Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

After the Boeing takeover - it would have been the B-17

Jack


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ron" wrote in message
...
This has been mooted, either as is or in a civil variant, at various
times. For some of the issues involved you might wish to read "C-17
-- How to Get More for Less":

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA357811

It's about 2 meg.

And not a new idea, either. I was leafing through the FAA Type
Dertificate Data Sheets one day, and discovered that the Lockheed
C-141 had been certificated for civilian use.


McD had been marketing the civil C-17 as the MD-17.

With Long Beach's antics of last year, the name Douglas will never be on
another civilian airplane.

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.

Umm, not 30 x 2000 lb bombs. 30 x SDBs (small diameter bombs), that weigh
about 265 lbs each.

Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?

Because the C-17 couldn't compete in the mainstream commercial air freight
business. Costs way too much when compared to 747s and such.

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?

There are stresses from carrier ops that just aren't allowed for
in the design of Air Force fighters, mainly having to do with the
landing and arrestment. Unless the plane is designed with these
forces from the start, you basically have to redesign the plane's
frame (which means moving dang near *everything*) to get it
ready.

This way there would be cross over between the FB-22 and the F-35
(engines especially).

Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?

The C-17 was marketed to commercial users with the government
offering incentives. The plane has design elements for its
military missions that make it less economical to operate in
the civilian world that civil designs.

The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like
now is too late...watch and see.

The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
Aviation very well.

There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or future
enemy threat that can match it.



On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:20:49 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?

This way there would be cross over between the FB-22 and the F-35
(engines especially).

Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?

Sorry forgot to add the Jamming/SEAD/Harm shooter duties on the EF-18G
(growler) as well....


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:57:40 GMT, fudog50 wrote:


The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like
now is too late...watch and see.

The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
Aviation very well.

There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or future
enemy threat that can match it.



On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:20:49 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?

This way there would be cross over between the FB-22 and the F-35
(engines especially).

Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?

This way there would be cross over between the FB-22 and the F-35
(engines especially).

Also why not market the C-17 to the air freight community?

Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?

Not as easy as it sounds, re-engineering usually involves rather extensive
redesign of the internal structures. The F-111 was designed multi-service
from the get-go and we all know what a raging success the B model was.

Do you really believe a fighter will carry 60,000 pounds of ordnance or is
that a typo?

R / John

R. David Steele wrote:
Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?

The Navy looked at adapting the original F-22 under the Naval Advanced
Tactical Fighter program in the late 80s and early 90s. The work needed for
the conversion was too much and the design ended up being basically the same
engines and avionics in a new aircraft. For example, they needed swing
wings to get the aproach speed down to carrier limits.

The FB-22 strikes me as having some real problems in carrier compatability,
even compared totthe base F-22. What's the approach speed of a heavy tailess
delta like that, for example?

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:20:49 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was

We already have a replacement for the F-14 in service - the F/A-18E/F.
The switch-over is well underway already.

Since the F/A-18E/F is brand new, it won't need replacement for a long
time yet.

not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.

30x2000 pound bombs? Twice the payload of the B-2....very impressive.

Why not upgrade it then?

Because you can't just "upgrade" the aircraft to be carrier capable.
This was studied a long time ago. The "upgrade" would be a complete
redesign of the aircraft, which would be very expensive and time
consuming, and entirely unnecessary.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)?

Lots of luck making a carrier landing in an F-22


I know that the current F-22 was
not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
Why not upgrade it then?


3 x 2000 lbs perhaps certainly not 30

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---