-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-22
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Tom said:
It's not even planned to be a total replacement for the F-15 in USAF service because of its cost. Actually, Lockheed proposed a navalized version with variable sweep wings (a la Tomcat) many moons ago. Right now, all the procurement dollars for TACAIR pointy nose mission that F-22 would fill are programmed for F/A-18E/F and F-35 (JSF) so "No chance, Paddles".
LoneSailor
Registered User
I heard a loooong time ago that the Navy is looking to acquire a couple of them for fighter weapons school. That was probobly scrapped though.
creepto said:
Bad gouge...USAF put them at their FWS at Nellis though. Navy has a hard enough time getting adversaries for Topgun (NFWS) and recently took on the embargoed F-16As that never made it to Pakistan and were preserved in the desert for years.
Back in the (very initial) stages of the ATF program, the Navy considered use of the ATF as a joint program. When it became apparent that developing a navalized version of the F(not A)-22 would require so many modifications as to make it impractical, the idea was scrapped.
Still thinking the Navy made the right idea in not spending $250M+ on a pointy-nosed jet with such limited air-to-mud capability...
Still thinking the Navy made the right idea in not spending $250M+ on a pointy-nosed jet with such limited air-to-mud capability...
But it's stuck with the Super Hornet for the next 20 years...not sure that was a winner of an idea either.
If they had taken the F-22, we could make carriers smaller, though, since we could only afford carrier air wings of about 4 planes each.
If they had taken the F-22, we could make carriers smaller, though, since we could only afford carrier air wings of about 4 planes each.
to pt (1) That is exactly my point--the Navy is buying E/Fs instead of waiting for JSF. I don't know whether the Navy could have kept its legacy airframes going that long. Regardless, each Super Hornet bought means fewer JSFs when its time comes. It's a stopgap airframe. Which leads me to pt (2).
I don't deny it's a capable airplane, but it's hardly a revolutionary one, only an evolutionary improvement. It may be a fiscally wise move to do an incremental change, but it's not exactly a leap forward. The aircraft we buy now will be in service 20-30 years, maybe more. I don't think the E/F will still seem like a great idea in 2030.
But hey, I'm not in the pointy-head crowd that plans life-cycle costs for aircraft programs. I think the acquisition decision for the Super was based more on $$$ than capability and future utility versus a peer competitor. I won't claim TACAIR expertise on this one, but that's my perception.
I don't deny it's a capable airplane, but it's hardly a revolutionary one, only an evolutionary improvement. It may be a fiscally wise move to do an incremental change, but it's not exactly a leap forward. The aircraft we buy now will be in service 20-30 years, maybe more. I don't think the E/F will still seem like a great idea in 2030.
But hey, I'm not in the pointy-head crowd that plans life-cycle costs for aircraft programs. I think the acquisition decision for the Super was based more on $$$ than capability and future utility versus a peer competitor. I won't claim TACAIR expertise on this one, but that's my perception.
I would call it a wise move. The super hornet is here, relatively proven technology with most of the enhancements in ord load and avionics. It is dropping bombs now while the JSF is in initial testing.
And who the hell thinks that single engine over water is the way to go, particularly the Marine variant you would think we would have learned our lesson by now.
And who the hell thinks that single engine over water is the way to go, particularly the Marine variant you would think we would have learned our lesson by now.
I don't think SE over water has really been the problem. It's VSTOL over water, land, grape jell-o, whatever, that has been problematic. If single-engine flight were that much more dangerous, the USAF would be putting F-16s in the dirt all the time. They don't. The Harrier, on the other hand, has been a widowmaker because of many issues, certainly more so than the single-engine A-4 that preceded it.
phrogdriver said:
The 16 didnt get the nickname "Carolina Lawn Dart" for nothing. Its just in the last 25 years engine technology and reliability has vastly improved. But the Navy never had gripes about the Crusader, Corsair II, Skyhawk, or any other jets they put out over the blue. I think it was just a nice way of saying "We want the plane we want not the one the Airforce wants."
phrogdriver said:
Good points I would have to concede that the VSTOL is more the problem than single engine. However I would take excpetion with the F-16 analogy more divert fields feet dry than feet wet when the birds starts making an argument against continued flight.
phrogdriver said:
Disagree. It's cherry-picking what we consider 'revolutionary'. Is APG-79 and the associated MSI support 'revolutionary'? Man, you'd better believe it. APG-65 and AWG-9 are left in the dust compared to that stuff. What about reliability? How about RCS reduction?
Yes, there are tradeoffs in terms of speed and performance... but as if the F(not A)-22 didn't make tradeoffs as well. Supercruise and thrust vectoring are indeed revolutionary. Then again, let's look at the loadouts that the F-15E (the plane it's replacing) carried in OEF...
http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/loadouts/oef/oef.htm
Despite the fact that the F(not A)-22 costs (conservative estimate) 5 TIMES as much as the Strike Eagle, the best this gold-plated POS can do is carry two GBU-32s. Sounds like a step backwards to me.