X-44 manta F-22 spinoff.

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?

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.

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

NIH & NIMBY

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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