Could a NATF-22 work today?

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 16:03

I recently saw this article that got me thinking.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/sea-raptor ... snt-to-be/


With the technology available today could you build a stealthy NATF-22 and make it work?
Consider this.

1. Shared engines and engine tech with the F-22.

2. Use advances in the F-35s coatings for the skin.

3. Shared avionics with the F-22.

4. The rest of the plane a clean sheet design.

5. Share the plane with Japan.

6. DAS, EOTS and the F-35s mald.


The navy will eventually need a plane to replace the super Hornet. This design would still be cheaper than a new clean sheet 5th or 6th gen fighter.
You could even ask the USAF if the wanted in on it.


Am I crazy? Or could this work?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4384
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 17:25

"This design would still be cheaper than a new clean sheet 5th or 6th gen fighter."

I'd question this assumption. It may be for example, that problems are encountered during development which leads to spiraling costs. These USAF to USN fighter projects rarely work out, and personally if I'm designing a fighter to fly off carriers - I want a clean sheet design.

Without that, you likely wind up with the F-111 debacle IMO...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5079
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 19:01

mixelflick wrote: These USAF to USN fighter projects rarely work out.

The reverse on the other hand...
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 15:35

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: These USAF to USN fighter projects rarely work out.

The reverse on the other hand...


F-35, F-4,A-4, and even F-111 to a degree say otherwise.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 15:42

I apoligize scratch the A-4 off the list.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1286
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 18:14

jessmo112 wrote:The navy will eventually need a plane to replace the super Hornet. This design would still be cheaper than a new clean sheet 5th or 6th gen fighter.


F-22 would need lot of rework to be carrier capable, bigger wings, stronger airframe and wheels, modified engine, probable different materials better for sea operations.

So you aren't far from clean sheet design, whicc is from day one design for carrier and you can design it around two F135 something F-22 can't.

So even if it is somewhat more expensive then NATF-22 it would be noticable cheaper during service life because it is from day one carrier design which use F135 (lot more of those espeacilly in future which would make maintaince noticable cheaper then for F119).
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3739
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 18:54

Could it be done? Sure. Should it be done? Probably not. The Navy needs jets with considerably more range, which you won't get without a clean sheet design. To future proof it, they'll likely want even lower signatures. You certainly wouldn't use any F-22 avionics for a jet that's entering service in the mid 2030s.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1300
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 20:13

I agree with pretty much everything people have said so far. If anything that the F-35 have proven is that most likely in the future USAF and USN aircraft can use the same avionics and engines to drive down cost across the services. It would also increase interoperability and connectivity/integration.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post04 Dec 2020, 21:47

Okay, here is a stupid question? If you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22, why would you buy F-22's? The two F-35's let you be in two places at once.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4384
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post05 Dec 2020, 17:21

alloycowboy wrote:Okay, here is a stupid question? If you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22, why would you buy F-22's? The two F-35's let you be in two places at once.


It depends what you want to use them for.

If I'm going to be outnumbered air to air 4 to 1, then yes I'd take two F-22's to fight 8 enemy aircraft. If on the other hand you're going to be doing air to air, air to ground or air to anything, you take the F-35's. It's also worth remembering many of the F-35's capabilities are "that good" because its technology was developed after the F-22. Although they're thought of as both 5th gen airframes, the reality is that the F-35's tech is at least a decade younger.

Compare your smart phone of today vs 10 years ago. And there you go...
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1733
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Dec 2020, 01:47

alloycowboy wrote:Okay, here is a stupid question? If you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22, why would you buy F-22's? The two F-35's let you be in two places at once.


It takes two successful attacks on the ground, in two different locations to eliminate the F-35 capability (not likely to beat them in the air, in systems-of-systems warfare). Twice the dispersal and concealment opportunities as well.

If I were the Red team I'd be much more concerned about what those F-35s can do (even without weapons on the jet), than what the F-22A can do (with weapons on the jet).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2020, 22:36

jessmo112 wrote: Or could this work?


I won't say "no"

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6985
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Dec 2020, 22:46

alloycowboy wrote:Okay, here is a stupid question? If you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22, why would you buy F-22's? The two F-35's let you be in two places at once.


The one rational for quality over quality with a CVN is they have a more finite amount of airplanes to contribute. If they can only carry say 50 airplanes, they need to be quality. (theoretically anyway)

There are smarter carrier bubbas here than me, but the dirty little secret of CVNs is they aren't really the lynch pin people think. CVNs still rely on big wing USAF tankers. I don't think people (meaning other services) complain because its good to have more help rather than less, but a CVN is really expensive way of putting fighters into the air. its not that big bombers made CVN obsolete, its more big tankers in some ways. though the bombers really make an impression as all CVN stuff the last 50 years is primarily air to ground strike on land targets and not the fleet battles of old. Whats happened at the very least the last 30 years, is CVNs have been not much more than a redundant method of mud moving.

People can argue with me on this, and I'm happy to hear the points. this could indeed be grossly oversimplified. but from my perspective thats what it looks like. Thank god for the US Navy strike fighters, or we would have to rely only on thousands of other strike fighters and heavy bombers to do the same thing.


And I can't find it at the moment, but a big chart showing that something like 80 percent of bombs dropped in the GWOT are from heavy bombers. its insane, but again I can't find it.
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Dec 2020, 01:28

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: These USAF to USN fighter projects rarely work out.

The reverse on the other hand...


Provided you ignore the fact that the AF originated YF-17 is more or less the basis for the *entire* fast jet component
of the CVW sans F-35.

If you look at what drove NATF and some of the later outer air battle interceptors, it was the fact that despite
RORSATs and EOSATs and the SOSS as a whole, the Soviet ASCM carriers were still almost completely
reliant on pathfinder aircraft.

Destroy those pathfinder aircraft (which had to come within 300 nmi of the CBG)
and the ASCM carriers would not be useful.

I'm not sure those conditions are obtained today.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5079
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post08 Dec 2020, 03:53

marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: These USAF to USN fighter projects rarely work out.

The reverse on the other hand...


Provided you ignore the fact that the AF originated YF-17 is more or less the basis for the *entire* fast jet component
of the CVW sans F-35.

Don't know what that has to do with MY statement. mixel correctly points out that USAF to USN fighters RARELY work. The YF-17 to F/A-18 is the shining example of it working. I merely point out that USN to USAF programs tend to be historic. FJ-1 into F-86, F-4, and A-7 all worked wonderfully in the USAF. The Hornet success has nothing to do with the success of Navy designs moving to the Air Force.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests