[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

I am on your side man, but I would love to see the F--14 come back as a stop gap until more F-22's are built.

MD, sure, I loved the F-14 and was sad to see it go. But as Skunky says, it was just too maintenance-intensive.

The Navy should have stayed with the F-22 program (they left it very early in its life, even before the first YF-22 flew if I remember well). There was a plan to come up with a carrier-based version of it (with beefed up structure, gear, etc...) but the Navy doesn't like buying Air Force jets (only happened once, with the F-86/F-2J Fury). Now they have the Super Hornet, which while a competent jet, is not adequate to the tougher scenarios we will likely face in the next 30 years. Of course, the Navy is getting the F-35C which will help, but it will never be the equivalent of the F-22 in air-to-air (though superior to it in air-to-ground).

FVD

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

MD, sure, I loved the F-14 and was sad to see it go. But as Skunky says, it was just too maintenance-intensive.

The Navy should have stayed with the F-22 program (they left it very early in its life, even before the first YF-22 flew if I remember well). There was a plan to come up with a carrier-based version of it (with beefed up structure, gear, etc...) but the Navy doesn't like buying Air Force jets (only happened once, with the F-86/F-2J Fury).

FVD

Actually, the Navy never has bought an Air Force combat aircraft for use from its carriers. The F-86, like the FJ-2 Fury, were swept wing variants of the FJ-1 Fury ordered by the Navy in 1944. Why this myth of the FJ-2 being a "navalized F-86" keeps going, I don't know; but the FJ-2 is most definitely NOT a navalized Sabre.
There's an excellent reason the Navy doesn't adapt Air Force jets for carrier use- too much equipment has to be added (wing fold mechanisms, ALCS, etc) and the airframe has to be beefed up so much that performance gets unacceptably degraded. If an aircraft is going to be developed for both the Air Force and the Navy, common sense dictates that the Navy version gets developed first. Once the performance goals are met, then it's simply a matter of deleting unneeded equipment to develop the AF version. Even concurrent development doesn't work, look at the F-111 fiasco. The Navy had to scrap their version and develop the F-14 to replace it.
The Super Hornet may not be the answer for the Navy, but neither is a navalized F-22. The Navy either should have started with a completely new design, or taken the YF-23 and navalized it; making it a completely new (and completely Navy) aircraft.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Don't worry the F-35 will be here soon..I hope...or maybe Never....
And wearing one of these would be sweet...

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Don't worry the F-35 will be here soon..I hope...or maybe Never...
And wearing one of these would be sweet...

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Actually, the Navy never has bought an Air Force combat aircraft for use from its carriers. The F-86, like the FJ-2 Fury, were swept wing variants of the FJ-1 Fury ordered by the Navy in 1944. Why this myth of the FJ-2 being a "navalized F-86" keeps going, I don't know; but the FJ-2 is most definitely NOT a navalized Sabre.
There's an excellent reason the Navy doesn't adapt Air Force jets for carrier use- too much equipment has to be added (wing fold mechanisms, ALCS, etc) and the airframe has to be beefed up so much that performance gets unacceptably degraded. If an aircraft is going to be developed for both the Air Force and the Navy, common sense dictates that the Navy version gets developed first. Once the performance goals are met, then it's simply a matter of deleting unneeded equipment to develop the AF version. Even concurrent development doesn't work, look at the F-111 fiasco. The Navy had to scrap their version and develop the F-14 to replace it.
The Super Hornet may not be the answer for the Navy, but neither is a navalized F-22. The Navy either should have started with a completely new design, or taken the YF-23 and navalized it; making it a completely new (and completely Navy) aircraft.

Spoken like a true non-team player.

So I guess the Navy is in big trouble with the F-35, then.

By the way, the reason I said the FJ-2 is a navalized F-86 is because every aviation history book I have about that era says so. I guess they are all wrong...

And the F-18 is a (heavily) modified YF-17 which was an Air Force program (lost against the YF-16 in the LWF competition). So I guess it can be done after all, or maybe the F-18 is a piece of junk ("unacceptably degraded")?

FVD

[leeG]

Planes originally designed for Air Force service are difficult to modify for Navy Carrier use. The main issue is the carrier landing itself. The design vertical speed for a carrier landing is significantly higher than for an Air Force runway landing. If an Air Force plane hit the runway as hard as a Navy plane hits the deck in a trap, the Air Force would call it a CRASH. Plus the aircraft is instantly brought to a stop by a hook attached the tail, not slowed down using a couple thousand feet of runway. Carrier planes are launched by flinging the whole thing off the end of the ship by a catapult attached to the nose. The strength required for all this needs to be designed in from the start, it can't be added later. Navy planes also have a lot of corrosion protection built in to survive a salt spray and stack gas environment the likes of which the Air Force never sees. The Air Force did have to apply a Navy developed corrosion control kit to the F-111s used in South East Asia.

Flying an airplane designed to survive the shipboard condition from a runway is a piece of cake. Navy planes directly adapted for Air Force use are the F-4 and A-7.

Going the other way isn't so easy, the F-18 is a completely redesigned and BIGGER incarnation of the YF-17.

There are 3 different versions of the F-35, each extensively modified to meet each service's requirements: basic land base version, large wing carrier version and a Marine Corps short take off / vertical landing model.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Spoken like a true non-team player.

So I guess the Navy is in big trouble with the F-35, then.

By the way, the reason I said the FJ-2 is a navalized F-86 is because every aviation history book I have about that era says so. I guess they are all wrong...

And the F-18 is a (heavily) modified YF-17 which was an Air Force program (lost against the YF-16 in the LWF competition). So I guess it can be done after all, or maybe the F-18 is a piece of junk ("unacceptably degraded")?

FVD

Spoken like a true adherent to the Air Force corporate line.
I've got some of those books, too. Many of the same books also recognize the FJ-1 as being the progenitor of both the Sabre and the later Fury variants. If the FJ-2 truly was a development of the Sabre, why wasn't it called a Sabre, or given the designation of F2J, which would have been the designator of the next North American built Navy fighter?
The -2 was a logical development of the -1, like the Cougar was a logical development of the Panther.
You're right about the F-18 being developed from the YF-17. Here's a key point , though- because the AF rejected it, the Navy didn't have to worry about keeping/incorporating features that would be needed for an Air Force variant. Thus, it was developed as a true naval aircraft. It's a completely different beast compared to the YF-17.
You may be right about the Navy being in trouble with the F-35, but if they stick to their guns and don't compromise the design by incorporating a bunch of Air Force mandated stuff then they should be okay.

[leeG]

Originally Posted by Rush104

If an aircraft is going to be developed for both the Air Force and the Navy, common sense dictates that the Navy version gets developed first. Once the performance goals are met, then it's simply a matter of deleting unneeded equipment to develop the AF version. Even concurrent development doesn't work, look at the F-111 fiasco. The Navy had to scrap their version and develop the F-14 to replace it.

The F-111 is an interesting case. DoD dictated a common airframe to meet two vastly different mission requirements. The Air Force wanted a low altitude, high speed attack plane where the Navy wanted an interceptor with good high altitude loiter performance. The Air Force's low altitude, high speed requirement resulted in a heavy airframe that compromised the Navy's interceptor mission. The final killer was the engine selected made carrier landings dangerous because of the unacceptable lag between throttle position changes and engine thrust response.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by leeG

Planes originally designed for Air Force service are difficult to modify for Navy Carrier use. The main issue is the carrier landing itself. The design vertical speed for a carrier landing is significantly higher than for an Air Force runway landing. If an Air Force plane hit the runway as hard as a Navy plane hits the deck in a trap, the Air Force would call it a CRASH. Plus the aircraft is instantly brought to a stop by a hook attached the tail, not slowed down using a couple thousand feet of runway. Carrier planes are launched by flinging the whole thing off the end of the ship by a catapult attached to the nose. The strength required for all this needs to be designed in from the start, it can't be added later. Navy planes also have a lot of corrosion protection built in to survive a salt spray and stack gas environment the likes of which the Air Force never sees. The Air Force did have to apply a Navy developed corrosion control kit to the F-111s used in South East Asia.

Flying an airplane designed to survive the shipboard condition from a runway is a piece of cake. Navy planes directly adapted for Air Force use are the F-4 and A-7.

Going the other way isn't so easy, the F-18 is a completely redesigned and BIGGER incarnation of the YF-17.

There are 3 different versions of the F-35, each extensively modified to meet each service's requirements: basic land base version, large wing carrier version and a Marine Corps short take off / vertical landing model.

Some good points, Lee. From an engineering standpoint, it is just a lot easier to adapt a Navy carrier based combat plane for Air Force use than it is to upgrade an Air Force type for carrier use.
Case in point- let's say there's a requirement for an attack jet for both the AF and Navy. Here are the primary goals it has to meet:
Range (unrefuelled) 400 nm, Speed M1.5 at 40,000', and carry a 10,000 lb ordinance load. And, the same engine will be used in both versions.
Due to the operating requirements of each service, the Navy version is going to weigh 1200-1500 lbs. more than the Air Force one (thanks to wing fold mechanisms, structural reinforcement for the tailhook, etc.). If the AF version is developed first, and then adapted for the Navy, the Navy version may not meet one or more of the performance targets, unless it undergoes some redesign (lengthened fuselage for more fuel, which in turn leads to more weight, which in turn requires a different engine to achieve the desired speed, and on and on). However, if the Navy version is developed first, and the original performance goals are met, then its a given that the Air Force version will be an even better performer due to the weight savings achieved by deleting all of the equipment required by the Navy version ( and not needed by the Air Force).
IIRC, the cardinal rule in aircraft design is to save weight wherever possible. That criteria cannot be met whenever Air Force types are adapted for shipboard use. Had the F-111 been designed to fulfill a similar mission for both services, it may have met the original goal of being the standard tactical fighter. But, the Navy version would have had to be fully developed first. It just doesn't work the other way around.