Future Fighter-Bomber 2015-2020

[Colonelcool125]

Originally Posted by Cp

I predict that the A-10 will be around for at least another 20 years, especially as they are looking for even slower aircrafts already.
The Light Attack Aircraft

Federation of American Scientists :: A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II

The most recent long range plan has the A/OA-10 in the fleet through FY2028

The A-10 isn't going anywhere quickly.

[Hunt3r]

Originally Posted by Cp

Well, First of all, how do you propose to land an F-22 on a carrier? the entire aircraft would need to be redesigned, strengthened and you'd possibly need to increase the wing area to allow for slower speeds.

Getting an f-22 onto a carrier is easy tough, when compared to getting it onto a wasp class assault ships deck and then off of it again, this would need a complete redesign of the aircraft and in the end you'd probably end up manufacturing three very different planes each one with an price tag far above the F-35s.


The f-35 will replace the F-16s, F-18s and the harriers, not the F-15s.

The same way you land an F-14. A navalised F-22 would be extremely effective in it's role as fleet defense.

[Colonelcool125]

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

The same way you land an F-14. A navalised F-22 would be extremely effective in it's role as fleet defense.

The F-14 was designed, AFAIK, from the ground up as a carrier borne plane. Therefore, it would have a lower stall speed and a significantly greater wing area than a land based plane like an F-22. It's not as simple as just putting a plane on a carrier and launching it off the end.

[Hitman.2.5]

you put external pylons on the F-22 and it will loose its supercruise just like the Russian T-50

[Drunkenup]

Originally Posted by Hitman.2.5

you put external pylons on the F-22 and it will loose its supercruise just like the Russian T-50

Make the internal capacity larger, larger wing span, hardened structure, and landing gear, tailhook, and you're ready to go. JK JK.

The OV-10 looks like a worthy contender for a light attack aircraft (But not blown out like the GAU-8 equipped A-10). Just slap on heavier wings, better engines, a GAU-12, more pylons, JDAM capability, etc. Still skeptical about the propeller design.

[[R-MOD]Cp]

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

The same way you land an F-14. A navalised F-22 would be extremely effective in it's role as fleet defense.

Funny that you mention the F-14, as it was the result of a failed attempt at making a fighter for both the airforce and the navy, sort of what you are proposing here (and what they are trying to do with the F-35)

The F-111 was supposed to be used by both the airforce and the navy, but they couldn't build a plane that both meet the airforces requirements and could operate from a carrier for the navy, in the end they scrapped the navy F-111 and built the F-14 instead.

[Hitperson]

Originally Posted by Cp

Funny that you mention the F-14, as it was the result of a failed attempt at making a fighter for both the airforce and the navy, sort of what you are proposing here (and what they are trying to do with the F-35)

The F-111 was supposed to be used by both the airforce and the navy, but they couldn't build a plane that both meet the airforces requirements and could operate from a carrier for the navy, in the end they scrapped the navy F-111 and built the F-14 instead.

but the harrier works in that aspect, they might be hoping for the same result.

[BloodBane611]

Originally Posted by Hitperson

but the harrier works in that aspect, they might be hoping for the same result.

The weight costs of making an aircraft capable of landing on a carrier are fairly significant, but it is possible that a good team of engineers could pull it off.

However, as has been said before, it's not as simple as slapping on a tailhook and dropping onto a carrier. The whole structure of the plane has to be changed to accommodate the greater acceleration at launch/landing, which is no simple task, especially if they want to keep the stealth profile of the F-22.

[Pariel]

Simple story: there will never be a carrier-borne version of the F-22.

Personally, I agree that 6th Generation fighter aircraft will be unmanned. However, we're not there yet, and won't be for at least 25 years.

Now, those of you claiming that the F-35 can't stand up to Russian/Chinese aircraft in the near future probably need to reevaluate. First of all, the Chinese have yet to prove they can design a successful combat airframe. The Russians are just now testing their 5th Generation fighter, and it's unlikely to be deployed this decade. The likelihood of a conventional war with either of those countries in the current time frame seems relatively low, so what we're really worried about is exports. The F-35 is more than capable of dealing with the aircraft that both countries have exported at this point, and the systems can and should be reevaluated as to their capabilities versus 5th Generation aircraft when their export actually appears on the horizon.

[Hitperson]

Originally Posted by [R-COM]BloodBane611

The weight costs of making an aircraft capable of landing on a carrier are fairly significant, but it is possible that a good team of engineers could pull it off.

However, as has been said before, it's not as simple as slapping on a tailhook and dropping onto a carrier. The whole structure of the plane has to be changed to accommodate the greater acceleration at launch/landing, which is no simple task, especially if they want to keep the stealth profile of the F-22.

yeah seeing as you are putting allot of stress on both the forward landing gear and the rear of the airframe.