In article , 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?
|
|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.

The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

The F-35 is nothing at all like the F-22. It is a new design carrier
capable a/c, unlike the F-22.
Also, the avionics suite on the F-35 is at least 1 and sometimes
2 generations newer than the F-22.

I participated on the NATF proposal back when. There was a
remarkable amount of re-design necessary to make a land-
based a/c capable for carrier use. This included; adding a keel to
the airframe to take the arrestor loads, adding folding wings for
deck storage, changing the way the engines are removed, changing
the wing to allow lower approach speeds, changing the entire
landing gear system, upgrading the corrosion plan, etc.
Resulting in an entire new airframe. Not cheap and little in
common with the USAF version, so what's the point.
Which is exactly what DoD said, and why it went no-where.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur