User Panel
Quoted:
If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So you are saying the Hornet drivers are wanting to fly F35Bs? It seems that the harrier mafia won the battle. I grew up around Hornet pilots since my father was one, and none of them wanted to touch VSTOL with a ten foot pole. Buying the 35C to replace the baby hornets makes a bunch of sense (in a bizzare world.) Id just buy Superhornets. If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? Jump FARPS with Ospreys and F35Bs, what possibly could go wrong? I wonder how mx is going to be managed when you cant do any, for days and days. Somehow, I doubt it will have any real field mx. |
|
|
How about the approach and trap speeds, critical for carrier operations? About 125 KIAS at 50,000 lbs gross weight would be useful - the F-35C approach speed is ~145 KIAS. There are several ways of reducing the F/A-22N’s approach and landing speed (Refer Annex), including using the Raptor’s thrust vectoring capability (TVC) though this will require a means of providing a balancing pitching moment in the Powered Approach (PA) configuration. One way this can be achieved is by replacing the existing hinged nose-wheel doors with scissoring lifting canards. Drop the gear and the lifting canards deploy with a fixed positive angle of attack, providing lift and moving the centre-of-pressure forward. The elevators in turn respond with less ‘download’. This configuration has been modelled and flown using a basic simulator as a comparator, with an F-22A configured with such lifting canards allowing nicely controlled approaches at 135 KIAS and traps at 125 KIAS. These speeds are similar to the F-14, which having a similar gross weight on recovery, results in similar momentum to be absorbed by the arrestor cable motors.
The canards would also assist in catapult launches, so with the F/A-22N at its maximum takeoff weight of about 80,000 lbs, it should be within the capacity of installed catapults. For comparison the F-14 MTOW is around 75,000 lbs, but it has much less engine thrust available compared to the F/A-22N. It may be necessary to ‘beef-up’ the airframe in some places, but the basic supersonic 9G rated structure is already there. Specific design changes might include a carrier qualified 24 ft/sec sink rate undercarriage, ‘beefing up’ the support and load transfer structure for the stronger undercarriage, a navalised nose gear with catapult launch bar, and a carrier rated arrestor hook for recoveries. The USAF boom refuelling could be retained, and the F-35B/C aerial refuelling probe added to the forward fuselage. So configured, the F/A-22N would be able to take on fuel wherever it finds a friendly tanker. The avionic and systems build would be based on the Air Force Block 40 plus configuration, so an F/A-22N Sea Raptor would have the Block 40’s full range of networking, air-to-air and air-to-ground strike capabilities. Additional Navy datalinks and ACLS would be required. Has this been done before? Well yes. The Russians were able take the impressive Su-27S Flanker B and re-engineer it into the world's best shipboard fighter, the Su-33 Flanker D. The French successfully converted the land based Rafale into the Rafale M Navale. The idea that the experienced engineering cadres of Northrop-Grumman or Boeing might lack the engineering skills to do the same for the F/A-22N Sea Raptor, and do so efficiently, is difficult to accept. And the cost? Pricing the Research and Development & Test and Evaluation, Production Engineering & Tooling (the NRE Costs) for the lifting canard, folding wings, undercarriage redesign, airframe strengthening and marinising comes in at a rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost of around $230M (-10%/+30% variance). This figure includes an appropriate margin for risk. Over a production run of some 500 aircraft, the overall program cost, as distinct from price charged, including amortisation of the NRE, would add somewhat less than $10 million to the current F-22A production cost of $142 million . . .and that is assuming “all new” for any affected existing parts. However, the bulk of any affected parts will likely be able to be modified/upgraded, thus becoming cost effective ‘cousin parts’ like those extolled in the JSF Program for the savings they will generate. This is what one would call a classic capability bargain with superior cost benefit for all (…except any opposing threats, of course). You take an already outstanding aircraft, and make it even more effective with an investment that is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing a whole new aircraft type or, for that matter, the money that still needs to be spent on trying to get the F-35B/C to meet its already surpassed specification. More savings come from the volume production. Current cost estimate across the planned 91 x F-35B aircraft is ~ $158M a copy. For the current production F-22A, this figure is $142M a copy. A production run of over 700 Raptors will reduce this latter unit price substantially, so the USAF, USN and the USMC are all winners if the Sea Raptor numbers increase. The ugly reality is that the US Navy is staring down the barrel of a global environment where its underperforming Hornets and Super Hornets, and planned to underperform F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighters are neither viable as penetrating strike assets or actually capable of keeping the fleet alive in the face of modern Russian designed supersonic sea skimming weapons, which have proliferated on a global scale. The F/A-22N Sea Raptor renders the F-35C CV completely redundant, as it will provide around three times the capability of the F-35C at similar unit procurement costs, with a twin engine airframe better suited to naval operations. This would permit cancellation of the F-35C, never a favourite with professional naval aviators. The funding reserved for around 400 F-35Cs would buy a similar number of F/A-22Ns, producing the same commonality and economy of scale effects seen when the Air Force adopted the F-4C/D, while the Navy and Marines flew the F-4B. Should the Marines be equipped with the F/A-22N rather than the planned F-35B STOVL JSF, the total build numbers for both services could be as high as 680 aircraft. The F/A-22N provides, inherently, if not subjected to client or contractor induced cost and capability creep, much higher cross-variant commonality than the F-35 JSF does, driving down production costs with increasing build numbers much more effectively. Purchasing an aircraft with the ability to engage and defeat aircraft possessing the air combat capabilities of the Su-35BM Flanker E+ is a critical strategic decision for the United States. If it chooses aircraft inferior to those of potential adversaries, then not only will its Air Force risk annihilation in battle, but also the mighty power of its Naval Carrier Strike Groups is likely to be terminated in the second decade of this century. Without the navalized F/A-22N Sea Raptor, the US Navy will find itself out of the business of blue and brown water sea control, relegated to Third World counter-insurgency support roles. |
|
Quoted:
If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So you are saying the Hornet drivers are wanting to fly F35Bs? It seems that the harrier mafia won the battle. I grew up around Hornet pilots since my father was one, and none of them wanted to touch VSTOL with a ten foot pole. Buying the 35C to replace the baby hornets makes a bunch of sense (in a bizzare world.) Id just buy Superhornets. If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? When ever we ran an RGR we would always use a Plt to provide security of the RGR site. |
|
|
What is wrong with you guys? I didnt post on this topic to argue. I posted because its a major concern of mine. The future of the worlds strategic landscape effects my daily life. Believe me or not the F35 is a failed program.
|
|
Quoted:
Jump FARPS with Ospreys and F35Bs, what possibly could go wrong? I wonder how mx is going to be managed when you cant do any, for days and days. Somehow, I doubt it will have any real field mx. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you are saying the Hornet drivers are wanting to fly F35Bs? It seems that the harrier mafia won the battle. I grew up around Hornet pilots since my father was one, and none of them wanted to touch VSTOL with a ten foot pole. Buying the 35C to replace the baby hornets makes a bunch of sense (in a bizzare world.) Id just buy Superhornets. If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? Jump FARPS with Ospreys and F35Bs, what possibly could go wrong? I wonder how mx is going to be managed when you cant do any, for days and days. Somehow, I doubt it will have any real field mx. Yeah I know right. I wonder how much of it is real thought and planning and how much is just force shaping inside the Pentagon to make the B seem more favorable. |
|
Quoted: What is wrong with you guys? I didnt post on this topic to argue. I posted because its a major concern of mine. The future of the worlds strategic landscape effects my daily life. Believe me or not the F35 is a failed program. View Quote And you're assuming it doesn't for other people here? Ever get supported by Harriers? I've been out for a long time, but if the -35 can hit targets better... I'd take that over a Harrier. |
|
I'm talking about the whole picture. We as a nation need to seriously understand our actions have a huge effect on our capabilities. That is all. I'm done with this topic. I'm sure you don't regret that.
|
|
Quoted:
Have you looked at Marine Air for the past few years? The only junk they received from the Navy were the EA-6B's. C-130J's for C-30F's / R's and T's. The UH-1Y and the AH-1Z for the UH-1N and the AH-1W. The MV-22 for the CH-47. The CH-53K for the CH-53E. The F-35B for the AV-8 and F-18. The Marines have been getting some of the new shit for a while. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL.... For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably... Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers? I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets. No they seem to want to jump straight to F-35s. Which is strange I thought for sure the Navy would just give us their old Super Hornets, and not allow us to have new toys. Have you looked at Marine Air for the past few years? The only junk they received from the Navy were the EA-6B's. C-130J's for C-30F's / R's and T's. The UH-1Y and the AH-1Z for the UH-1N and the AH-1W. The MV-22 for the CH-47. The CH-53K for the CH-53E. The F-35B for the AV-8 and F-18. The Marines have been getting some of the new shit for a while. CH-47 |
|
Quoted: I'm talking about the whole picture. We as a nation need to seriously understand our actions have a huge effect on our capabilities. That is all. I'm done with this topic. I'm sure you don't regret that. View Quote |
|
I wonder what the flight hour program for a 35B unit is going to look like.
Isnt TACAIR already hurting for hours? I can only imagine that a 35B will be TWICE as expensive as a Hornet or Harrier to run. So unless we increase the budget or have HALF of the aircraft, the flight hour minimums will be half. That sounds stupid and dangerous. But I am sure someone will say that simulators will make up the rest. Yea. Sure. Sims |
|
Quoted:
We had Harriers and Cobra's landing at FARP's made on the highway from bulldozing over light poles... They would land, load up, take off kill shit, then land again... The FARP would break down, haul ass forward to pretty much outside of Arty range rinse wash repeat... Why should it be any different with Osprey's and -35's? In fact, I would imagine that the FARP would still be supported by -53's... since you know... heavy stuff, as well as what gets trucked in. View Quote What sort of loads were you putting on the Harriers, fuel and armament wise? F-35 is 2-3x the size the Harrier so it'll be interesting. |
|
Listen brother. Take care of yourself. No need to be upset. God bless.
|
|
|
Quoted:
I wonder what the flight hour program for a 35B unit is going to look like. Isnt TACAIR already hurting for hours? I can only imagine that a 35B will be TWICE as expensive as a Hornet or Harrier to run. So unless we increase the budget or have HALF of the aircraft, the flight hour minimums will be half. That sounds stupid and dangerous. But I am sure someone will say that simulators will make up the rest. Yea. Sure. Sims View Quote Yeah, it's bad. I don't think a Class A mishap resulting from lack of proficiency and/or old equipment would surprise anyone. |
|
Quoted:
Most wings have legacy Hornet squadron(s). FDNF is all Supers. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Google says there are. I guess you didn't start with 1. http://i60.tinypic.com/rlbbjk.jpg I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise. Most wings have legacy Hornet squadron(s). FDNF is all Supers. I remember a time when CVW-5 had all the older equipment compared to the other CV/CVN 's. |
|
Quoted:
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template. View Quote How many fielded land based fighters have been successfully navalised to operate for CATOBAR ops... ever? Not the bullshit MIG-29k's that use a ski-jump and don't get nearly the flight hours our aircraft do... and not the Rafale M (which was designed from the outset with a naval capability in mind. Only one I can think of was the North American Fury in the 1950's. A navalised F-22 would have been tremendously expensive if it was even possible. |
|
Quoted:
How many fielded land based fighters have been successfully navalised to operate for CATOBAR ops... ever? Not the bullshit MIG-29k's that use a ski-jump and don't get nearly the flight hours our aircraft do... and not the Rafale M (which was designed from the outset with a naval capability in mind. Only one I can think of was the North American Fury in the 1950's. A navalised F-22 would have been tremendously expensive if it was even possible. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template. How many fielded land based fighters have been successfully navalised to operate for CATOBAR ops... ever? Not the bullshit MIG-29k's that use a ski-jump and don't get nearly the flight hours our aircraft do... and not the Rafale M (which was designed from the outset with a naval capability in mind. Only one I can think of was the North American Fury in the 1950's. A navalised F-22 would have been tremendously expensive if it was even possible. Ski jump isn't the 29s fault. My SWAG is that it wouldn't be too difficult to put a launch bar on there with the gear already beefed up for landings. Su-33 and and J-15 too. |
|
Quoted:
It was the only way Lockheed could figure out how to get the big F-22 sized plane down to a safe carrier landing speed while retaining rapid acceleration and high supersonic performance. The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd doesn't have to be swept wing design. It was the only way Lockheed could figure out how to get the big F-22 sized plane down to a safe carrier landing speed while retaining rapid acceleration and high supersonic performance. The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. How can our expert not know this? F-22 has other characteristics that make it undesirable for service in a CVW as well. |
|
Quoted:
I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
ROFL.... For the same reason they got F/A-18's probably... Or did you think the Marines were only replacing Harriers? I did actually I assumed they would just replace their older Hornets with Super Hornets. You use this a lot. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
How about the approach and trap speeds, critical for carrier operations? About 125 KIAS at 50,000 lbs gross weight would be useful - the F-35C approach speed is ~145 KIAS. There are several ways of reducing the F/A-22N’s approach and landing speed (Refer Annex), including using the Raptor’s thrust vectoring capability (TVC) though this will require a means of providing a balancing pitching moment in the Powered Approach (PA) configuration. One way this can be achieved is by replacing the existing hinged nose-wheel doors with scissoring lifting canards. Drop the gear and the lifting canards deploy with a fixed positive angle of attack, providing lift and moving the centre-of-pressure forward. The elevators in turn respond with less ‘download’. This configuration has been modelled and flown using a basic simulator as a comparator, with an F-22A configured with such lifting canards allowing nicely controlled approaches at 135 KIAS and traps at 125 KIAS. These speeds are similar to the F-14, which having a similar gross weight on recovery, results in similar momentum to be absorbed by the arrestor cable motors. The canards would also assist in catapult launches, so with the F/A-22N at its maximum takeoff weight of about 80,000 lbs, it should be within the capacity of installed catapults. For comparison the F-14 MTOW is around 75,000 lbs, but it has much less engine thrust available compared to the F/A-22N. It may be necessary to ‘beef-up’ the airframe in some places, but the basic supersonic 9G rated structure is already there. Specific design changes might include a carrier qualified 24 ft/sec sink rate undercarriage, ‘beefing up’ the support and load transfer structure for the stronger undercarriage, a navalised nose gear with catapult launch bar, and a carrier rated arrestor hook for recoveries. The USAF boom refuelling could be retained, and the F-35B/C aerial refuelling probe added to the forward fuselage. So configured, the F/A-22N would be able to take on fuel wherever it finds a friendly tanker. The avionic and systems build would be based on the Air Force Block 40 plus configuration, so an F/A-22N Sea Raptor would have the Block 40’s full range of networking, air-to-air and air-to-ground strike capabilities. Additional Navy datalinks and ACLS would be required. Has this been done before? Well yes. The Russians were able take the impressive Su-27S Flanker B and re-engineer it into the world's best shipboard fighter, the Su-33 Flanker D. The French successfully converted the land based Rafale into the Rafale M Navale. The idea that the experienced engineering cadres of Northrop-Grumman or Boeing might lack the engineering skills to do the same for the F/A-22N Sea Raptor, and do so efficiently, is difficult to accept. And the cost? Pricing the Research and Development & Test and Evaluation, Production Engineering & Tooling (the NRE Costs) for the lifting canard, folding wings, undercarriage redesign, airframe strengthening and marinising comes in at a rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost of around $230M (-10%/+30% variance). This figure includes an appropriate margin for risk. Over a production run of some 500 aircraft, the overall program cost, as distinct from price charged, including amortisation of the NRE, would add somewhat less than $10 million to the current F-22A production cost of $142 million . . .and that is assuming “all new” for any affected existing parts. However, the bulk of any affected parts will likely be able to be modified/upgraded, thus becoming cost effective ‘cousin parts’ like those extolled in the JSF Program for the savings they will generate. This is what one would call a classic capability bargain with superior cost benefit for all (…except any opposing threats, of course). You take an already outstanding aircraft, and make it even more effective with an investment that is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing a whole new aircraft type or, for that matter, the money that still needs to be spent on trying to get the F-35B/C to meet its already surpassed specification. More savings come from the volume production. Current cost estimate across the planned 91 x F-35B aircraft is ~ $158M a copy. For the current production F-22A, this figure is $142M a copy. A production run of over 700 Raptors will reduce this latter unit price substantially, so the USAF, USN and the USMC are all winners if the Sea Raptor numbers increase. The ugly reality is that the US Navy is staring down the barrel of a global environment where its underperforming Hornets and Super Hornets, and planned to underperform F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighters are neither viable as penetrating strike assets or actually capable of keeping the fleet alive in the face of modern Russian designed supersonic sea skimming weapons, which have proliferated on a global scale. The F/A-22N Sea Raptor renders the F-35C CV completely redundant, as it will provide around three times the capability of the F-35C at similar unit procurement costs, with a twin engine airframe better suited to naval operations. This would permit cancellation of the F-35C, never a favourite with professional naval aviators. The funding reserved for around 400 F-35Cs would buy a similar number of F/A-22Ns, producing the same commonality and economy of scale effects seen when the Air Force adopted the F-4C/D, while the Navy and Marines flew the F-4B. Should the Marines be equipped with the F/A-22N rather than the planned F-35B STOVL JSF, the total build numbers for both services could be as high as 680 aircraft. The F/A-22N provides, inherently, if not subjected to client or contractor induced cost and capability creep, much higher cross-variant commonality than the F-35 JSF does, driving down production costs with increasing build numbers much more effectively. Purchasing an aircraft with the ability to engage and defeat aircraft possessing the air combat capabilities of the Su-35BM Flanker E+ is a critical strategic decision for the United States. If it chooses aircraft inferior to those of potential adversaries, then not only will its Air Force risk annihilation in battle, but also the mighty power of its Naval Carrier Strike Groups is likely to be terminated in the second decade of this century. Without the navalized F/A-22N Sea Raptor, the US Navy will find itself out of the business of blue and brown water sea control, relegated to Third World counter-insurgency support roles. View Quote Yep, simple and cheap. I want to see a published report on the simulation with door/canards you claim at the start of this post, and then documentation for the cost, because that $240M figure is laughable. A navalized F-22 is a clean sheet airplane. The "9g" argument is useless and incorrect in the face of new design loads due to cats and traps. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Like the basic configuration layout. Start with tip back angle, then taxi turn radius, then the engine bay shadow with the tail sticking over the gunwales. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
... F-22 has other characteristics that make it undesirable for service in a CVW as well. Like the basic configuration layout. Start with tip back angle, then taxi turn radius, then the engine bay shadow with the tail sticking over the gunwales. Less its flight characteristics than the employment methodology. USN CVW is a team sport. The TACAIR platforms work together as an integrated capability. USAF employment methodology for the F-22 has been "F-22s own this lane, 4th gen go play over there". Ther aren't enough of any single T/M/S in a CVW to make that work unless he whole wing was 5th gen and the USN wasn't going to buy that many F-22 variants. |
|
Quoted:
Less its flight characteristics than the employment methodology. USN CVW is a team sport. The TACAIR platforms work together as an integrated capability. USAF employment methodology for the F-22 has been "F-22s own this lane, 4th gen go play over there". Ther aren't enough of any single T/M/S in a CVW to make that work unless he whole wing was 5th gen and the USN wasn't going to buy that many F-22 variants. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... F-22 has other characteristics that make it undesirable for service in a CVW as well. Like the basic configuration layout. Start with tip back angle, then taxi turn radius, then the engine bay shadow with the tail sticking over the gunwales. Less its flight characteristics than the employment methodology. USN CVW is a team sport. The TACAIR platforms work together as an integrated capability. USAF employment methodology for the F-22 has been "F-22s own this lane, 4th gen go play over there". Ther aren't enough of any single T/M/S in a CVW to make that work unless he whole wing was 5th gen and the USN wasn't going to buy that many F-22 variants. I'm starting with some real basic geometry required to simply let it sit on a boat before figuring out the hard parts. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
That makes the irony of the choir you're preaching to fucking hilarious View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm talking about the whole picture. We as a nation need to seriously understand our actions have a huge effect on our capabilities. That is all. I'm done with this topic. I'm sure you don't regret that. But he knows.... |
|
Quoted:
I wonder what the flight hour program for a 35B unit is going to look like. Isnt TACAIR already hurting for hours? I can only imagine that a 35B will be TWICE as expensive as a Hornet or Harrier to run. View Quote Military logic = Half the flight time means the aircraft will last twice as long. |
|
Why all the discussion of a navalized F-22? The production line got dismantled. It's dead. No possibility that this ever happens. F-35C is happening now. Some of you guys are with this "Sea Raptor" talk.
|
|
Quoted:
With the engine it has? That's incredible. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible. Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. |
|
Quoted:
Because I'm 'tarded and didn't use Google. ... View Quote Where is the answer, or am I also 'tarded? The OP *appears* to be the same, but not sure? Are there winners in this debate? Moer importantly, are there losers because don't we hate losers more than we love winners? |
|
|
Quoted:
For the TL;DR., CVN/CVW integration is the answer View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because I'm 'tarded and didn't use Google. ... Where is the answer, or am I also 'tarded? For the TL;DR., CVN/CVW integration is the answer no. we are joint now. joint means we don't integrate except at procurement. |
|
Quoted:
Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible. Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. |
|
Quoted:
You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible. Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. cross section is cross section. and big ass lift fans don't help. |
|
Quoted:
cross section is cross section. and big ass lift fans don't help. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible. Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. cross section is cross section. and big ass lift fans don't help. Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP? |
|
|
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP?
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. So they made a bloated, draggy airframe to meet the lowest volume requirement? Genius. |
|
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP?
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Don't mind me, I'm getting ahead of myself. I know nothing about the F35 except what I've read in here. With the chatter about it replacing the Harrier and your comment about big ass fans I assumed it was V/STOL. Thanks for your patience. I was surprised at the OP's original question after opening this thread for the first time. I thought USMC had continuously fielded CVN based fighters at least as far back as WW2. |
|
Quoted:
Where is the answer, or am I also 'tarded? The OP *appears* to be the same, but not sure? Are there winners in this debate? Moer importantly, are there losers because don't we hate losers more than we love winners? View Quote I posted that I am 'tarded for calling the CH-46 a CH-47. The rest is what it is. |
|
Quoted:
I posted that I am 'tarded for calling the CH-46 a CH-47. The rest is what it is. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I posted that I am 'tarded for calling the CH-46 a CH-47. The rest is what it is. These as well. Normally I wouldn't pile on, but I figure it's OK since you don't seem afraid to dish it out. Quoted:
Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. |
|
Quoted:
Not to mention the dementions of the f22 meet the requirements for carrier operations. If we made a navy varient of that aircraft and used external hard points on it it would be the best multirole naval aircraft in history. All the money spent on the f35 program could have easily accomplished this task. The corps doesn't need fixed wing aircraft. They are part of the dept. Of the navy. If you had a couple Nimitz class Carriers packing modified raptors they would be more then happy with the support they receive on the ground. And with what has been spent on the program we would still have a lot of change to spare. Seems self explanatory to me. View Quote but the airframe and landing gear don't. you'd need a brand new airplane to do that. |
|
Quoted:
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template. View Quote you mean a new airframe and gear would be cheap? you'd be testing and certifying from scratch. (This would be a brand new development effort) you'd give up range or bomb load. weight would increase, that would change the envelope I don't think it would be a cheap or simple as you think it would be... |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.