Naval F-22 Fighter

[Garth]

Anyone remember an article from a couple of years back (I recall it being discussed and cited - by me on one occasion - out here, but I've never been able to find it again) where one of the major players in the ATF program office went on record stating that a big reason for the YF-22 "winning" against the YF-23 was because the F-22 based NATF would have better carrier approach characteristics?

 

--Garth

[shep854]

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.

132282[/snapback]

 

 

By that criteria, the C-130 and U-2 are successful carrier aircraft, since they have landed and launched from carrier decks without crashing. The US Navy also flew a P-51 from a carrier, not to mention P-40s and P-47s. However, none of these planes will ever be called "carrier aircraft". If an a/c cannot perform its designated mission, it is not "succesful"; it is a "curiosity".

 

Oops, forgot to mention one more; the B-25.

Edited January 10, 2005 by shep854

[Rickshaw]

By that criteria, the C-130 and U-2 are successful carrier aircraft, since they have landed and launched from carrier decks without crashing.  The US Navy also flew a P-51 from a carrier, not to mention P-40s and P-47s.  However, none of these planes will ever be called "carrier aircraft".  If an a/c cannot perform its designated mission, it is not "succesful"; it is a "curiosity".

 

Oops, forgot to mention one more; the B-25.

132298[/snapback]

 

Fair enough. However, they were not operated over extended periods of time from carrier decks. The key there is being used on operations, not trials or emergencies. I'd never heard of U-2s operating from carriers. I've since found a reference on the web which discusses it but it isn't clear from this page. Unfortunately, it doesn't state whether or not they actually carried out operations from carriers. I'm also unaware of any P-40s or P-47s operating from carriers and have been unable to find any reference to such operations, can you provide a clue? I'd agree that the B-25 qualifies - just. One operation is stretching it a little though, I think.

 

However, getting back to the point - there were successful adaptations of land-based aircraft to carrier operations, despite what was claimed originally. The list stands at the moment at:

 

Sopwith Pup

Sopwith Camel

Gloster Sea Gladiator

Hawker Sea Hurricane

Supermarine Seafire

De Havilland Sea Mosquito

De Havilland Sea Hornet

Hawker Sea Fury

North American FJ-1 Fury

Hawker/BAE/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier

Sukhoi Su-27

MiG-29

 

Some have needed more, some less redesign/rebuilding to do it, but they have done it.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Baron Samedi

[FITZ]

Anyone remember an article from a couple of years back (I recall it being discussed and cited - by me on one occasion - out here, but I've never been able to find it again) where one of the major players in the ATF program office went on record stating that a big reason for the YF-22 "winning" against the YF-23 was because the F-22 based NATF would have better carrier approach characteristics?

 

--Garth

132297[/snapback]

 

The NATF submission put forward by Lockheed Martin shared only engines, avionics and cockpit with the same company's ATF-winning F-22. The airframe was almost completely new. This was due, as I mentioned earlier to the complete incompatibility of the ATF's (F-22) flight characteristics with carrier operations.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I, like a number of others have already made our opinions of that list, but I'd like to note re: the FJ-1 that the FJ-1 was a completely Naval project. The F-86 was developed completely seperate from the Fury project. It is only loosely similar in its looks.

 

Ref: http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html

Edited January 11, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[JOE BRENNAN]

...I'd like to note re: the FJ-1 that the FJ-1 was a completely Naval project. The F-86 was developed completely seperate from the Fury project...

132385[/snapback]

 

True, but then the next step was the FJ-2 derived directly from the F-86E, with little directly in common with the FJ-1. Then similar uprated FJ-3 and again fairly different attack oriented FJ-4 followed.

 

Joe

[Rickshaw]

So, I got the designation wrong. Why not address the main point? The list is of successful land designs that HAVE served successfully afloat. It doesn't claim to be definitive, merely a list that contradicts your original claim.

[JOE BRENNAN]

So, I got the designation wrong.  Why not address the main point?  The list is of successful land designs that HAVE served successfully afloat.  It doesn't claim to be definitive, merely a list that contradicts your original claim.

132408[/snapback]

 

I think the general point about your list was that it shrinks a lot when excluding total irrelvancies like WWI planes or the Harrier, considering the adequate at best record of planes like the Seafire even in a era where acceptable operational loss rates were many times higher than now, and in view of the lack of operational experience of recent planes like the Su-27 at sea in conditions comparable to what the USN requires year in year out. The latter would basically be the most important comparison, but there's insufficient data to call it successful against USN operational requirements, which is what's relevant to a US naval adaptation.

 

Anyway it wouldn't be a question of absolute non-feasibility but relative cost and/or operational limitation. I just don't see a reason to suppose that the F-35A v C comparison doesn't neatly approximate the lower boundary of the real difference, lower boundary because the A design is influenced by the need to maximize commonality with the C, harder if A concieved without that requirement in mind. Much more to the point than some list like that's comparing zebra's to mastodons.

 

Joe

Edited January 11, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Rickshaw]

I think the general point about your list was that it shrinks a lot when excluding total irrelvancies like WWI planes or the Harrier, considering the adequate at best record of planes like the Seafire even in a era where acceptable operational loss rates were many times higher than now, and in view of the lack of operational experience of recent planes like the Su-27 at sea in conditions comparable to what the USN requires year in year out. The latter would basically be the most important comparison, but there's insufficient data to call it successful against USN operational requirements, which is what's relevant to a US naval adaptation.

 

Anyway it wouldn't be a question of absolute non-feasibility but relative cost and/or operational limitation. I just don't see a reason to suppose that the F-35A v C comparison doesn't neatly approximate the lower boundary of the real difference, lower boundary because the A design is influenced by the need to maximize commonality with the C, harder if A concieved without that requirement in mind. Much more to the point than some list like that's comparing zebra's to mastodons.

 

Joe

132421[/snapback]

 

These are not considerations which were present in the original statement, nor do I feel they are that relevant. The matter was whether or not aircraft designed for land based use could be translated effectively to seaborne use. The aircraft on that list were. They were originally land based designs. Some, like the Sea Gladiator and Sea Hurricane only needed extra strengthening and a tail hook. Others, like the Sea Fury evolved into a fully fledged carrier aircraft. Some, like the Sea Harrier required a major redesign (and that is why I haven't included it on the list) but at the same time we have the AV-8B/GR7 which are the same as their landbased brethren and which do operate from carriers, as did the AV-8A and GR3 variants.

[5150]

The whole point of the exercise is lost when we begin to search for the exceptions to the rule, rather than acknowledging the rule. It's prohibitively expensive to convert a modern day land fighter into an effective, successful naval fighter. Wartime patchups from 60 years ago don't have any relevance to today, when the only successful land-based fighter conversion has been the YF-17 to F/A-18, if you want to try to say it's the same airframe.

 

Let's try this another way: what are the advantages to completing the necessary redesign/qualification work compared to a clean sheet?

[Rickshaw]

The whole point of the exercise is lost when we begin to search for the exceptions to the rule, rather than acknowledging the rule. It's prohibitively expensive to convert a modern day land fighter into an effective, successful naval fighter. Wartime patchups from 60 years ago don't have any relevance to today, when the only successful land-based fighter conversion has been the YF-17 to F/A-18, if you want to try to say it's the same airframe.

 

Let's try this another way: what are the advantages to completing the necessary redesign/qualification work compared to a clean sheet?

132461[/snapback]

 

 

I'm sorry, again, the goal posts are being shifted. The original statement was not qualified, did not mention time limits nor was it national specific.

 

You are also ignoring the Su-27, MiG-29 and Harrier in your assessements of modern aircraft.

[5150]

I'm sorry, again, the goal posts are being shifted.  The original statement was not qualified, did not mention time limits nor was it national specific.

 

You are also ignoring the Su-27, MiG-29 and Harrier in your assessements of modern aircraft.

132489[/snapback]

 

So our "goal posts" should have nothing to do with reality? Your approach is dealing with trivia, rather than a realistic assessment of whether it's reasonable to attempt navalizing an existing land-based fighter. The measure of success has to extend somewhere beyond this-type-flew-off-a-carrier-once into actual operational success.

 

Of course I'm ignoring them. The Su-27 has been deployed for what, one cruise? That's hardly the mark of a successful transition. The MiG-29 hasn't even been produced, let alone deployed. The Harrier? If I'm not mistaken, you tossed out the Sea Harrier, which leaving only its unmodified brethren behind.

[Rickshaw]

So our "goal posts" should have nothing to do with reality?

 

No. The "goal posts" are about a debate. An assertion was made. As I proved I believe, I showed that the assertion was false. There have been successful conversions of aircraft designed originally for land use to carrier use.

 

Carrier enthusiasts always try and claim that you need a specialised, designed from the ground up, aircraft to operate off carriers sucessfully. This is not true. What they are mistaking is the word "successfuly" for the words "efficiently" or "effectively".

 

Your approach is dealing with trivia, rather than a realistic assessment of whether it's reasonable to attempt navalizing an existing land-based fighter. The measure of success has to extend somewhere beyond this-type-flew-off-a-carrier-once into actual operational success.

No, it is not dealing with "trivia". The list shoots the original argument down in flames (to borrow a metaphor). Aircraft which were originally designed purely for land use have operated successfully off of carriers, some with more and some with less redesign to suit the role change but they have done it successfully.

 

Of course I'm ignoring them. The Su-27 has been deployed for what, one cruise? That's hardly the mark of a successful transition.

 

Financial constraints rather than necessarily poor design determined that.

 

The MiG-29 hasn't even been produced, let alone deployed.

Depends upon which version of the MiG-29 we're talking about. Mikoyan and Gurevich produced a carrier based version of the MiG-29 for comparative trials with the Su-27. The Su-27 won those trials. The new version of the MiG-29, designed for the Indians, has yet to be built, I agree. However, the trials showed that it was quite possible to use the original land-based design onboard a carrier, with minimal modifications.

 

Oh, and BTW, that reminds me, another aircraft has to be added to the list - the Su-25, which was also operated off of Russia's carriers.

 

The Harrier? If I'm not mistaken, you tossed out the Sea Harrier, which leaving only its unmodified brethren behind.

132494[/snapback]

 

Exactly. In case you've missed it, the unmodified Harriers were being operated in 1982 in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, the Balkans and today are operating off of RN and Italian carriers. I'd suggest the Harrier is perhaps the best example of where putting a land-based designed onboard a ship works.

[Garth]

The Harriers that went South with the Corporate TF were modified for shipboard operation. Nothing major from a structural standpoint ... drilling of holes at certain points in the wings and fuselage to allow water to exit rather than pooling and the mounting of certain electronic (IFF blister under the nose iirc).

 

The Sea Harrier, while certainly a "modification" of the Harrier design, was really nothing more than a GR.1/3 with a new forward fuselage optimized for A2A (Blue Fox in the nose, raised cockpit for better visibility). Indeed, when the FAA Museum at Yeovilton wanted an FRS.1 for it's collection, but could only obtain a forward fuselage, they were able to easily mate it with a surplus Gr.3 mid/aft section and wing.

 

Of course citing the Harrier as an example of a land-based aircraft that adapted well for shipboard use is a bit of a stretch as such use was envisioned back during the Kestrel days, and the aircraft really required none of the specialty equipment (strengthened fuselage, landing gear, an arresting hook) that CTOL aircraft would require.

 

Couple others, tho, that bear mentioning ... there was supposed to be a CTOL carrier version of the Jaguar (and from what I read the prototype proved itself well during trials on board one the French carriers), and the Rafale seems to be doing quite well operating off of CdG.

 

--Garth

 

In case you've missed it, the unmodified Harriers were being operated in 1982 in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, the Balkans and today are operating off of RN and Italian carriers. I'd suggest the Harrier is perhaps the best example of where putting a land-based designed onboard a ship works.

132796[/snapback]

[5150]

I guess we all have different definitions of success. Mine isn't merely being mediocre, but if you'd like to count up all the airframes that have ever touched a deck, BS, be my guest.

 

Weren't the Rafale and the Jaguar designed with naval variants in mind?

 

I'm wondering what a bit of salt-spray over an extended period of time will do to your average Harrier.

[Rickshaw]

I guess we all have different definitions of success. Mine isn't merely being mediocre, but if you'd like to count up all the airframes that have ever touched a deck, BS, be my guest.

 

"Success" has nothing to do with mediocrity or excellence. It has everything to do with being able to achieve the objective desired, in this case carrier operations. Using your definition you'd have to exclude half the aircraft which have been purpose-built and designed for carrier operations, as well as all those which are on my list, because afterall, they were merely mediocre in performance. They did not excel so they don't count, right?

[shep854]

Baron, you're right; some of the planes I listed are indeed a stretch. I was being a little bit silly.

 

I think it's safe to day this discussion has been going in circles for abou two pages.

[Daniel Papp]

BTW anyone know the current status of the Russian CV Admiral Kuznetsov and her air wing? OK, it didn't operate muchin the 1990's, but the news about it are rather old. And the Russians have more money than 5 years ago - considering oil prices and their 6-7% annual GDP growth.

[5150]

Using your definition you'd have to exclude half the aircraft which have been purpose-built and designed for carrier operations...

132886[/snapback]

 

Which would be fine. There's plenty of designs out there that never made it to carrier decks, or proved so unsuitable that they didn't last long. When the bar is set by world-class, purpose-built aircraft success isn't found in mediocrity. Trivia is wonderful and interesting on websites, but less desirable on aircraft carriers. Perhaps you should add a C-130 to your list. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a photo of a VW Beetle taking flight from a cat shot. Does that count, or does it have to land, too? If it has to land, I guess we've got to scratch the U-2 and B-25 as being successfully converted to naval operations. A Piper Cub could land and take off on a carrier deck, but I've never heard of it happening. Does it actually have to happen for the Piper Cub to be a successful carrier aircraft, or does the knowledge that it's possible make it a success?

[Tiemler]

BTW anyone know the current status of the Russian CV Admiral Kuznetsov and her air wing?

 

The most recent info I could find said the carrier and its wing went operational again in June of 2004. 30 or so Sea Flankers, a few Frogfoot trainers, and a bunch of Helixes.

[swerve]

Weren't the Rafale and the Jaguar designed with naval variants in mind?

 

I'm wondering what a bit of salt-spray over an extended period of time will do to your average Harrier.

 

1) Yes. The naval Rafale was the first version produced. The Jaguar was intended to replace the Etendard, but instead the Super Etendard was bought (bloody politics, I think - the Jaguar ws the better plane).

 

2) Doesn't seem to do much harm. Plenty of average Harriers have spent a long time at sea.

[Garth]

There was no need to "convert" the U-2 ... it's low stall speed made unarrested landings on a carrier deck possible. While at least two publically-acknowledged trials were conducted, there have been rumors that U-2s used carriers as "pit stops" during classified missions.

 

My recollection is that the modification of the B-25 (PBJ, actually) to land on a carrier was deemed a success after the trials aboard Shangri-La ... but that with the war winding down and other alternatives available (B-29 bases in the Marianas, bases on Iwo Jima and later Okinawa) it wasn't deemed a necessity.

 

Also, USMC OV-10 Broncos routinely operated from LHAs (and LPH's iirc), in a similar situation to the U-2: low stall speed made an arrested landing unnecessary.

 

As to the Piper Cub comment ... wasn't there a South Vietnamese General who landed aboard USS Midway in a Piper Cub carrying his family? IIRC the aircraft is now on display at the NMNA in Pensacola ...

 

--Garth

 

If it has to land, I guess we've got to scratch the U-2 and B-25 as being successfully converted to naval operations. A Piper Cub could land and take off on a carrier deck, but I've never heard of it happening. Does it actually have to happen for the Piper Cub to be a successful carrier aircraft, or does the knowledge that it's possible make it a success?

132946[/snapback]

[Garth]

But neither were designed primarilly as naval aircraft, only to be later adopted for land-based use (as the F-4 and A-7 were). The carrier-capable versions were developed in parallel with the land-based versions. The analogy between them and the NATF/CTOL JSF fits.

 

--Garth

 

1) Yes. The naval Rafale was the first version produced. The Jaguar was intended to replace the Etendard, but instead the Super Etendard was bought (bloody politics, I think - the Jaguar ws the better plane).

 

2) Doesn't seem to do much harm. Plenty of average Harriers have spent a long time at sea.

132984[/snapback]

[Rickshaw]

There was no need to "convert" the U-2 ... it's low stall speed made unarrested landings on a carrier deck possible. 

 

Out of a matter of interest, did you even glance at the page I referred to about the U-2 and carrier operations? I suspect not, because you obviously didn't note this point:

Kelly Johnson realized that the airframe would have to be altered in order to make carrier landings possible. These alterations involved strengthening the landing gear, installing an arresting hook at the rear of the fuselage, and fitting "spoilers" on the wings to cancel the aerodynamic lift once the aircraft was over the flight deck. Aircraft thus modified were designated U-2G. While several aircraft underwent these modifications, [several words deleted by CIA] pilots began undergoing training in landing on aircraft carriers.

 

While at least two publically-acknowledged trials were conducted, there have been rumors that U-2s used carriers as "pit stops" during classified missions.

"Rumours" are hearsay, they are not proof.

 

My recollection is that the modification of the B-25 (PBJ, actually) to land on a carrier was deemed a success after the trials aboard Shangri-La ... but that with the war winding down and other alternatives available (B-29 bases in the Marianas, bases on Iwo Jima and later Okinawa) it wasn't deemed a necessity.

 

As far as I'm aware, Mitchells were only ever flown of a carrier, once, operationally.

 

Also, USMC OV-10 Broncos routinely operated from LHAs (and LPH's iirc), in a similar situation to the U-2: low stall speed made an arrested landing unnecessary.

Excellent, another aircraft to add to the list. Thanks!

 

As to the Piper Cub comment ... wasn't there a South Vietnamese General who landed aboard USS Midway in a Piper Cub carrying his family?  IIRC the aircraft is now on display at the NMNA in Pensacola ...

 

--Garth

133071[/snapback]

 

Eric Brown landed and took off from a carrier in a Fiesler Storch, several times. He also landed and took off several times, in other unusual aircraft including a P-39 and a Gloster Meteor, a de Havillend Vampire (indeed, perhaps we should add the Venom to the list as well? Afterall, it served both ashore and afloat in essentially the same guise) and others. I didn't include those aircraft because they did serve as such aboard carriers operationally.

[Ol Paint]

Out of a matter of interest, did you even glance at the page I referred to about the U-2 and carrier operations?  I suspect not, because you obviously didn't note this point:

"Rumours" are hearsay, they are not proof.

As far as I'm aware, Mitchells were only ever flown of a carrier, once, operationally.

Excellent, another aircraft to add to the list.  Thanks!

Eric Brown landed and took off from a carrier in a Fiesler Storch, several times. He also landed and took off several times, in other unusual aircraft including a P-39 and a Gloster Meteor, a de Havillend Vampire (indeed, perhaps we should add the Venom to the list as well?  Afterall, it served both ashore and afloat in essentially the same guise) and others.  I didn't include those aircraft because they did serve as such aboard carriers operationally.

133642[/snapback]

This is all very wonderful and interesting trivia, but the comparison to developing a F-22N, or other such aircraft is invalid. Most of the types being used to prove "landplanes make good carrier aircraft" qualify as STOL and/or low-performance airframes. You are welcome to go dogfight an F-18 or F-14 with an OV-10, Meteor, Vampire, Storch, Cub, etc., but don't be surprised when you get a AIM-9 shoved up your stern. The fact remains that the successful CATBAR fighters adapted from land-based aircraft have suffered greatly increased weight penalties to achieve this capability. I believe the F-15 was estimated to require over 3,000lb of additional weight to be made carrier-capable back in the '70s (see Joe Baugher's site). Re-engineering the airframe is possible, as the Su-27K, MiG-29K, and F/A-18 demonstrate. They also demonstrate the extent of the challenges. It is much cheaper and easier to design in the carrier operations initially, than it is to add it on after the fact because you don't have to work around the existing structure, but can incorporate the necessary structural items at the start of the program. The F-22N has been dead for a long while, and I doubt that the structure is designed with easy conversion to CV operations in mind--no Navy dollars were feeding into the development, so why should the AF make design compromises for features they won't use?

 

The list of modern high-performance landplanes adapted for carrier use is pretty short--F-18, Su-27K, MiG-29K. The latter two are STOBAR, so only have to deal with arresting loads (lower gross weights, similar deceleration distances, hence lower structural stresses). Any others? (Possibly some of the French aircraft?) Those designed from the start with carrier ops in mind don't count.

 

Douglas