gotcha, sorry I mistook that

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.

When ever we ran an RGR we would always use a Plt to provide security of the RGR site.

Then no one really has a need to take you seriously.



 

LOL don't talk about it, be about it... .




 

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.

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.  






ETA- Another fun pic from the net...





Apparently this guy was running out of gas, so he just landed next to the FARP as it was heading north and  was all "Fillerup"










 

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.

*yawn*....





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.

CH-47

That makes the irony of the choir you're preaching to fucking hilarious



 

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.

LOL hell if I know I was just watching what they we dropping shit on.  (Farp pics are internet stock pics)



 

Yeah, it's bad.  I don't think a Class A mishap resulting from lack of proficiency and/or old equipment would surprise anyone.

I remember a time when CVW-5 had all the older equipment compared to the other CV/CVN 's.

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.

How can our expert not know this?

F-22 has other characteristics that make it undesirable for service in a CVW as well.

You use this a lot.

F-35 just did some CVN DT this week.  You should read about it.

LOL

With the engine it has?  That's incredible.  

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.

Tin foil hat too tight?
Where do you work?

Yea, I'm as tarded as the guy who quotes the entire fucking conversation just to point out one thing wrong with it.  

But he knows....

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.

Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt.

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?

For the TL;DR., CVN/CVW integration is the answer

no.
we are joint now.

joint means we don't integrate except at procurement.

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?

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.

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.

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.

but the airframe and landing gear don't.

you'd need a brand new airplane to do that.

I'm just here to laugh at all the silly Airedales.

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...