Posted on 04/16/2010 6:39:29 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Yeah, so? I don’t see a lot of Harrier combat footage which seems to be some kind of indicator of how much use they get.
The whole concept is a little flaky to me.
If that were the case then why is the F-15 or F16 not carrier capable?
You would have to beef up the frame and gear so much that the F22 would not be able to meet its requirements for the Air Force. Its not a willpower exercise. Its a matter of the shoe not fitting the foot.
To be honest, I am not so sure I buy the deck heat issue, though that does not mean its not different than what the fleet is used to.
The Harrier had direct thrust pointed towards the deck and they use that just fine. The F35 has both direct thrust and fan air, which may just move the heat spot, or may actually cool it overall. In any case, a flight deck is a hot and harsh environment to work, and deck surface takes a beating from all sorts of things including aircraft movement, carrier landings, etc.
The question should really be how does this affect a deck surface maintenance cycle. I think a carrier deck surface was typically re-surfaced about every 6000 traps, though I know in 91 we went 12000 traps before resurfacing. Had a war on then, dontcha know......
If F35 breaks down the deck surface so that it requires resurfacing in half the operational time, then that would be a problem.
Because when the F-15 was designed, the Navy already had the F-14 in development and didn't need the F-15. I suppose the real question is why wasn't the USAF forced to buy Tomcats? The F-16 was a single engine aircraft, and the Navy preferred the twin engine F-17 that lost the lightweight fighter competition, and developed it into the F/A-18.
You would have to beef up the frame and gear so much that the F22 would not be able to meet its requirements for the Air Force. Its not a willpower exercise. Its a matter of the shoe not fitting the foot.
The F-35 comes in three flavors: The -A model for the USAF and most export sales. The -B model has the lift fan and STOVL stuff crammed in. The -C model has beefed up undercarriage, beefed up tailhook, longer wings, taller tail, and more internal fuel, for Navy Carrier use. Note that just because one branch required a specialized variant, all branches weren't forced to accept that variant.
Nobody said that a single F-22 had to fit both the USAF and USN requirement simultaneously.
If you read the discussion we had last year on this subject that I linked to, you'd see that it was proposed that a specialized "F-22N" with the required beefed up tailhook (yes, the current F-22A has a tailhook, but only for runway barrier use,) beefed up landing gear, perhaps larger and power folding wings, etc., would be developed specifically for the Naval variant. This would take time, money, and willpower.
There is no money for such a development, there isn't enough time for such a development to occur before the Navy has a serious shortfall in fighter aircraft due to F/A-18A-C retirement, and the Navy has no will to acquire such a "Sea Raptor" variant of the F-22.
You said it could not be done. I said it could be done, but it won't be done.
Same difference?
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
I have been associated with programs like the ones of which we speak for more than 25 years now, as aviator/user/operator, later acquisition officer, and in the last 10 years as designer/developer.
I am just trying to politely say that programs develop out of specific proposals from DoD with specific requirements. Speaking specifically to Navy and F22, the Navy never wanted to pay $100 million a copy for its aircraft (1995 dollars) because it has enough big ticket items already (think billions for ships and subs). So you have to realize that while an endless stream of money may be a cure all, it does not exist, so each service prioritizes its needs and procures programs according to those needs.
F35 was specifically designed from the drawing board to have multiple variants. Thus buy in by Navy, Marines, and Air Force. F22 was designed to meet Air Force requirements and thus no buy in from the Navy.
I guess what I am trying to say is “why do you insist on hoisting something on the Navy that it never wanted?”. Some of the folks who make these decisions actually do know something about their business, though sometimes it may not always seem so.
How quickly they forget the Navy A-12 project.
Not even close. "Export" version? You mean, w/o the stealthy skin? Or without the engines?
The Brits have got a couple of full-sized CVA's on the way that are built around the F-35, and they plan to replace their Harrier II's with it as well. No way is the F-22 a carrier aircraft. People have been dicking around since forever with "navalized" versions of non-naval a/c and the only one getting past the "evaluation" (="frequently broken") hobbyhorse stage is the Su-33. Naval ruggedization is a big damn deal.
I understand all of that but the per unit cost for the F35 ad is now is silly and it keeps going up. The F35 is a nice plane but a F22 it is not and all the R&D is done where the it’s still climbing on the Lightning.
We’ve already seen two coutries talk about pulling out an even the Brits are making noise for good reason. Look, if we would buy 500 F35’s to augment our Raptors I would be ok with the added costs but we’ll be lucky to get 200 under Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if he cut the entire program now leaving F16’s, F18’s and F15’s that we have now.
The BRits showed how well a AV-8 would do up against a French “fighter”.
IF they want a ground pounder, bring back the SPAD (A1E)
HEre is a look by a professional.
https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/.../display.aspx?...
Despite all the hoopla of the V part of the V/STOL, the COrps has rarely deployed an AV-8 to a forward location - force protection and maintenace issues trump any ‘assumed’ gain of forward basing.
As an aside, short bit on “Spads in the Nam”
A1E Skyraider 132649, which Fisher (Awarded the MoH) flew on that mission, was a hangar queen which had crashed at Can Tho the year before, killing two Air Force pilots. It was later returned to Hurlburt AFB in Florida, where it became a trainer for new Spad drivers, before crashing again and being written off in 1970. It was found on the Hurlburt scrap heap a few years later, and when it was realized what airplane this was, it was completely rebuilt and now sits in pristine glory in the United States Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, the only Medal of Honor aircraft to survive for museum preservation
If the govt would levy a set of requirements and let the contractors bid on those requirements, then not continually move the bar while in production, then you would either get a product of quickly identify failed contractors.
If a contractor is performing and the government keeps changing the requirements, cost goes up and then the program is at risk due to the over run clauses of the acquisition laws, even when the govt caused the over run. If the program is not performing, congressional meddling keeps it alive. Contractors will perform when you let them. Thats how a business stays in business.
typo...should have read...
then you would either get a product or quickly identify failed contractors.
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.