My Naval F-22

[mdf15c]

I've been obsessing over the naval version of the F-22 for the past few weeks, ruling out variable geometry because of the cost of maintenance and the problem it poses for stealth, I think including canards could provide the lift needed to land on a carrier. Searching the internet I found these images, I think they are from a video game, what do you think? Could this be a realistic design for a possible F-22N? With canards and thrust vectoring, could a version very similar to the Raptor operate from aircraft carriers?

 

[flateric]

No.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Moved to correct section.

 

[mdf15c]

No.

What changes would you make to make a naval version of the Raptor that kept most of the original without resorting to swing wings? Maybe increase the wing area like the F-35C does over the F-35A?

 

[SSgtC]

No.

What changes would you make to make a naval version of the Raptor that kept most of the original without resorting to swing wings? Maybe increase the wing area like the F-35C does over the F-35A?

Adopt variable geometry wings. This was studied, heavily. And the conclusion was that only a swing wing would meet the performance requirements (namely excellent low speed characteristics and excellent high speed characteristics).

 

[mdf15c]

No.

What changes would you make to make a naval version of the Raptor that kept most of the original without resorting to swing wings? Maybe increase the wing area like the F-35C does over the F-35A?

Adopt variable geometry wings. This was studied, heavily. And the conclusion was that only a swing wing would meet the performance requirements (namely excellent low speed characteristics and excellent high speed characteristics).

Thanks for the reply.

I have been analyzing the NATF-22 proposal, I think like you that it is a good alternative. But wouldn't swing wings increase the aircraft weight, requiring more powerful engines? How would it affect the radar signature? And to the maintenance of the plane?

 

[SSgtC]

Yup. And those are all reasons it wasn't pursued. It would have been heavier, slower, less stealthy and more maintenance intensive than the USAF version. Though on the flip side, it would likely have been more maneuverable.

 

[flateric]

I have been analyzing the NATF-22 proposal,

They just have studied it more and had some educational and practical background.

 

[mdf15c]

Yup. And those are all reasons it wasn't pursued. It would have been heavier, slower, less stealthy and more maintenance intensive than the USAF version. Though on the flip side, it would likely have been more maneuverable.

And develop more powerful engines than the Raptor's F119? Perhaps that would have compensated for the differences in the flight envelope?

 

[mdf15c]

I have been analyzing the NATF-22 proposal,

They just have studied it more and had some educational and practical background.

I hope so, since I do not dedicate myself professionally to it. LOL

 

[SSgtC]

Yup. And those are all reasons it wasn't pursued. It would have been heavier, slower, less stealthy and more maintenance intensive than the USAF version. Though on the flip side, it would likely have been more maneuverable.

And develop more powerful engines than the Raptor's F119? Perhaps that would have compensated for the differences in the flight envelope?

Probably not. The F119 was already going to need a lot of work to navalize them. I doubt they're going to go higher thrust as well. Doing that runs the risk of decreasing the engine reliability. Look up all the hell the Navy went through with the Tomcat's development and the F401 engine to see why it's doubtful they'd try to uprate the engine.