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

[swerve]

The JSF will be missed if cancelled, i believe mostly the STOVL nations, there are at least half a dozen nations relying on the JSF to provide their STOVL replacement, not least the USMC who are relying on the JSF to replace both Harriers and FA-18's for their fleet, UK, Italy, Spain this alone is approximately 700 aircraft, now dependant on cost which I'll admit I don't know specifics when breaking down airframes, the STOVL JSF may and should go ahead regardless, there is nothing AFAIK even on the public drawing board which represents any replacements of this aircraft type, UCAV in 10 years may be adequate and in Australia's case the final tranche of fighters been listed as possible UCAV purchases but it will not at this time meet the STOVL capability.

The only forces currently operating STOVL aircraft are the USMC, the RAF/RN (Joint Harrier Force), & the Spanish, Italian, Indian & Thai navies. The Indians plan to replace theirs with CTOL aircraft operating from STOBAR carriers. The Thais have no replacement plans at the moment, & are not thought likely to want F-35B for a long time, if ever. Their mini-carrier is small for the F-35B, & might need a refit, including new lifts.

That leaves exactly four countries planning or considering the F-35B (note that Spain doesn't have a formal requirement yet). The UK could easily build the CVFs with catapults, & buy CTOL aircraft. That leaves the USMC, Italy & Spain. Spain is building an LHD with a ski-jump, & is considering buying F-35B for it, & currently operates one very light carrier which could operate F-35B, but is a little small. Italy is worst off: Cavour is designed specifically for F-35B, & its cancellation would leave the Italians with an expensive LPH when their Harriers wear out.

 

[Occum]

Neither fish nor fowl

No way.

The STOVL version has the most problems.

The JSF is overweight. The original design spec for the STOVL version required the aircraft to be 20% lighter than what it is now.

The STOVL requirement is what has driven the major compromises on the CTOL and CV.

The single engine; the small size; the wing; the undercarriage configuration (for vertical takeoff/land stability); weapons bays & the canted carriage of internal stores due space/geometry interaction with intakes & lifting fan; the annular con/di nozzle (neat piece of design for STOVL but a real bitch when it comes to LO); and, of course, effect of lifting fan location on the main intakes themselves.

The level of compromise for STOVL makes the other JSF models neither fish nor fowl and has contributed (along with the marketeers) to turning the little CTOL beasty into a dumpy, fat, little pigeon with about the same relative level of Ps. It, too, is already over the original IOC empty weight by some degree (~1,936 lbs).

Now, before some folks start going rabid, remember the bulk of the 'around 2,700 lbs of weight' pulled out of the STOVL design by the SWAT has come off the MTOW (2 x 2,000 lbders reduced to 2 x 1,000 lbders = 2,000 lb weight saving - mmmh!) or as a weight equivalency to the increased lifting thrust by reducing lateral post control power with the higher TIT.

One has gotta ask why woodya?


:unknown

 

[rjmaz1]

The STOVL requirement is what has driven the major compromises on the CTOL and CV.

The single engine; the small size; the wing; the undercarriage configuration (for vertical takeoff/land stability); weapons bays & the canted carriage of internal stores due space/geometry interaction with intakes & lifting fan; the annular con/di nozzle (neat piece of design for STOVL but a real bitch when it comes to LO); and, of course, effect of lifting fan location on the main intakes themselves.

Most of these compromises dont really effect performance as such, increased radar cross section is not a problem for the USAF and Marines as the original design spec did not require high levels of stealth.

I still think the F-35C is the main cause of the problems that both the F-35A and F-35B are overweight and over budget. The A and B version they could just reduce the external dimensions and knock off 10% of the internal fuel and bang the performance of the A and B models have turned from good to excellent. They cannot do this as the C version has to remain fairly large. So the compromise for the Navy version actually has many negative aspects.

Also the USN original requirement called for high levels of stealth and state of the art avionics instead of off the shelf components. This increased the price of the other versions that didn't require it. Again this another negative aspect due to the F-35C version.

The F-35B has little negative performance or construction cost. Money for the extra design and testing of VTOL is the only extra cost, but of course this is expected.

 

[Occum]

When ignorance is bliss, it is sometimes folly to be wise.

Most of these compromises dont really effect performance as such, increased radar cross section is not a problem for the USAF and Marines as the original design spec did not require high levels of stealth.

What? Are you saying that single engine, the wing, the size and the intake configuration "don't really effect (aerodynamic) performance"? As for your comment on RCS (LO), you might want to have a chat with AVM John Harvey on this one. It would seem he has a different opinion.

I still think the F-35C is the main cause of the problems that both the F-35A and F-35B are overweight and over budget.

Think what you like - after all, this is a democracy (at least last time I looked). However, from an aircraft design perspective, trying to meld the requirements of a STOVL with CTOL is the main cause of the problems. This is Aircraft Design 101 stuff.

The A and B version they could just reduce the external dimensions and knock off 10% of the internal fuel and bang the performance of the A and B models have turned from good to excellent.

What do you define as good? How about some figures here like Ps, turn performance, climb performance, level flight accel, scenario based range profiles with appropriate routing factors for critical configurations, etc. etc. Once you have these sort of data on the table, then how about telling us what you mean by excellent by citing the improvements you expect to gain with your design changes and how. As for the suggested design changes . . . . .mmmh!

They cannot do this as the C version has to remain fairly large.

And why is that, would you say? By the way, the wings and the stabs are "larger" but, last time I looked, the fuselage and associated volumes were about the same as the CTOL. Am I missing something here?

So the compromise for the Navy version actually has many negative aspects.
Also the USN original requirement called for high levels of stealth and state of the art avionics instead of off the shelf components. This increased the price of the other versions that didn't require it. Again this another negative aspect due to the F-35C version.

These views are going to look a little bit silly when the USN pull out of the CV. Do you really think the US Navy is going to go back to a single engine on their carriers (other than the STOVL for the USMC)?

The F-35B has little negative performance or construction cost. Money for the extra design and testing of VTOL is the only extra cost, but of course this is expected.

Interesting point of view. Sorta like a self eating water melon, don't you think?

 

[rjmaz1]

What? Are you saying that single engine, the wing, the size and the intake configuration "don't really effect (aerodynamic) performance"? As for your comment on RCS (LO), you might want to have a chat with AVM John Harvey on this one. It would seem he has a different opinion.

The JSF was always going to be single engine using one engine based on what the F-22 was going to use. Having a small wing like an F-16 is not going effect performance. The STOVL version did not make the compromise of having a single engine as that was set in stone from the start.

Its a fact that the original Air force and Marine requirements only wanted basic levels of stealth. Anything that shows otherwise has just be modified to reflect the higher level of stealth incorportated due to the Navy version. The Air force now is using stealth as a selling point for the JSF, as its is now one of the only performance advantages over the F-16.

The JSF was never meant to be the first day of war aircraft for the Air force, it was meant to be a F-16 replacement. Now that it costs twice as much they have to justify the cost by saying the JSF is now a first day of the war aircraft.

What do you define as good? How about some figures here like Ps, turn performance, climb performance, level flight accel, scenario based range profiles with appropriate routing factors for critical configurations, etc. etc. Once you have these sort of data on the table, then how about telling us what you mean by excellent by citing the improvements you expect to gain with your design changes and how. As for the suggested design changes . . . . .mmmh!

In my opinion, "Good" is agility and power that can atleast keep up with a 30 year old aircraft. F-15, F-16, Mig-29 Su-27 and Harrier for VTOL performance.

"Excellent" is agility and power to meet or exceed current operational aircraft. Eurofighter, F-22, Rafale etc

You'd be lieing if you said the JSF's performance was excellent, when it only manages to match the performance of 30 year old aircraft.

Why dont you try and prove me wrong by providing the data? Thats because i am right.

And why is that, would you say? By the way, the wings and the stabs are "larger" but, last time I looked, the fuselage and associated volumes were about the same as the CTOL. Am I missing something here?

I said that the Carrier version has to remain large. So the fuselage of the CTOL and STOVL versions cant be made smaller as they have to share the same parts as the Carrier version.

If the carrier version did not exist the fuselage length and volume of both the CTOL and STOVL versions would be reduced. As the "C version has to remain fairly large" the fuselage cannot be reduced so the other versions are now overweight.

These views are going to look a little bit silly when the USN pull out of the CV. Do you really think the US Navy is going to go back to a single engine on their carriers (other than the STOVL for the USMC)?

If the Navy does pull out then they will NOT be going back to single engine aircraft as the Super Hornet is twin engine. It it silly that the USN is going with the single engined JSF. The Navy should have navalised the F-22, even if every single performance aspect was reduced by 25%. With the worst case performance loss the Naval F-22 would still outperform every aircraft in the world besides the Airforce F-22. Plus every combat mission could be performed by the Naval F-22 and done those mission better than any dedicated Naval aircraft.

If the Navy does pull out, then the CTOL and STOVL versions would most likely be shrunk in size. Then the airforce and marines are left paying double just because of the advanced stealth and avionics when they never required that in the first place.

 

[Big-E]

If the Navy does pull out then they will NOT be going back to single engine aircraft as the Super Hornet is twin engine. It it silly that the USN is going with the single engined JSF. The Navy should have navalised the F-22, even if every single performance aspect was reduced by 25%. With the worst case performance loss the Naval F-22 would still outperform every aircraft in the world besides the Airforce F-22. Plus every combat mission could be performed by the Naval F-22 and done those mission better than any dedicated Naval aircraft.

If the Navy does pull out, then the CTOL and STOVL versions would most likely be shrunk in size. Then the airforce and marines are left paying double just because of the advanced stealth and avionics when they never required that in the first place.

If USN pulls out they will buy more Super Hornets, it has been fortold. :

We already examined navalizing the F-22 back in conception stage but at the time it wasn't the bomber we absolutely needed. JSF fits the mission requirements. It took some kicking and screaming for command to approve a single engine fighter but the benefits to the CAG far outway the cons of having a single engine. It wasn't so hard to bring the Marines to this line of thinking b/c Harriers just aren't getting the job done.

To say the F-22 can do every combat mission better than any other CAG aicraft is incorrect. The only thing it can do better is air superiority. The bombing capabilties of the the Raptor are rather lacking even to my Super Bug. The ability to conduct SEAD is pratically non-existant. The Navy is more BVR/bombing oriented these days and isn't too concerned over the performance boosts the F-22 provide. It simply isn't necessary for the cost.

With the reorganization to CAG composition you will never see such an acquisition. JSF is planned to fill the bill buy reducing maintenance costs of similair frames throughout the services. To justify what I said in my original statement is the Super Hornet is the only other frame to consider according to the Liaison officer of COMSTRKFIGHTWINGLANT if JSF is not ordered.

 

[rjmaz1]

We already examined navalizing the F-22 back in conception stage but at the time it wasn't the bomber we absolutely needed.

Isn't it true that when the Navalised F-22 was considered YF-22 had no air to ground capabilities at all, with not a single bomb available for it?

If the current F-22 was examined it gets a tick in every single box capability wise and surely would have been navalised. Small Diameter Bomb can hit any target that a harpoon missile can hit and of course 1000lb JDAM is available for bigger targets.

Super Bug can do SEAD better than a F-22? you cant be serious

The Navy being bombing oritentated requires its aircraft to use standoff weapons to hit targets at 100miles away. With the F-22 traveling at Mach 1.6 and 50,000 a conventional bomb now becomes a standoff weapon. Its physical performance makes it many times more survivable than the Super Hornet as well as the F-35C.

The F-22 can do everything that the Super Hornet and JSF can do except land on a carrier.

A thicker folding wing would bring the landing speed down. This would of course reduce the cruising speed but extend the range due to more internal fuel, funny thing the navy would probably prefer that. Of course strengthened landing gear would be required.

She would land fast and harder than any previous navy aircraft, but it could work.

All it would take would be for the Air force to contact the Navy and say that the Air force will pay for half of the development cost of the Navalised F-22.

Why should the USAF pay for half? Because with 500 Naval F-22's being built the cost of the normal F-22 will drop significantly and they would recoup their money.

If the Navy pulls out of the JSF program the cost of the CTOL JSF will rise even closer to the price of the F-22. The USAF will be extremely pissed and would instantly want to pull out as soon as they see the updated price. This just leaves a few CTOL customers and the overweight and under performing STOVL version left.

Cancel the JSF re-open up harrier production and offer cheap F-16's for those pissed off international customers and everyone will be happy.

60 F-22N's on a carrier deck would be a force to be recconed with. The US Navy would finally be able to take on an entire country on its own for the first time.

 

[Big-E]

Isn't it true that when the Navalised F-22 was considered YF-22 had no air to ground capabilities at all, with not a single bomb available for it?

So... none of those weapon systems existed, it's a little late now

If the current F-22 was examined it gets a tick in every single box capability wise and surely would have been navalised. Small Diameter Bomb can hit any target that a harpoon missile can hit and of course 1000lb JDAM is available for bigger targets. The F-22 can do everything that the Super Hornet and JSF can do except land on a carrier.

Nope, it can't do SEAD, naval strike, buddy tanker, recon or ELINT. It is not what the USN needs in todays environment. What we need is an aircraft with stealth and great C4ISR capabilities... that is JSF.

A thicker folding wing would bring the landing speed down. This would of course reduce the cruising speed but extend the range due to more internal fuel, funny thing the navy would probably prefer that. Of course strengthened landing gear would be required.

She would land fast and harder than any previous navy aircraft, but it could work.

All it would take would be for the Air force to contact the Navy and say that the Air force will pay for half of the development cost of the Navalised F-22.

It is not that simple. The F-22 relys on keeping stealthy surfaces and operating it in a marine environment somewhat reduces this capability. To keep it as stealthy as the USAF version requires beaucoup costs in increased maintenance schedules. Not to mention maintenance on it is already far above JSF.

Slowing the landing speed for it is a big factor. A thicker wing might create more lift but reduces RCS but will do nothing for fuel capacity. You can't put fuel in a wing that can retract. Again the landing gear would require even more expense on a fruitless project. You can't really tweak the frame much more than they have and expect everything to work properly.

Why should the USAF pay for half? Because with 500 Naval F-22's being built the cost of the normal F-22 will drop significantly and they would recoup their money.

If the Navy pulls out the cost of the CTOL JSF will rise even closer to the price of the F-22. The USAF will be extremely pissed and would instantly want to pull out as soon as they see the updated price. This just leaves a few CTOL customers and the overweight and under performing STOVL version left.

Cancel the JSF re-open up harrier production and offer cheap F-16's for those international customers and everyone will be happy.

I don't understand why you advocate this... the USAF F-22 production is in a state of limbo at the moment. If they do get any more it won't be more than a few dozen. The Iraqi war has drained the acquisition budget. The cost quota for such a small order isn't going to be that big of a concern for a few more squadrons.

If JSF is cancelled it is not because it doesn't work, it is because we can't afford it or anything else at this point. We are broke.

 

[mehdi_mu]

We will see that I will end this by putting these facts forward,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/554/55402.htm

Check this report

 

[Big-E]

We will see that I will end this by putting these facts forward,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/554/55402.htm

Check this report

That report was issued a year ago. The procurement program is constantly undergoing new challenges and pitfalls. Orders have already been cut and pocurement dates for navalized versions have been moved up. Not that that has ANYTHING to do with RAAF JSFs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why dont you try and prove me wrong by providing the data? Thats because i am right.

Thats a brave call, I think you'll find that Occum is an FTE/in the trade.

 

[mehdi_mu]

Oops sorry for that, by the way this thread is about the Aussie JSF we will stick to that. By the way there's a plan called plan B made by the MOD of the UK check it out. Concerning the Australian prospect of having the F-22 will depend much on the US congress. We might see some new twists who know perhaps the cancellation of the JSF ( Nice one ) and a new project like that of a longer range bomber version of the F-22.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Cancel the JSF re-open up harrier production and offer cheap F-16's for those pissed off international customers and everyone will be happy.

I disagree with almost everything you said in your posting; however for the present I shall just address the above mentioned sentence.

As far as a can ascertain the last new build Harrier was manufactured about 10 years ago. Most of the other USM aircraft that remain in service were re-manufactured about the same time. There are ongoing modification programs, but most of this relates to equipment rather than to structure.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_production.htm

Restarting a closed line would be difficult, expensive and a lengthy process. Usually when a line is closed there is an option to mothball the jigs and fixtures, but this costs money. Because the aircraft was an old design and was to be replaced by the JSF, I do not think the USM paid for it to be mothballed, so much of the equipment would probably have been scrapped.

The basic design of the Harrier is over 20 years old and the aircraft in service are suffering from maintenance and obsolescence issues. One of the drivers for the F-35B is the need to reduce the cost of ownership over that of the Harrier. Even with the overweight issue, the F-35B will be a much more capable aircraft than the Harrier.

If it is just the F-35B variant that is dropped, then the UK could change the carriers and purchase the F-35C variant. Delaying the decision to cancel the F-35B could cause enormous problems for the UK, not only military problems, but political consequences as well. The press would have a field day, with headlines such as “The UK having supported the US in Iraq & Afghanistan, is stabbed in the back!”

The F-35B is required not only for the RN but also for the RAF.

The UK needs the F-35B, we don’t need nor want F-16s any price, we have the Typhoon and Tornado aircraft.

If the US cancels the F-35B we shall not happy at all.


Chris

 

[swerve]

The basic design of the Harrier is over 20 years old ...

The F-35B is required not only for the RN but also for the RAF.
...
Chris

Over 40 years old . .

But every other air force that doesn't operate off landing ships or mini-carriers doesn't require STOVL aircraft, so it's hard to argue it's essential.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Isn't it true that when the Navalised F-22 was considered YF-22 had no air to ground capabilities at all, with not a single bomb available for it?

If the current F-22 was examined it gets a tick in every single box capability wise and surely would have been navalised. Small Diameter Bomb can hit any target that a harpoon missile can hit and of course 1000lb JDAM is available for bigger targets.

Super Bug can do SEAD better than a F-22? you cant be serious

The Navy being bombing oritentated requires its aircraft to use standoff weapons to hit targets at 100miles away. With the F-22 traveling at Mach 1.6 and 50,000 a conventional bomb now becomes a standoff weapon. Its physical performance makes it many times more survivable than the Super Hornet as well as the F-35C.

The F-22 can do everything that the Super Hornet and JSF can do except land on a carrier.

How many HARM, ALARM or Shrike missiles can the F-22A carry out of interest?

What sort of EO/IR capability does the F-22A have?

How many waypoints can the SDB fly through?

Can the SDB fly 130k's?

Since when can't a Super Hornet travel at M1.6 or fly at 50,000 feet?

You're "facts" are starting to move further and further away from reality RJM...

Perhaps you need to put a bit more thought or at least research behind some of these comments...

 

[mehdi_mu]

Guys the more you talk about the JSF the more desperate you become in your comments. Come'on I see that many of you in this forum are for the JSF but how will you live if this program is cancelled??? There's a better way off as we say a win win situation. The Australians get the co-production rights of the Eurofighter and we are all happy including me.

 

[Magoo]

Perhaps you need to put a bit more thought or at least research behind some of these comments...

rjmaz...when dealing with Occum and Big E, it'd be wise to remember that you're talking to someone who works (I suspect) deep within the defence industry, and someone who flies and instructs on Super Hornets for a living respectively. Whilst your opinions may vary, you cannot dispute facts from these learned gentlemen.

I suggest you reassess your comments re F-35C being the size and weight driver for the JSF project when it was clearly the STOVL F-35B, and perhaps also on how easy it would be to navalise the F-22 which I can assure you would take more than just a "thicker wing" and beefed up landing gear and funding from the USAF. I'd also suggest you take a second look at whether or not an F/A-18E/F can travel at M1.6 @ FL500 with external weapons.

Then there's your advocacy of re-opening Harrier production and calls for the RAAF to get A-10s...
nfloorl:

Cheers

Magoo

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Over 40 years old . .

But every other air force that doesn't operate off landing ships or mini-carriers doesn't require STOVL aircraft, so it's hard to argue it's essential.

I thinking of the Harrier II full AV-8B rather than the Harrier I, as the larger wing on the Harrier II makes for a very different aircraft.

The RAF operated the Harrier I (GR1/GR3) aircraft long before they were put on ships. Having the STOVL capability was useful during the cold war when we were expecting to face massed tank attack and expected the main bases to be taken out. The ability to operate from scratch fields close to the front line is important today, where the RAF are currently operating Harriers (GR7As) in Afghanistan. Here it has been shown that there is a requirement for the F-35B.

We just tell the RN that their carriers just save the RAF from having to fly the aircraft to the in theatre operational base.


Chris

 

[Magoo]

Guys the more you talk about the JSF the more desperate you become in your comments. Come'on I see that many of you in this forum are for the JSF but how will you live if this program is cancelled??? There's a better way off as we say a win win situation. The Australians get the co-production rights of the Eurofighter and we are all happy including me.

Eurofighter is a long way down the list of options being looked at by the RAAF if, for whatever reason, JSF falls over. The current fallback plan within the RAAF has always been to go with Super Hornet.

Magoo

 

[rjmaz1]

How many HARM, ALARM or Shrike missiles can the F-22A carry out of interest?

Small diameter bomb can hit SAM sites, it can also hit moving ships. The F-22 can carry more SDB's than a pair of Superhornets can carry HARM missiles.

What sort of EO/IR capability does the F-22A have?

The F-22 uses radar to track targets. It does not require other means to track targets. It does not require laser guided weapons.

How many waypoints can the SDB fly through?

A bomb only has to hits it target, it doesn't have to do loop-da-loops on the way to the target.

Can the SDB fly 130k's?

Yes, from a supersonic, high altitude launch.

Did you write 130km because you thought that SDB range is only 60Nm or 112kms, so i would have to answer no to this question? Because the SDB has traveled 130kms :

Since when can't a Super Hornet travel at M1.6 or fly at 50,000 feet?

The Super Hornet can maintain that for minutes, the F-22 can maintain it for hours.

Nope, it can't do SEAD, naval strike, buddy tanker, recon or ELINT. It is not what the USN needs in todays environment.

F-22 does not need a buddy tanker as it not short legged like the hornet. The small diameter bomb can hit naval targets its just a matter of software, which of course would be modified in the Naval version of the F-22.

Also Recon is one of the future roles on the F-22 using a pod in the side bay. Lack of money may never see this happen. If the Navy goes with a modded F-22 then the money will be there and the Recon features will be added. Alot of functions can be added with software updates. So anything the Navy adds the Air force will get and vice versa.

A thicker wing might create more lift but reduces RCS but will do nothing for fuel capacity.

Even if the Radar cross section of the F-22 is doubled, it is still smaller than the JSF

Even if the roll rate, pitch rate is reduced 20% and the empty weight is increased 20%, performance will still be ahead of the JSF and Super Hornet.

The F-22 has over 100 degree per second roll rate at 120 knots. Thats better low speed handling than a Super Hornet.

If JSF is cancelled it is not because it doesn't work, it is because we can't afford it or anything else at this point. We are broke.

If the JSF is canceled due to money, then it will free up alot of money. Not all that money saved will go into the F-22, but some of it will so more F-22 aircraft will get ordered if the JSF is canceled.

In 2020 the Super Hornet will no longer be cutting edge. So if the JSF is canceled completely then a replacement for the Super Hornet will be needed. It would be logical for this Super Hornet replacement to share alot of common features with the F-22 such as engines, avionics, radar and alot of other parts. It may share only 50% of the parts and look completely different but it would still be a navalised F-22 to a certain extend.