F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[rjmaz1]

I think if much of JSF went OTS she would save billions but still have the stealth which is what matters.

Stealth doesn't matter though, the main missions of the JSF doesn't require stealth. After the first few days of the war, the JSF will just be bomb trucking and providing close air support with very little air defence. Only the Naval version of the JSF requires stealth, with the main mission being a stealthy strike fighter. If you looked at the Navy's original requirements for the JSF, they originally wanted a twin engine aircraft, equiped with a powerful radar, stealth, supercruise and a 1000nM range. Wow that sounds exactly like an F-22

Yet the Navy insisted on making the JSF bigger to suit their requirements resulting in the VTOL version growing in size too as they both have to share the same basic structure.

If your asking if I would mind flying a naval F-22 then HELL NO!

Question is can it be done at cost?

Cost wise would be hardly anything. Think about it the entire structure would be identical, avoinics, engines radar. All the stuff that costs the most when producing an aircraft. The only things that needs to be changed is the wings and undercarriage.

An F-22 in air to air configuration with a small amount of fuel weights less than an F-14 with no fuel or weapons.

If the russians can make an Su27 land on a carrier then the F22 would not have a problem at all.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Stealth doesn't matter though, the main missions of the JSF doesn't require stealth. After the first few days of the war, the JSF will just be bomb trucking and providing close air support with very little air defence. Only the Naval version of the JSF requires stealth, with the main mission being a stealthy strike fighter. If you looked at the Navy's original requirements for the JSF, they originally wanted a twin engine aircraft, equiped with a powerful radar, stealth, supercruise and a 1000nM range. Wow that sounds exactly like an F-22

Yet the Navy insisted on making the JSF bigger to suit their requirements resulting in the VTOL version growing in size too as they both have to share the same basic structure.

Cost wise would be hardly anything. Think about it the entire structure would be identical, avoinics, engines radar. All the stuff that costs the most when producing an aircraft. The only things that needs to be changed is the wings and undercarriage.

An F-22 in air to air configuration with a small amount of fuel weights less than an F-14 with no fuel or weapons.

If the russians can make an Su27 land on a carrier then the F22 would not have a problem at all.

Yeah, it'd be a piece of cake, can't IMAGINE why the USN hasn't thought of this...

Stealth DOES matter. You are forgetting that forces have to plan on conducting operations WITHOUT America to back them up. USAF obviously has B-2, F-22, Tactom etc to provide "1st day" strikes and "clear the path" for less capable aircraft.

Other airforces don't have this luxury.

If the F-22 can handle "all threats" why is the USAF striving so hard to get more? Fact is they need JSF as badly as F-22. The USAF's F-16 and A-10's, USN's F/A-18A/B/C/D, Intruder's and USMC's Harrier's and F/A-18's are not going to last much longer. They need replacing by something...

All 3 want an improved platform. JSF will provide that...

 

[scraw]

An F-22 in air to air configuration with a small amount of fuel weights less than an F-14 with no fuel or weapons.

If the russians can make an Su27 land on a carrier then the F22 would not have a problem at all.

Except how much would a Raptor weigh with all the strengthened systems required to land on a carrier?

 

[Wild Weasel]

I have heard that the problem of navalizing the F/A-22 isn't so much about weight- it's about maintaining the low-observable technologies in the harsh marine enviroment.

 

[alexsa]

I have heard that the problem of navalizing the F/A-22 isn't so much about weight- it's about maintaining the low-observable technologies in the harsh marine enviroment.

Err ..... then how are they going to look after the F-35 in that harsh environment?

 

[Big-E]

Err ..... then how are they going to look after the F-35 in that harsh environment?

B/c JSF isn't as vulnerable or complicated to maintain as the Raptor. It takes alot of resources and man power to keep up with them and it's just something a carrier doesn't have the luxery of dealing with.

 

[rjmaz1]

Except how much would a Raptor weigh with all the strengthened systems required to land on a carrier?

Empty weight would increase between 10-15%.

In US history the Navy version of the F-4 actually weighed LESS than the Air force version.

Only a few Airforce only planes have been converted to suit a aircraft carrier. Those aircraft are the British Hawk, the Su-27 and Mig-29 designs. All of these aircraft put on around 10-15% extra weight. Even if the weight increase was a large 20% the naval F-22's performance would be second to only the Airforce version.

I have heard that the problem of navalizing the F/A-22 isn't so much about weight- it's about maintaining the low-observable technologies in the harsh marine enviroment.

That could be the case, however the F-22 external surfaces are made of the same material as the JSF.

If the F-22 can handle "all threats" why is the USAF striving so hard to get more?

The F-22 can handle more different types and larger number of threats than any other single aircraft in history. Thats why the USAF wants more.

Stealth DOES matter. You are forgetting that forces have to plan on conducting operations WITHOUT America to back them up. USAF obviously has B-2, F-22, Tactom etc to provide "1st day" strikes and "clear the path" for less capable aircraft.

Other airforces don't have this luxury.

The US will be the largest user of the JSF, they dont care about other countries. The export sales dont pay for much or any of the development cost so theres no reason for them to care.

 

[Big-E]

The US will be the largest user of the JSF, they dont care about other countries. The export sales dont pay for much or any of the development cost so theres no reason for them to care.

It does help lower procurement costs the larger the order, although this could be offset if they would just purchase the number they had origanlly envisioned.

 

[alexsa]

B/c JSF isn't as vulnerable or complicated to maintain as the Raptor. It takes alot of resources and man power to keep up with them and it's just something a carrier doesn't have the luxery of dealing with.

I would question that. In so far as structure is concerned the F-35B is a very complex aircraft with lift fan, assocaited doors and three bearing swivel on the tail pipe not to mention standard items such as all the sensors and systtem this aircraft operates in its ISR role and the interanal weapons bay which will allneed careful handling if low observability is not to be compromised.

Is there any real evidence that the F-22 is much greater problem in so far a harsh marine environment (you can marinise and air frame) or is it the fact that the F-35 is desinged as a multirole aircraft from inception (as well as having a VSTOL and CV CTOL version it the line up) while the F-22 is primarily an air superirority fighter (and the best in the world at that) that would need further developement to have the same multi role capability as provided by the F-35.

history indicates that process of redesigning an existing land based fighter inot a carrier based aircraft when thsi was not envisaged in the orignal spec can be fraught with problems and risks. With the current cost of the F-22 under close scruitiny it would appear to be a hard to sell option.

 

[RubiconNZ]

history indicates that process of redesigning an existing land based fighter inot a carrier based aircraft when thsi was not envisaged in the orignal spec can be fraught with problems and risks. With the current cost of the F-22 under close scruitiny it would appear to be a hard to sell option.

Its what happened with the F111 when they tried to Navalise it, that would of been a damn hot bird, as would a F22, however I don't think theres a significant enough air threat these days to justify the expenditure.

 

[Big-E]

There is a reason the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35, and the F-117 more so and the B-2 more so than that. The stealthier the plane the more precautions and safegaurds are to be taken with her.

 

[alexsa]

There is a reason the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35, and the F-117 more so and the B-2 more so than that. The stealthier the plane the more precautions and safegaurds are to be taken with her.

Don't argue the the F-22 is all aspect stealther than the f-35 but both air frames will require similar care to retain their 'stealth' capability. Out of curiosity I was under the impress the B-2 was still the stealtiest thing in the sky? Can anybody clarify this?

I have read the Have Blue lost its stealth during testing due to a simple misalighment of a door. Given the arrangment of the F-35 is this regard it would appear to have greatest reisk profile in this respect hence require considerable care in service.

 

[Occum]

Right On

If they decided on one of those models rather than having an endless requirements list she would be done by now.

Big E,

You got it in one. Trying to put a STOVL capability along with a CTOL and CV into one airframe has been the major limiting (and, thus, compromising) factor.

The question ya gotta ask is, "Why wouldya?".

Single engine, small volume/size, under carriage positioning, additional complexity/accommodation required, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the STOVL design looks impressive with a lot of fine work being done but this 'neither fish nor fowl' approach is not something I would think gurus like Clarence 'Kelly' Johnston would have ever contemplated.

 

[sunjerem]

F-22A Raptor vs Rafale

Guys, I just read that Rafale has attained IOC today.

As you may or may not know, F-22A attained IOC in December of last year.

For all of you who don't know what IOC means, it means Initial Operational Capability, short for what we say "operational" or "in service".

Anyway, I'm worried that Rafale will pose a serious challenge to F-22A's dominance amoung fighter planes.

What do you think guys?

 

[webmaster]

We've had too many of "this vs that" threads.

IF you are going to open such threads, PLEASE MAKE IT DETAILED!

For example, you mention:

Anyway, I'm worried that Rafale will pose a serious challenge to F-22A's dominance amoung fighter planes.

Why do you say that?

On what basis do you think it will pose a "serious" challenge?

How does Rafale compare to other fighters such as Eurofighter, F-16 latest models and JSF that it will pose a challenge only to the Raptors?

What technical advancement in Rafale are there that are likely to outclass the F-22s?

Under what scenario would Rafale and F-22 go head-to-head?

You should be answering questions like these in order to support your statements and arguments and make your thread detailed.

 

[sunjerem]

Well, for one thing, Rafale is rumored to have (or will have) "radar cancellation", making it having the most advanced electronic counter-measures system.

 

[tphuang]

would it be fair to say that you are enquiring about the stealthiness of Rafale and how that compares to a stealth aircraft like F-22? And then how that would affect the battlefield?

 

[typhoons rule]

no way on earth would the rafale manage to take on a f22a it is possibly more manvourable but the rafale doesnt have thrust vectoring so the f22a has better angles of attack and the f22a has got stealth unlike the rafale even though it has reduced radar signitures like the typhoon im sure it would be a bitch to be shot down but the thing is the f22a could shoot it down without even seeing the rafale ( apologies for the typos im terrable for them )

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, for one thing, Rafale is rumored to have (or will have) "radar cancellation", making it having the most advanced electronic counter-measures system.

How so?

• There are already 71 x F-22's in service - there is less than 1 full squadron of Rafales in service - and not all are full spec.
• How will a fighter sized electronic counter measures system begin to compete with the power of an OTHR, SWR, AWAC's which have an aspect advantage
• When and where is a Rafale likely to even end up against an F-22? France hasn't sold them to anyone yet - so do you expect the French and Americans to go to war against each other?
• In light of the above - what mythical scenario would the Americans ever go into battle without maximising the full suite of their warfighting ability - ie they just don't go to war with planes "mano on mano" - they go to war on a cohesive committed combined assets manner. So what part of their battlefield dominance do you intend to attack before they even commit their aircraft into a hostile theatre/battlespace?
• What evidence is there that Spectra actually exists
• Where is there any evidence of ribbon arrays or planar arrays on rafales wing surfaces - as there is on the F-22?

As for IOC issues - so what? They're still on the interim tranche - and they've had their orders cut back. As an issue of force volume they're nowhere near the deployment numbers if you insist on some "1 on 1" confrontation.

I'm struggling to see how?, where? and why? this would occur - let alone the fact that at a technological level they are leagues apart.

 

[Magoo]

( apologies for the typos im terrable for them )

Then, proof read your post BEFORE you hit the send button!!! Geesh...