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

John Keeney wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Keeney wrote:

snip

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

The question is, how often is that second country in more than X nm from the
beach. Should we plan our military around a single third-world country?
Justify why we need to meet your want. You know, what the people who make these
decisions have to do, as opposed to the likes of us who are free to spout our
pet theories on Usenet;-)

Actually, hitting Afghanistan up at least as far north as Kandahar and maybe up
to Kabul from 50-80nm offshore would be possible by unrefueled F-35Bs (assuming
they meet their range requirement), and the rest of the country if you tank
them.

littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

The devil IS in the details, and if you want to discuss them, you've got to know
the issues, assumptions and proposed strategy.

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
service,
that particular justification need no longer exist.

Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
see
over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.

That was the proposed method; initial idea was to use a triangular radome on top
with a three-face phased array. Later there seemed to be some interest in a
spine-mounted array like the Erieye, or a ventral folding array. The V-22 has a
lower ceiling and no pressurized cabin, although it may be possible to insert a
pressurized module into it (kind of like RB-52s had). Or alternatively,
everyone will just have to wear oxygen masks. The other possiblity would be to
develop a new fuselage with the powerplants etc. the same, kind of like the
E-2/C-2 did.

As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
1,000 nm.

Not according to the C-2A S.A.C. (available on the Naval Historical Center
website). Range with a 10,000 lb. load is 961nm, with reserves.

The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.

Why on earth would a V-22 COD make a VTO? It will make a STO or full rolling
takeoff from shore, a STO from a carrier or LHD/LHA, and only make a VTO from a
LPD/LSD/AOE. A C-2 can only land on the carrier and has to tranship loads to a
helo for the latter ships (and hope that the helos are in range), while a V-22
can go direct to them.

Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

That remains to be seen. Empty and MTOW weights of the C-2 and MV-22 are in the
same league: 33,746/54,354 for the C-2, and 33,140/57,000 (STO)/60,500 (max.)
for the MV-22, and the latter is carrying around self-sealing tanks and armor
that the former isn't, and doesn't need to maintain the same reserve fuel. The
MV-22 currently lacks a pressurized cabin, which might or might not be
significant when carrying passengers, depending on the range, weather and cruise
altitude. It's cabin is also slightly smaller than the C-2's, which again, may
or may not be significant.

Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.

Too slow for the escort tanking job, certainly, so that will remain with buddy
tankers (or, down the road, a STOVL support jet). I asked Cecil Turner about
this a year or two ago, as he'd refueled in his A-4 and AV-8B from various a/c.
Based on published stats, a KV-22 should be able to tank strikers at least up to
15,000 feet, which he said was a typical tanking altitude, and maybe 18-20,000
(the latter would probably require a toboggan). As for recovery tankers, if the
navy goes all STOVL there will be far less need for them because wave-offs due
to fouled decks will become a thing of the past, as will bolters, and the
incidence of missed approaches due to low visibility will shrink to almost
nothing.

A KV-22 will certainly be lower in performance than the current S-3s; the
question is how critical is that performance to the mission.

2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?

Considering that the F-35B is credited with equal or greater range than the
F-18E/F on slightly less internal fuel, has only one engine, lots of wet
external pylons and no need to hold large landing fuel reserves, I imagine the
answer is a comparable amount.

3) Call the Air Force.

As the navy has been doing in every one of our recent conflicts. Or the RAF, or
the Dutch, or the Italians, French, Australians, Japanese, Germans . . .

Guy