The Real Reason The Navy Doesn't Use The F-22 Raptor

• May 13, 2023

• #1

N

NVSMITH

Airman 1st Class

184

270

Jul 26, 2011

-In case you've been wondering, read this highly technical article from the Hotcars website:
The Real Reason The Navy Doesn't Use The F-22 Raptor
-Short answer is that while they are used by the US Army they would need F-14 Tomcat wings to operate from carriers. 'nuff said.

 

• May 13, 2023

• #2

C

cvairwerks

Staff Sergeant

819

1,104

Mar 20, 2020

North Texas

Written by someone that has no clue about naval aircraft design......

 

• May 13, 2023

• #3

Thumpalumpacus

Major

9,971

15,542

Feb 5, 2021

Tejas

They're not used by the US Army. Maybe disable your spell-check?

But yes, slow-speed handling isn't sufficient for carrier ops, from what I've read.

 

• May 13, 2023

• #4

rochie

Moderator

Staff

Mod

22,760

7,522

Aug 9, 2006

billingham nr middlesbrough uk

oh boy !

 

• May 13, 2023

• #5

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,739

23,485

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

Oh, and it's "too heavy to land on a carrier", too...

Dumbass should stick to writing about cars, FFS.

 

• May 16, 2023

• #6

R

RogerdeLluria

Staff Sergeant

1,324

4,751

Jul 5, 2015

That explains why F-18 and F-35 have swing wings ....

 

• May 16, 2023

• #7

T

ThomasP

Senior Master Sergeant

3,496

5,497

Apr 17, 2017

midwest USA

Northrop-Grumman F-14 replacement


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-MpTfTzyk&t=4s


D/POC (Demonstrator/Proof of Concept) prototype currently flying in air-space near you . . .

 

• May 16, 2023

• #8

GTX

Colonel

14,520

49,167

Dec 18, 2015

ThomasP said:

Northrop-Grumman F-14 replacement



D/POC (Demonstrator/Proof of Concept) prototype currently flying in air-space near you . . .

Click to expand...

Really?

 

• May 16, 2023

• #9

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,222

15,715

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Oh boy…

 

• May 17, 2023

• #10

A

Admiral Beez

Major

9,230

10,500

Oct 21, 2019

Toronto, Canada

I figured the obvious reason was that LM stopped making them. If the USAF had the original allotment of 750 aircraft there may have been cost efficiencies to enable the necessary mods for naval ops. As it is, the Air Force has more old-tech F-15C/D than its planned F-22 replacement. If you include the F-15E, the USAF has more than 2.5X as many Eagles. I expect by the time the F-22 retires in/around 2030 the F-15 will still be in USAF service.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #11

C

cvairwerks

Staff Sergeant

819

1,104

Mar 20, 2020

North Texas

Don't count on the USAF retiring the F-22 in 2030. They just dropped a ton of money and time to put airframe #147 back in to the air, after it suffered major structural damage during an accident at Nellis in 2018.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #12

A

Admiral Beez

Major

9,230

10,500

Oct 21, 2019

Toronto, Canada

cvairwerks said:

Don't count on the USAF retiring the F-22 in 2030. They just dropped a ton of money and time to put airframe #147 back in to the air, after it suffered major structural damage during an accident at Nellis in 2018.

Click to expand...

My bad, I meant 2030s.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #13

machine shop tom

Senior Airman

504

222

Apr 13, 2007

Who wants to tell Pranav Unnkrishnan that the US Navy retired the Tomcat YEARS ago and that that US Army does not operate aircraft carriers?

 

• May 17, 2023

• #14

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,739

23,485

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

So according to the author, the F-111 and B-1 should be carrier capable because they have "swing wing" designs...

 

• May 17, 2023

• #15

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,222

15,715

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

I could add so much to this, but can't… lol

 

• May 17, 2023

• #16

machine shop tom

Senior Airman

504

222

Apr 13, 2007

I learned from this article that (apparently) aircraft land on aircraft carriers only in emergencies.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #17

A

Admiral Beez

Major

9,230

10,500

Oct 21, 2019

Toronto, Canada

GrauGeist said:

So according to the author, the F-111 and B-1 should be carrier capable because they have "swing wing" designs...

Click to expand...

Wasn't the F-111 intended to be carrier capable?


View: https://av8rco.tumblr.com/post/151388589678/a-rare-shot-of-an-f-111-landing-on-a-carrier

 

• May 17, 2023

• #18

A

Admiral Beez

Major

9,230

10,500

Oct 21, 2019

Toronto, Canada

machine shop tom said:

I learned from this article that (apparently) aircraft land on aircraft carriers only in emergencies.

Click to expand...

Well, skosh fuel and miles from land could be considered an emergency.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #19

machine shop tom

Senior Airman

504

222

Apr 13, 2007

Admiral Beez said:

Well, skosh fuel and miles from land could be considered an emergency.

Click to expand...

True that. But the "expert" author seems to think EVERY carrier landing is an emergency.

 

• May 17, 2023

• #20

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,739

23,485

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

Admiral Beez said:

Wasn't the F-111 intended to be carrier capable?


View: https://av8rco.tumblr.com/post/151388589678/a-rare-shot-of-an-f-111-landing-on-a-carrier

Click to expand...

The F-111B was intended to be a replacement for the F4-J, but I'm sure the American Army Air Force wouldn't have liked that!