Lockheed offered the Navy navalized models from the basic F-22A, at least twice. The first program was called Naval Advanced Technology Fighter (NATF). I believe I read that the F-22 airframe was to be reinforced. aerospaceweb.org
Posted on 04/23/2016 9:50:19 PM PDT by cba123
U.S. lawmakers have asked the Air Force about the possibility of restarting production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, an endeavor that would be far more complicated than signing a check and flipping the lights back on.
In its review of the 2017 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee asked service leaders to look into what it would take to build 194 new Raptors, enough to finally meet the Air Force's long-stated requirement of 381 jets. HASC chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and others say the world has changed since 2009, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates halted the F-22 program at 187 aircraft in order to double down on the multirole F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. For one thing, the stealthy, supercruising Raptor was expected to keep the U.S. as undisputed king of air-to-air combat for decades. That turned to be overly optimistic.
"We've seen both Russia and China develop airplanes faster than was anticipated," Air Force Lt. Gen. James Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a March 8 hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
I hate to defend the Kenyan here, but the F35 is actually an international program.
For example, the UK has spent a couple of billion or more on new aircraft carriers which *rely* on the F35. Too big to fail. Also, other nations have put a lot of money in to the development etc.
Naturally, we can say F ‘EM, but that ain’t gonna play on the world stage.
F22 is US-only tech. Not even the UK can buy ‘em.
Also ... A10 ALL THE WAY BABY! Do not kill that aircraft, please.
Somebody is making a fortune off this intentional incompetence.
Build another 500 A-10s, another 500 F-15s, another 500 F-16s, and upgrade the avionics on the current inventory of B-52s.
...
Instead of incredibly expensive manned stealth planes that make cronies rich, use cruise missiles and drones for that role.
Current and future battlefields need first air superiority to clean the skies (F22s). Then the cheapest payload carriers and close air support. That means bombers (B52s or whatever)and A10s (or modern replacements). I’m not seeing how F35s fit the practical need of wars we are likely to encounter - they are far too expensive to mass produce.
F-22 is generations ahead of anything else out there.
It is stealth, the ability to go undetected (RCS for a single F-22 is about the size of a small bird).
You have to “see” the target to kill it. F-22 stealth makes it effectively invisible, therefore the enemy can’t see the jet, can’t get a lock, can’t get a heater shot due to dispersion of the IR plume. And the enemy will die before they even know they are being shot at. Can you “see” the jet visually? Yes, but you must survive to the merge, and that is unlikely.
Red Flag discussion regarding the F-22 and F-15/F-16 and Russian jets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfXBoeV86Yo
“No better ground support than the A10.
No better dogfighter than the F16.
No better long range interceptor than the F22.
No better fighter/bomber than the F15SE.”
I’d say:
No better A/G jet than the A10.
No better A/A jet than the F-22.
No better deep strike/interdiction jet than the F-15E.
F-22s whup the F-15s every time out.
Not just geek data, I've seen the mock F-15/F-22 dogfights over the skies of Okinawa - you could see the F-22s turn much sharper than the F-15s they were completing with.
I see the Boeing marketing team is here hyping its outdated planes. Why not just promote the P-26?
(You do know Boeing made the wings, avionics, and part of the fuselage, don’t you?)
And stop funding China’s military through our trade imbalance.
Yep agree with each of your posts....... me, I’d stop foreign aid to all but loyal nations with proven track records of allowing us full access to bases and ports etc during low intensity conflicts and all out war.
The savings alone in foreign aid saved as well as domestic spending on polidiot pork pandering saved will build jobs, defense, economy etc... not 100% isolationism but close enough to let these united states recover, repair, replace its basic infrastructure, economy and defense.
As to illegals ...treat em like sugar ants. Take the sugar off the kitchen counter aka jobs, goobermint handouts etc ..... and they will take themselves home or to deportation jail or shot as criminals if they turn to crime versus going back home and following legal path to citizenship.
My opinions on that...stay safe !
“Stealth is retarded. Upgrade F-15s and enjoy lording over the skies. The F-15se makes sense, but stealth is a nettle of hardware vs software.”
Stealth has nothing to do with software.
“Software to allow radar to “see” what it already picks up grows at an exponential rate.”
You don’t understand the basics of stealth. Stealthy planes reduce the return from radar emission. This reduces the range of acquisition. It is true that longer wavelength radars do better at picking up stealthy aircraft, but those radars can’t be carried on aircraft or missiles. Regardless, stealth reduces the range at which radar guided missiles can acquire a target, which inherently gives stealth aircraft an advantage against those weapons.
“Airframes fly for decades. So unless you can build an airframe so advanced you can defeat every AAA radar software for decades to come, you will always lose every single time.”
Ah, so that is why the Russians and Chinese are also scrambling to build stealthy aircraft? No, it’s just that you’re incorrect.
“That is why you do not build an F-35 that is defenseless without stealth.”
The F-35 is no more “defenseless without stealth” than the F-16. What are you talking about?
“Because essentially in 5 or 10 years it wont have any stealth left at all.”
As stated above, that’s incorrect.
FYI:
Boeing made the empennage and wrote the flight control software, they also built the simulators and training plan.
Pratt built the engines.
So, Boeing did not make the avionics and did not make the fuselage. That was L/M.
L/M built the rest of the jet.
I wrote: “Boeing made the wings, avionics, and part of the fuselage”
Hulka wrote: “ Boeing did not make the avionics and did not make the fuselage.”
Hulka probably needs to inform Boeing that they didn’t make any of the fuselage. They obviously don’t know that.
Boeing writes: “Boeing in Seattle, Wash., built the wings and aft fuselage, including the structures necessary for engine and nozzle installation, and was responsible for avionics integration, 70 percent of mission software, the training system, the life support and fire protection systems, and the pilot and maintenance training systems.”
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-22-raptor.page
The diagram is correct regarding what Boeing built. No idea why Boeing is quoted saying anything different.
The diagram looks like Boeing supplied the wing and rear fuselage.
Yes sir, the rear fuselage we referred to as part of the empennage. Terms, words, vernacular. . .can be a bit situational.
I always thought of the empennage as the parts of the tail that didn’t wiggle. from the diagram, it looks like Boeing made the part of the fuselage even with the middle of the wings, which I wouldn’t have considered empennage.
Lockheed offered the Navy navalized models from the basic F-22A, at least twice. The first program was called Naval Advanced Technology Fighter (NATF). I believe I read that the F-22 airframe was to be reinforced. aerospaceweb.org
Good to know, and thanks for the link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.