A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 22nd 04, 02:44 PM
Andrew C. Toppan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

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


Huh? The F-35 is absolutely nothing like the F-22.

The F-35 was not "modified" to be a carrier aircraft, it was DESIGNED
AS a carrier aircraft.

--
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/

Ads
  #12  
Old February 22nd 04, 02:49 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

R. David Steele wrote:

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


Nonsense. The F-35 only has some cosmetic resemblance to the F-22. It was
designed from the ground up as a carrier aircraft and is very different
internally.


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.


What is its civilian reference.


It used to be called the MD-17, and is now marketed as the BC-17X.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/pd/bc17x/index.html
--
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)




  #13  
Old February 22nd 04, 03:11 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

steele- 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? BRBR

F35 better, cheaper, sooner and designed for shipboard use. Why not scrape the
F-22, and replace it with F35? These things are 'expensive', to say the least.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #14  
Old February 22nd 04, 03:14 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Not quite....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #15  
Old February 22nd 04, 03:15 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Then the F-17 was basically the same as the F/A-18..which it ain't either.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #16  
Old February 22nd 04, 03:18 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Saw lots of patches in the early 70s..'When you are out of F-8s, you are out of
fighters', but the other one applies to the Turkey,' When you are out of
F-8s(F-14s) it's no big thing'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #17  
Old February 22nd 04, 04:00 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

|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.

Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
online, even those versions will be dated.


Less dated than the F-22.

You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada and
the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
generation ahead of the F-22.

Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
the decade. What is the ability of the Chinese aircraft.


Non-sequitur.


  #18  
Old February 22nd 04, 04:02 PM
Bob Urz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tony wrote:
"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.


And to think that the B2 only carries 16 2000 lb bombs.


Well then go one step further. B2N. Take one B2. put joints in the wings
where they fold up like a F4U corsair. Put an arrestor hook on it.
Doolittle would like it. Anyone want to photoshop a prototype up?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #19  
Old February 22nd 04, 04:26 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
R. David Steele writes:

| 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.

Yes, I checked that out
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/fb-22.htm

| 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.

From what I have read, the C-17 should be cost effective. After
all the design costs are already paid for. And it is far less
expensive to run than the C-5.


But it it more cost-effective than the Il-76s and An-224s that are
already in the market? Those have been already built & paid for.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Replace fabric with glass Ernest Christley Home Built 38 April 17th 04 11:37 AM
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? Guy Alcala Military Aviation 265 March 7th 04 09:28 AM
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? Guy Alcala Naval Aviation 2 February 22nd 04 06:22 AM
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... Aerophotos Military Aviation 10 November 3rd 03 11:49 PM
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians Otis Willie Military Aviation 1 October 22nd 03 09:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.