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 » Military 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
  #21  
Old February 22nd 04, 06:56 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


The C-17 line does not need more work right now.


  #22  
Old February 22nd 04, 06:57 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #24  
Old February 22nd 04, 09:29 PM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

|Do you really believe a fighter will carry 60,000 pounds of ordnance or
is
|that a typo?
Yes, I checked that out. It is the small dia. bomb, not the
larger.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/fb-22.htm


I read that as 30 x's 250 pounds = 7500 pounds. If you really think a
fighter airframe, even modified as described, is capable of hauling 30 TONS
of ordnance ... well, I've got this bridge I'm trying to sell and ....

FYI the B-52 (rather larger than any F-22 derivative is likely to be) is
advertised to carry up to 70,000 pounds of ordnance.

R / John


  #25  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:17 PM
Ian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"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.


What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?


  #26  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:25 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
R. David Steele writes:

| 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.
|
|...and flown hard, and badly maintained...

and from what I have heard, very high maintenance per hour flown.
Extremely high cost of up keep, worst than one of the models in
the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated!!!!


All very true, and a product of the Soviet maintenance model, where,
say, an engine doesn't get the same level, both in frequency and
depth, of periodic inspection that we use, and it gets pulled off the
airframe & sent of to a factory-type facility for a complete rebuild
much sooner than we would. When you're not fighting a Global War,
that's expensive, and it means that there isn't a lot of support for
numbers smaller than entire Air Forces.

That being said, though, the price of a new-build Commercial C-17
would be pushing somewhere around 300 Million Dollars, or so.
You can buy an awful lot of maintenance with the difference if you're
picking up a used Il-76 from Honest Ivan's VVS Closeout Sales for 5
Million bucks.

But I'd still rather ride in a Boeing.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #27  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:30 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #28  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:32 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 =---
  #29  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:34 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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



The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22.


Its a totally different aircraft.

It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.


No one version was DESIGNED that way

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 =---
  #30  
Old February 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


|
| Remember that we are planning for a war with China by the end of
| the decade.
|


Are you planning to fight them all yourself or do
you have a couple of buddies lined up to help ?

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 =---
 




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
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies Bill Berle Aviation Marketplace 8 July 8th 04 07:01 AM
More LED's Veeduber Home Built 19 June 9th 04 10:07 PM
Replace fabric with glass Ernest Christley Home Built 38 April 17th 04 11:37 AM
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... Aerophotos Military Aviation 10 November 4th 03 12:49 AM
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 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.