Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Navalized version of the F-22?



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
VigilanteAgumon
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2005 - 07:45 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Oct 03, 2005 - 03:03 PM
Posts: 83
Location: Kissimmee, Florida
Status: Offline
I read somewhere that before the JSF, the Navy considered a navalized version of the F/A-22 as an alternative to the A-12, but was later cancelled. Here's an artist's rendition.



f22-natf.jpg
 Description:
Naval Raptor (note the VG Wings)
 Filesize:  29.92 KB
 Viewed:  46394 Time(s)

f22-natf.jpg


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Jun 19, 2013 - 9:28 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
habu2
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2005 - 08:13 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2810

Status: Offline
NATF was meant to fill the gap after ATA (A-12) was cancelled. NAFT was a 'replacement' not an 'alternative' to the A-12.

Actually GD/Lockheed was the one pushing the NATF concept, I'm not sure the Navy every really (seriously) considered it.

_________________
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
RyanCollins
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2005 - 08:46 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Nov 07, 2004 - 07:24 PM
Posts: 651
Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina
Status: Offline
I'm not sure if the -22 with VG wings can be as furtive as the original -22...

_________________
A circle is the reflection of eternity: It has no beginning, and it has no end...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bruant328
PostPosted: Nov 10, 2005 - 02:11 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Sep 18, 2005 - 11:48 PM
Posts: 126

Status: Offline
habu2 wrote:
NATF was meant to fill the gap after ATA (A-12) was cancelled. NAFT was a 'replacement' not an 'alternative' to the A-12.

Actually GD/Lockheed was the one pushing the NATF concept, I'm not sure the Navy every really (seriously) considered it.


I thought that the NATF was the F-14 replacement and the A-12 was to be the A-6 replacement.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ArrowHawk
PostPosted: Jan 01, 2006 - 10:43 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Dec 20, 2004 - 09:59 PM
Posts: 38

Status: Offline
Bruant,
You are correct. I think Lockheed was proposing a navalized F-117 as the gap filler after the A-12 cancellation.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Dammerung
PostPosted: Jan 01, 2006 - 11:50 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jun 27, 2004 - 12:17 AM
Posts: 192

Status: Offline
A Swing wing F-22? That's just sad.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LordOfBunnies
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2006 - 12:13 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 21, 2005 - 06:28 AM
Posts: 588
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Status: Offline
Yeah, look at what happened with other VG planes. We have the F-111 wonderlemon, the F-14 Tomcat, and the B-1B. All of them are hangar queens. Why propose VG when it seems to be very very bad for maintenance?

_________________
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LordKadghar
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2006 - 02:03 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Dec 18, 2005 - 01:30 AM
Posts: 13

Status: Offline
The USN considered a number of programs in the early 90s... to include F-117N, NATF, A-12, and Tomcat 21.

F-22 as it was had aerodynamic limitations as it was to preclude carrier recoveries, and the conceptual idea to make it work for carrier ops involved swing wings. The decision was that the radical redesigns required would result in so little saved due to commonality that it wouldn't work.

The Tomcat was bad for maintenance, but this had zilch to do with its swing wings. Very bad gouge, LordOfBunnies.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Raven11
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2006 - 02:13 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Oct 07, 2003 - 03:25 AM
Posts: 68
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
Quote:

We have the F-111 wonderlemon, the F-14 Tomcat, and the B-1B. All of them are hangar queens. Why propose VG when it seems to be very very bad for maintenance?


because the USAF and navy care about performance and if it can do the required mission: price and mainance are second

well i guess in the case of the comanche , price might be a slight issue
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LordOfBunnies
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2006 - 06:33 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 21, 2005 - 06:28 AM
Posts: 588
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Status: Offline
Yes, performance and ability to do mission are of prime importance, but if maintenance interferes with the ability to do a mission in a timely fashion then the thing will get axed. The comanche was a bad idea from the start. The army just wanted a stealth toy and I'll be d@mned if it wasn't cool but when most copters lost are from trashfire, stealth won't help much. With any situation, situational awareness is key and a stealth helicopter would eliminate some of that for the enemy, but they'd still be lost to trashfire. Kadghar, I'd like to say yes I was wrong about the swing wing being the problem. I would still like to note that all those aircraft and are hangar queens. They are the only swing wings I can think of off the top of my head and they all have maintenance problems. This isn't meant to be a flame, I'm just noticing a pattern here.

Anyway, a navalized 22 would give the navy warm fuzzies but its extremely unlikely unless we start a really big war and the defense budget gets a huge boost.

_________________
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2006 - 09:53 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
F-16.net Moderator


Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1375

Status: Offline
LordOfBunnies wrote:
Yes, performance and ability to do mission are of prime importance, but if maintenance interferes with the ability to do a mission in a timely fashion then the thing will get axed.


True on this point.

One of the reasons why the Northrop/MD's YF-23 ATF lost to the Lockheed/Boeing/(then) GD's YF-22 in the ATF competition in late 1990 to early 1991 is because of maintenance/sortie generation reasons. The YF-22 demonstrated higher sortie generation rates and lower maintenance issues than the YF-23 which showed more issues regarding maintenance per sortie.

Capabilities, performance, etc are all important, of course. But the old adage "KISS" aka "Keep It Simple Stupid".....or what I prefer "KIASAPS" aka "Keep It As Simple As Possible Stupid" is always preferred.

_________________
I'm watching...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
RyanCollins
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2006 - 08:27 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Nov 07, 2004 - 07:24 PM
Posts: 651
Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina
Status: Offline
I think that the Raptor looks good with that VG wings Smile

_________________
A circle is the reflection of eternity: It has no beginning, and it has no end...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
WILZ
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2006 - 10:39 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Dec 03, 2004 - 05:02 PM
Posts: 285
Location: Southern Dude
Status: Offline
What a heavy piece of sh*t...I hate it.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Whiteman_B2
PostPosted: Jan 21, 2006 - 10:13 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 05, 2005 - 10:13 PM
Posts: 100
Location: MO, USA
Status: Offline
Historically, conversion of planes for carrier ops has not worked out well. The best example of a common frame was the F-4 (until F-35C reaches IOC), but it started life as a Navy frame.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic