Naval F-22 Fighter

[Rickshaw]

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

133656[/snapback]

 

 

Once again, the goalposts are changed. We moved again the frames of reference for the statement from "carrier based aircraft" to "must be designed in a particular way and be operated in a particular manner". I suppose if you can't win the argument, its easier to change its basis so you can then win it.

 

Look, why not simply acknowledge that the original statement was wrong? I've shown it be wrong. There are numerous examples which prove it to be wrong. Each time I post, it seems new examples are added to the list!

 

Aircraft designed for land basing have been successfully adapted to naval carrier basing. QED.

[Icicle]

There is a major technological challenge in converting modern jets to carrier operations. This was far less of a challenge in converting land based fighters to carrier ops in the time of WWII.

 

Some of the early jets (vampire/venom) probably were more simlar to the prop planes than a modern jet.

 

It would vary from plane to plane, and I suspect that in general it would be easier to convert attack or multi-role planes than interceptors. Contemplate converting a SAAB Viggen as compared to F-104 Starfighter.

 

The reason that it is harder to convert is the weight, and the increased landing speeds.

 

In the case of the F-22 the design impact of the stealth features, and the internal weapons compartments would complicate the whole process.

[Ol Paint]

Once again, the goalposts are changed.  We moved again the frames of reference for the statement from "carrier based aircraft" to "must be designed in a particular way and be operated in a particular manner". I suppose if you can't win the argument, its easier to change its basis so you can then win it. 

 

Look, why not simply acknowledge that the original statement was wrong?  I've shown it be wrong.  There are numerous examples which prove it to be wrong.  Each time I post, it seems new examples are added to the list! 

 

Aircraft designed for land basing have been successfully adapted to naval carrier basing.  QED.

133685[/snapback]

Icicle has said it nicely, but let me restate the issue. The "goalposts" have moved because the performance of aircraft is vastly superior today to what it was in WWII or Korea. The experience of converting a Spitfire to a Seafire is largely irrelevant to attempting conversions to today's high-performance fighters and attack aircraft. The approach & touchdown speeds of some of today's fighters are faster than the cruise speed of some early WWII fighters, and weight has increased several times. F=ma. As I stated below, you are more than welcome to try to engage a F-18 with a OV-10 or Sea Fury, but these aircraft are not survivable in today's combat environment. "...must be designed in a particular way and be operated in a particular manner..." is absolutely true, unless you want to fund the MOB out of your own pocket. We are talking about a F-22 for the USN, in case you missed the topic title, which brings with it the necessities of cat launches and arrested recoveries.

 

Douglas

[swerve]

To go no further off topic than almost everyone else, how suitable would the Gripen be for conversion to carrier ops? I realise some people will say "No land plane is suitable . . . ", but IIRC, it's designed to be able to operate from short, poor quality strips & has low maintenance requirements, which sounds like a good starting point.

[Ol Paint]

To go no further off topic than almost everyone else, how suitable would the Gripen be for conversion to carrier ops? I realise some people will say "No land plane is suitable . . . ", but IIRC, it's designed to be able to operate from short, poor quality strips & has low maintenance requirements, which sounds like a good starting point.

133837[/snapback]

I'd think that it'd make a good starting point for a STOBAR aircraft. It probably wouldn't make any headway against the available competition, though, since it wouldn't have a Swedish-funded development program. It may have been an idea worth considering for the Indians, but their MiGs came as a package with the carrier, and anywhere else, it'll have to fend off competition from existing carrier aircraft like the F/A-18. By the way, I don't agree with the "impossible to convert" folks, just that it doesn't make economic sense for most aircraft.

 

Douglas

[Rickshaw]

Icicle has said it nicely, but let me restate the issue.  The "goalposts" have moved because the performance of aircraft is vastly superior today to what it was in WWII or Korea.

 

That is irrelavent to the original point which WAS:

That's why there haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers.

 

You will note, I provided a list of aircraft that prove that there were indeed "successful mainstream land-based fighters" which were "redesigned to work off carriers"

 

You will note that the original statement did not talk about "today", nor did it limit itself to any specific period in history. It was a bold, all inclusive, general statement. An attempt at a truism which was not true, as the list showed.

 

Therefore I would suggest that indeed, you are attempting to move the goalposts. Suddenly it is no longer that "there haven't been any successful mainstream land-based fighters that have been redesigned to work off of carriers," but rather that the list is no longer relevant or that things have changed and the discussion has become about modern, high-performance jets (despite inclusion of several high-performance modern jet aircraft in the list)!

 

Now, do I have an admission that the original statement was wrong?

[5150]

:shhhh!: Someone can't see the forest for the trees...

[Rickshaw]

:shhhh!: Someone can't see the forest for the trees... 

134177[/snapback]

 

I see a wriggler...