretty much becomes impossible to resurrect an aircraft. That is why the Canadian gov't ordered the tooling destroyed on the Arrow, why Robert McNamara ordered the tooling destroyed for the Lockheed Blackbirds, why the Labor gov't of the time ordered the TSR.2 tooling destroyed and why the Dep't. of Defense ordered the tooling destroyed for the F-14.