Naval F-22 Fighter

[DesertFox]

I am just curious about how hard would it be to make a Naval version of the F-22. I would think that the vectored thrust would make carrier take-offs fairly easy.

 

I know that it will not happen but my thoughts that the larger production of F-22 fighters would reduce the price and the plane would be far btetter than the Super Hornet.

[FITZ]

I am just curious about how hard would it be to make a Naval version of the F-22. I would think that the vectored thrust would make carrier take-offs fairly easy.

 

I know that it will not happen but my thoughts that the larger production of F-22 fighters would reduce the price and the plane would be far btetter than the Super Hornet.

129270[/snapback]

 

Already been looked at, never going to happen. The F-22 is fundamentally incompatible with carrier landings. LM's proposal in fact IIRC required a completely knew swept wing (ala F-14) in order to get the landing speeds down to remotely tolerable levels, adding weight and mucking up the low-RCS in the process.

[DesertFox]

The F-35 has a similar shape for the air frame and it is being produced in a carrier version. What is the differences in the design which allows a Carrier version of the F-35?

[5150]

The F-35 was designed from the outset to have a naval version. Navalizing an existing airframe isn't an easy, cheap, or worthwhile task. That's why there haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers. The forces the airframe is subjected to are completely different. The corrosive salt-spray alone makes it unwise to operate non-navalized helicopters in that environment.

 

Want an example? Look at the differences between the F-17 program and the F-18 program. Read up on the history of the F-18, and you'll begin to develop an understanding of why it's so unrealistic to think of flying F-22s off of carriers.

[Rickshaw]

The F-35 was designed from the outset to have a naval version. Navalizing an existing airframe isn't an easy, cheap, or worthwhile task. That's why there haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers.

 

Mmmm, Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Sea Mosquito, Sea Hornet, Sea Fury ring any bells? All reasonably successful land aircraft which managed to make the transition to carrierborne life, by anybody's standards.

[FlyingCanOpener]

The F-35A and F-35B are rather diffeerent designs, including wing size, flaps, internal structure, and fuel storage. ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...35-variants.htm )In reality, the only semi-successful navalisations were the MiG-29 and Su-27 by the Russians, with the same types of modifications. However, Russia only operates the Flanker from the Kuznetsov, but the Indians like the virtually-redesigned MiG-29K for their new carrier.

 

Your list of FAA looks impresive, but operations in World War 2 proved otherwise (If they even served). Perhaps it was because the Sea Gladiators were outmoded when they became operational, Sea Hurricanes spent more time hitting the drink because they weren't flown from true carriers, or Seafires kept on crashing on decks because of poor visibility, or even Sea Furies were dedicated carrier-designed planes from the outset, not the modification of an existing design, just like the Sea Hornet. The only excpetion of mediocre to bad planes in your list is the Mossie. But a Mossie is a Mossie, so it's the exception rather than the rule...

 

Sizes of the F-35 Variants

 

[Rickshaw]

Your list of FAA looks impresive, but operations in World War 2 proved otherwise (If they even served). Perhaps it was because the Sea Gladiators were outmoded when they became operational, Sea Hurricanes spent more time hitting the drink because they weren't flown from true carriers, or Seafires kept on crashing on decks because of poor visibility, or even Sea Furies were dedicated carrier-designed planes from the outset, not the modification of an existing design, just like the Sea Hornet. The only excpetion of mediocre to bad planes in your list is the Mossie. But a Mossie is a Mossie, so it's the exception rather than the rule...

 

The Sea Hornet was developed from the DH Hornet

 

The Sea Fury was develped from the Hawker Fury

 

As to the others, they were successful carrierborne fighters, developed from their land-based brethren, which refutes the claim made that it never occurred.

 

I'll also add to the list three modern aircraft - the Harrier, the MiG-29 and Su-27 - all three of which have been developed into naval versions of the land-based aircraft.

 

Now, if the British and more particularly the Russians can do it, I wonder why the Americans can't?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Glad you repeat what I said...

 

...In reality, the only semi-successful navalisations were the MiG-29 and Su-27 by the Russians, with the same types of modifications. However, Russia only operates the Flanker from the Kuznetsov, but the Indians like the virtually-redesigned MiG-29K for their new carrier...even Sea Furies were dedicated carrier-designed planes from the outset, not the modification of an existing design, just like the Sea Hornet....

 

The Sea Hornet and Sea Fury were navalised during the design stage, not after completed like the Sea Hurricane (You call the idea of tossing an airplane off of a catapult on a 1-way mission successful? Hate for you to be my inventory manager.) or the Seafire (The plane was worse than the Corsair in terms of landing visibility. Decent in the air, but God forbid you try to land on a carrier.

 

As for the Harrier, like the Mosquito, it's the exception rather than the rule because of its thrust vectoring. However, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and F/A.2 were quite different animals than their First generation brethern, the Gr. 1/3 and AV-8A...

[Rickshaw]

Glad you repeat what I said...

The Sea Hornet and Sea Fury were navalised during the design stage, not after completed like the Sea Hurricane (You call the idea of tossing an airplane off of a catapult on a 1-way mission successful? Hate for you to be my inventory manager.) or the Seafire (The plane was worse than the Corsair in terms of landing visibility. Decent in the air, but God forbid you try to land on a carrier.

 

Ah, I see the problem. You're thinking of the catapult launched Hurricanes from CAM ships. They were land Hurricanes, hurriedly adapted to catapult launching. The Sea Hurrican properly was carried onboard RN Carriers. Two different versions of the same aircraft!

 

As for the supposed problems of landing a Seafire, according to Quill and Brown, they weren't that great. Yes, it was difficult but it did work.

 

As for the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet being unrelated to their land based original versions, I suspect that now you're trying to wiggle...

 

As for the Harrier, like the Mosquito, it's the exception rather than the rule because of its thrust vectoring. However, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and F/A.2 were quite different animals than their First generation brethern, the Gr. 1/3 and AV-8A...

130933[/snapback]

 

And the AV-8Bs, GR-7s are "quite different animals from their First generation brethern [sic]"?

[Tiemler]

I'll also add to the list three modern aircraft - the Harrier, the MiG-29 and Su-27 - all three of which have been developed into naval versions of the land-based aircraft.

 

The naval version of the MiG-29 was only for evaluation purposes. While a naval version of the SU-27 ultimately went into service, it had been conceived very early in the Flanker's development. And regarding the Harrier, the point about a lack of navalized "mainstream" jet airframes remains valid. It is a moot point, anyway, given the context of this discussion, as the F-22 is not a V/STOL aircraft.

[swerve]

The naval version of the MiG-29 was only for evaluation purposes. 

 

So what are the MiG-29s India's buying to operate off Gorshkov? For evaluation only?

[Koesj]

So what are the MiG-29s India's buying to operate off Gorshkov? For evaluation only?

131350[/snapback]

 

They're an extensive redesign if I'm not mistaken.

[Ivanhoe]

Now, if the British and more particularly the Russians can do it, I wonder why the Americans can't?

130930[/snapback]

 

"Haven't" is not the same as "can't". Having a broad, diverse defense industry and fairly massive interservice rivalries means there simply hasn't been reason to do a conversion. Recall that the Phantom had to be crammed down the USAF's throat by Congress, for example. If its good enough for the USN, its not good enough for the USAF, and vice versa. With the defense consolidations of the 1990s, things were trending towards joint development, but the interservice politics would never get sorted out before the transition to UCAVs.

[swerve]

They're an extensive redesign if I'm not mistaken.

 

Yes, with all the modern bells & whistles (glass cockpit, new avionics, etc) proposed for upgrades of earlier MiG-29s. But I was pointing out that the statement that "The naval version of the MiG-29 was only for evaluation purposes." is false. There is a real, non-evaluation, naval MiG-29.

[5150]

And who has it been in service with?

[DesertFox]

I have a budget question with the F-35. I understand that all Hornets, Naval operated or not, have all the naval gear.

 

What advantages does the air force F-35A Model over the Navy F-35C model, would it save money to drop the A model and have teh airforce buy the C model?

[JOE BRENNAN]

What advantages does the air force F-35A Model over the Navy F-35C model, would it save money to drop the A model and have teh airforce buy the C model?

131463[/snapback]

 

The C's projected fly away is, or was, around 18% higher (let's avoid overprecision in cost of paper planes ). Also we might assume the smaller wing is optimum for mission performance besides approach behind the carrier, so there's some implicit effectiveness "cost" to the C there. Also "joint" means intl/USAF/N/MC not just among the US services, so the realistic view of R&D makes A the baseline and C the add on.

 

That said my ideal world approach would be not to have much in way of USAF general purpose tac fighter force, mainly phase out at end of F-16's life, enlarge USN/USMC force instead and concentrate that function there, smaller force overall. Then F-35 would have been a carrier and STOVL program and try to create something also amenable to intl land fighter forces as the add on.

 

On previous land>carrier fighters, the WWII examples are shaky even in their own context sometimes (the Seafire was a marginal carrier fighter, it would be a myth to say that's a myth ), and largely irrelevant to now because assumptions have changed. A wartime 1940's carrier a/c had a frontline service life of months and esp. as war progressed wasn't the bottleneck, ships and pilots were, non fatal crack ups were not a huge problem. Today cost of the a/c is much more of a constraint, and even marginally inferior carrier landing characteristics would play out over decades in significant extra cost of accidents and/or operational limitations to avoid them.

 

On more recent examples, Harrier is obviously irrelevant, we're talking about conventional landplanes. The Russian examples are interesting but unproven. The single Russian air group doesn't seem to have operated like USN carrier groups, 24hr all weather, away from land divert fields, months at sea, etc etc. The Indian MiG-29 is still a semi paper plane, and near term Indian Navy op tempo isn't likely to mimic the USN either. Neither of those examples says much about the differences in F-35A's and C's being unnecessary (which is the implication of pointing to the Su-27, the Navy could simply wait for an AF only F-35A to become operational and easily adapt it). Rather I'd take F-35A v. C as a fairly neat measurement of the different optimizations, even so the A has some suboptimization presumably w/ maximizing commonality with the C in mind; not true of F-22 when developed.

 

Joe

[DesertFox]

I am kind of doing open thinking here, not directly tied to the F-22 but instead to the F-35 program.

 

Now, while I agree that I can agree with you that no land fighters seem to have made sucessful navy fighters, I can think of several examples of the reverse. How about the F-4 and FA-18 fighters.

 

One advantage I can think with the "C" model is taht it will be tougher and might have a 20% or so less "Fail rate" which might make it worth it right there and teh reduction in different production facilities, would that not have an effect on cost as well?

[swerve]

And who has it been in service with?

 

Nobody, yet, and it's still possible for the whole deal to fall through & it to remain a prototype only. But so what? Your point is? Doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of of anything that's been said so far. It's not an "evaluation only" prototype, it's a development-for-production prototype.

 

AFAIK, it has the Project 9-31 (original Russian MiG-29K) navalisation features, but applied to a newer, lighter version of the airframe with more fuel capacity, & systems developed for other upgrades. Although a pretty thorough re-working, the elements have already been developed & almost all integrated with each other, so it's fairly low-risk.

[5150]

Nobody, yet, and it's still possible for the whole deal to fall through & it to remain a prototype only. But so what? Your point is? Doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of of anything that's been said so far. It's not an "evaluation only" prototype, it's a development-for-production prototype.

131487[/snapback]

 

The point is that it isn't a successfully deployed type. It's fruitless to use it as an example of a viable program when it has yet to prove itself in service, and doing so only adds weight to the argument that there haven't been any successful, modern designs that have proved readily adaptable to being navalized successfully.

[swerve]

The point is that it isn't a successfully deployed type. It's fruitless to use it as an example of a viable program when it has yet to prove itself in service, and doing so only adds weight to the argument that there haven't been any successful, modern designs that have proved readily adaptable to being navalized successfully.

 

True, but that wasn't what I was doing. I was merely pointing out an error in a previous post. We've suffered a case of talking past each other, I think. Never mind, no harm done.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I haven't replied as I've been digging through some old books I have on the subject that mention design of aircraft...

 

As for the supposed problems of landing a Seafire, according to Quill and Brown, they weren't that great.  Yes, it was difficult but it did work.

 

A rather long-winded dicussion on H-Net's H-WAR News Group evolved into the discussion on RN Carrier aircraft. A gentleman noted the problems of Seafire's landing woes, as well as the Sea Hurricane's pedestrian service record came as a result of them being basically land based aircraft with the bare necessities added on for carrier use. Whilst fine in the air, the peculiarities of Carrier operations show up rather boldly. Also, in the "Secret Allied Aircraft of WW2" thread, hojutsuka quotes Eric Brown, the Aviation Historian with his list of the greatest naval fighters of World War 2. Brown lists 6, with the Seafire at 6 and Sea Hurricane at 4, with the Corsair in between. No.1? My beloved Hellcat, of course.

 

 

 

As for the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet being unrelated to their land based original versions, I suspect that now you're trying to wiggle...

Not trying to wiggle, just restating the point I've been trying to make. The Sea Fury and Sea Hornet weren't unrelated to their land-based siblings, but what they were were variants that were developed in the project's design stage, not once the land-based version is already in service. That way there is more of a willingness to take into account the unique requirements of a carrier-based aircraft. If not, you see things like the Seafire and Sea Hurricane with what are basically high-performance land-based aircraft with arrestor hooks attached.

 

 

And the AV-8Bs, GR-7s are "quite different animals from their First generation brethern [sic]"?

130938[/snapback]

 

Yes indeed. John Pike at Global Security sums it up nicely. The AV-8A and British variants were day only attack aircraft. The Harrier II/II+ and British variants are virtually all-weather aircraft with improved payload and targeting, among other things.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-8-variants.htm

[Miner]

Regarding Quill and Brown on the Seafire - It should be noted that Brown, even at that stage had a large degree of experience in carrier landings; Quill had been a Spitfire test pilot for 6~7 years.

 

Quill got involved following the Salerno landings where the loss rate of Seafires was something like 1.5% per sortie due to carrier accidents. While the conditions were bad (escort carriers in nil wind) it still meant essentially there was no cover by the end of day 2. Fleet carrier ops were not as bad but the loss rate was noticably worse than the Hellcat.

[shep854]

In all fairness, there was the North American FJ Fury series, a navalized F-86, which while fairly successful, lacked performance compared to its land-based cousins. Until the F8U Crusader, naval fighters generally were outperformed by land-based a/c, the notable exceptions being the F8F Bearcat and the Sea Fury.

 

Since the '60s, Congress had been trying to impose common designs on all US services, regardless of differing requirements and operating environments. Industry tried its best with the F-111B, which was a turkey, as well as studys to navalize the F-15 and F-16, which would have barely been able to get out of their own way, due to vastly increased weight. As was noted, to get the YF-17 on a carrier, an almost complete redesign was required, and many experts consider the F-18 lacking compared to a "clean sheet" design.

 

To get an idea of the problem, compare the landing gear of an F-16 to an F-18, or an F-14 to an F-15. The gear legs of the AF planes look spindly compared to the Navy a/c because controlled crashes and being snatched into the air by the nose gear is not part of AF ops, whereas that is life as usual for the Navy types.

[Rickshaw]

I haven't replied as I've been digging through some old books I have on the subject that mention design of aircraft...

A rather long-winded dicussion on H-Net's H-WAR News Group evolved into the discussion on RN Carrier aircraft. A gentleman noted the problems of Seafire's landing woes, as well as the Sea Hurricane's pedestrian service record came as a result of them being basically land based aircraft with the bare necessities added on for carrier use. Whilst fine in the air, the peculiarities of Carrier operations show up rather boldly. Also, in the "Secret Allied Aircraft of WW2" thread, hojutsuka quotes Eric Brown, the Aviation Historian with his list of the greatest naval fighters of World War 2. Brown lists 6, with the Seafire at 6 and Sea Hurricane at 4, with the Corsair in between. No.1? My beloved Hellcat, of course.

Not trying to wiggle, just restating the point I've been trying to make. The Sea Fury and Sea Hornet weren't unrelated to their land-based siblings, but what they were were variants that were developed in the project's design stage, not once the land-based version is already in service. That way there is more of a willingness to take into account the unique requirements of a carrier-based aircraft. If not, you see things like the Seafire and Sea Hurricane with what are basically high-performance land-based aircraft with arrestor hooks attached.

Yes indeed. John Pike at Global Security sums it up nicely. The AV-8A and British variants were day only attack aircraft. The Harrier II/II+ and British variants are virtually all-weather aircraft with improved payload and targeting, among other things.

 

Problem is, you are now reinterpreting what you stated, which was:

Navalizing an existing airframe isn't an easy, cheap, or worthwhile task. That's why there haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers.

 

I have been disputing the second sentence in that statement, that there, "haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers." I have provided you with a list of such aircraft which dispute what you've said. I'll add to that list, by the way, the Fury, which I must admit I'd forgotten about. I'll also add the Sopwith Pup, the Sopwith Camel and I'm sure there are several others, if I put my mind to it from the 1920s which I could add as well.

 

Anyway, the point is, you are indeed, in my opinion, "wiggling". This point hinges around the word "successful", I'd suggest. You are attempting to claim that "successful" means "best", whereas I would suggest that "successful" means an aircraft that manages to take off and land on a carrier deck, more often that it crashes is a "successful" adaptation of a land based designed.