The Douglas A-3 (originally, A3D) Skywarrior, known as the
Whale, offers several insights to modern carrier and aircraft (in particular, a
large, long range air superiority fighter) design.
To briefly review, the Whale was the largest aircraft to
routinely operate from a carrier (the E-2 Hawkeye comes close depending on what
parameter one looks at). With a crew of
3-7, depending on the variant, it filled the roles of strike, nuclear strike, electronic
warfare (EW), tanker, recon, and bomb damage assessment. The ample room in the aircraft afforded great
flexibility in design of the many variants.
The aircraft served from the 1950’s to 1991.
 |
| A-3 Skywarrior |
Interestingly, the A-3 had the most capacity of any Navy
tanker, delivering 29,000 lb of fuel at 460 miles (see, “Navy Aerial Refueling”).
The Navy is currently struggling to develop a tanker with half that
capacity (stated goal of 15,000 lb at 500 miles).
What lessons does the A-3 Skywarrior/Whale offer for today’s
ship and aircraft designs?
Aircraft Weight – A constant claim, today, is that we
can’t operate large tankers, large air superiority fighters, or any large
aircraft because we can’t launch/recover heavy aircraft. This is patently false as the Whale
demonstrated. We not only routinely
operated the Whale from carriers but we did so from post-WWII Essex and Midway
class carriers![1] The steam catapults
of the day were sufficient to launch the 40,000-80,000 lb Whale which leads one
to wonder why we felt we needed EMALS. We
could launch and recover heavy aircraft before.
We didn’t need EMALS and certainly didn’t need it until it was fully
debugged and ready.
Aircraft weight, at least up to that of the Whale, is not a
constraint on modern carrier or aircraft design.
Aircraft Size - There is a common misbelief that we
can’t operate aircraft much larger than a Hornet from a carrier deck. For example, this fallacy is used to argue
against large air superiority fighters. However,
we see from the Whale’s operational history that this is not true. The A-3 was 72 ft long with a 76 ft wingspan
and we managed to operate them from post-WWII Essex and Midway class carriers
up through the supercarriers of the Nimitz class. This doesn’t mean we can have an air wing of
90+ Whale size aircraft but it means we can certainly operate larger aircraft
than we have now (the Hornet). Our
carrier decks are barely half-full. We
can easily operate many more large aircraft.
Payload – Weapons were carried in an internal bomb
bay which demonstrates that large amounts of weapons can be carried internally
on a large fighter – how large, of course, is the question. An AMRAAM is around 360 lbs so, in theory, a
Skywarrior could have carried 33 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles (ignoring actual
launch mechanisms and dimensional constraints).
Carrier Design – The A-3 initially operated from
post-WWII Essex and Midway carriers thus demonstrating that the massive deck of
the Nimitz/Ford is not a requirement to operate large aircraft. We don’t have to constantly design larger and
larger carriers. We simply have to
remember how to operate large air wings on moderate sized carrier decks. Our current air wings are steadily shrinking
while the carriers are steadily increasing in size. What’s wrong with this picture?
Air Superiority
Fighter
Let’s look at the specific case of the air superiority
fighter. As you know, ComNavOps has
proposed a very long range, air superiority fighter and, due to existing
paradigms among commenters, arguments have claimed that it’s not possible to
design a suitably long range fighter and that, if it were possible, the
aircraft would be:
-too large to operate from a carrier
-too heavy to operate from a carrier
-unable to carry enough weapons
and, finally, that if such an aircraft could be built,
there’s no room on a carrier for such an aircraft.
As the Whale routinely demonstrated, we can, and did,
operate large, heavy aircraft from a carrier – larger and heavier than anything
we operate currently. Combined with the
nearly half-size air wings, we have lots of room for large aircraft such as a
long range, air superiority fighter.
Conclusion
We’ve forgotten what we were once had and what we were once capable
of doing and now believe those things to be impossible. The only impossibility seems to be
remembering what we once had.
Routine operation of large, heavy aircraft was long ago
proven. This invalidates the argument
that we can’t operate a large air superiority fighter from a carrier.
The Whale proved that we don’t need EMALS or Advanced
Arresting Gear to operate large, heavy aircraft. The ancient steam catapult and landing gear
were perfectly adequate. We could revert
to the Kitty Hawk carrier design and be perfectly capable of operating many
large air superiority fighters.
So says the Whale!
____________________________
-too heavy to operate from a carrier
-unable to carry enough weapons
The other big bird was the A5 Vigilante, 76ft length, 53 ft wingspan. As far as I recall reading about it, big issue was reliability and maintenance costs but really wasn't an a big problem landing and catapult....Just think, we had a couple of these on board and F14s, E2s and S3s, close to 90 birds total on a carrier....don't see why we can't operate something this big today when we have half the numbers on a carrier....or is USN to afraid to operate and train the crews to do again?
ReplyDeleteSomtimes I wonder if that isn't the big driver, does the USN know something we don't and just doesn't trust the personnel to operate that many birds on a carrier?!?
We're at the point, now, where no one in the Navy has ever seen a full air wing of 90 aircraft so, of course, they don't think it can be done. Their paradigm is an air wing of 60 some aircraft and people will die defending their paradigms rather than admit change. That's what a paradigm is!
DeleteThe real issue is can we "operate a long-range, air superiority fighter" with enough stealth to be effective and suvivable. A navalized F-22 proved to be unfeasible. Hopefully, the F/A-XX will have a range comparable to that of the Skywarrior.
ReplyDelete"A navalized F-22 proved to be unfeasible."
DeleteIt was technically quite feasible but the Navy opted not to pay the cost.
"A navalized F-22 proved to be unfeasible."
ReplyDeleteWhat made it unfeasible?
Lutefisk
For starters, a strengthened fuselage for the harsher take-offs and landings and a larger wing, possibly a swing-wing, to achieve the slower speeds needed for a carrier landing. All of that affects how much fuel and weapons it could carry and how far it could fly.
DeleteNone of that was ever documented to be a problem. The F-22 wing and body is almost identical to the F-35 which has no problem landing on a carrier. Similarly, no engineer ever stated that the F-33 would need a strengthened fuselage, as far as I know. Of course, it's quite likely that the landing gear would have needing beefing up but that's a relatively minor exercise.
DeleteWhat you've read is uninformed people talking in generalities. I'm unaware that any actual carrier landing tests ever occurred using a land based simulation.
My guess is was all about money, it would have been expensive to modify it and USN has never been a fan of taking a USAF jet and trying to navalize it. Plus, it was going against what has been USN philosophy after getting rid of F14: USN wanted multi role smaller fighters like F18, SH and F35. We'll see with this next 6th gen fighter if they break out of that mindset.
DeleteLast, im not sure you need a swing wing anymore with the technology fly by wire and flight algorithms we have today to make the fighter do things considered impossible without a swing wing. F22 being case in point, some of the software is crazy what it can do combining all the flight surfaces and trust vectoring, its all software now. You probably can get it to fly a decent carrier approach without being a SW. It would just need a different software mode.
"None of that was ever documented to be a problem. The F-22 wing and body is almost identical to the F-35 which has no problem landing on a carrier. Similarly, no engineer ever stated that the F-33 would need a strengthened fuselage, as far as I know. Of course, it's quite likely that the landing gear would have needing beefing up but that's a relatively minor exercise."
DeleteYou're comparing apples to oranges, again. The wing area of the F-22 is about 25 percent larger than that of the F-35C and their wings are entirely different from each other. Carrier-based aircraft have numerous unique requirements that don't apply to land-based aircraft.
A couple of snippets from GAO/NSIAD-90-54 Aircraft Development:Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program might help.
Page 20, ”A key factor contributing to the design differences between the ATF and NATF is their different basing requirements. The ATF is designed to operate from land bases, whereas the NATF must operate from the pitching and rolling deck of an aircraft carrier at sea. To be suitable for carrier operations, the NATF must have, among other things, a stronger structure than the ATF to withstand carrier launches and recoveries; excellent low-speed flying qualities tailored to carrier approaches and landings; and size, weight, configuration, and environmental compatibility with carrier operations.”
Page 24, “Consequently, according to the Navy, the NATF must be capable of remaining aloft for long periods and at extended distances from the fleet to provide early warning and protection from encroaching enemy aircraft. Also, it must be capable of carrying and firing long-range weapons. This requires the NATF to have larger wings, more fuel-carrying capacity, and longer-range weapons than the ATF. The larger wing is also compatible with attaining the excellent low-speed flying qualities necessary for carrier approaches and landings.”
One design option to remain “aloft for long periods and at extended distances” and provide “excellent low-speed flying qualities” would be to use a swing-wing like the F-14. Indeed, there have been some artist renderings to that effect. Some artist renderings show the use forward canards.
A couple of more snippets from GAO/NSIAD-90-54 Aircraft Development: Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program to consider.
DeletePage 21, ”For example, the carriers from which the NATF will operate have an elevator load capacity of 130,000 pounds and dimensions of 70 feet by 52 feet. Because the Navy has a design goal of lifting two NATFS on an elevator simultaneously, the Navy has limited the NATF'S size with wings folded to basically that of the F-14 and has limited its takeoff gross weight goal to 65,000 pounds.”
For reference, the F-14 Tomcat had a maximum take-off weight of 74,350 pounds, so there was probably some leeway here.
Page 23, “The NATF must provide the pilot with adequate visibility in addition to low-speed flying qualities to make a safe carrier approach and landing. Steep approach angles, required for carrier landings, demand that the aircraft’s cockpit and front fuselage design provide the pilot with an unobstructed view of the carrier deck and stern. This degree of over-the nose visibility is unnecessary for a land-based aircraft. Consequently, the ATF cockpit, canopy, and front fuselage structure will likely be redesigned to provide the NATF pilot with an increased forward field of view.”
Plus, the ATF was designed as a single-seat fighter, whereas the NATF, like the F-14 it would replace, would probably have been a two-seater. Not a deal killer by itself, but it adds to redesign effort.
Navalizing the F-22, despite what so many think, was never a simple task. In addition to the unique design and flying requirements for carrier aircraft, everything on a land-based aircraft has to be compatible with the harsh maritime environment and that is easy nor inexpensive.
"The wing area of the F-22 is about 25 percent larger than that of the F-35C "
DeleteNothing you've said and nothing in the report you cited is specific to the F-22. It's all been general concepts about the requirements for a carrier aircraft. Nothing has stated that the F-22 can't meet those requirements. Nothing has stated that the F-22 was tested and couldn't meet the requirements.
You note (but may not understand?) the wing area. Wing area is lift. Simplifying (ignoring weight, drag, etc.), the larger the wing area, the greater the lift and the slower the possible approach speed. The F-14 had a wing area of 565 sqft (1008 with body included). The F-35C has a wing area of 668 sqft. Both of those aircraft were/are able to land on a carrier. The F-22 has a wing area of 850 sqft, much greater than F-35C and approaching the F-14 with body included. I haven't seen a lift area of the entire F-22 wing+body. Presumably, it would be somewhere around 1000 sqft, like the F-14. So, there's no reason to believe the F-22 couldn't meet the carrier landing approach speeds. Maybe it can, maybe it can't but nothing I've seen and nothing you've cited demonstrates that. It was never tested and no engineer ever did a calculation that I've seen.
Finally, while a navalized F-22 is an interesting topic, no one is proposing using an exact F-22 with a tailhook glued on. We're looking at the ability to operate large aircraft in the air superiority role since the assumption is that a very long range air superiority aircraft will have to be fairly large. This post demonstrated that large and heavy do not preclude an aircraft from carrier use.
After checking with my inside informants (wiki), I see that the F22 has a wing loading of 77.2 lbs/sq ft.
DeleteThe F4 Phantom had a wing loading of 78 lbs/sq ft.
The F14 had a wing loading of 96 lbs/sq ft. But according to the designer, the aircraft was ingeniously built with the body of the aircraft shaped so that it would provide lift, effectively reducing the wing loading to 48 lbs/sq ft.
I don't know (probably classified) if the F22 has a similar fuselage shaping, but even without that advantage its wing loading is similar to the F4 which managed to land on carriers a couple of times.
Lutefisk
Here are some wing loadings (lb/sqft) using aircraft empty weights (from Wiki). As a general statement, the lower the wing loading, the slower the approach speed. The F-22 is at the lower end of the cluster so it looks fine.
DeleteA-6 Intruder 50.4
F-18E 64.1
F-18C 56.1
F-22 51.6
F-35C 52.4 (35,000 lb, 668 sqft)
F-14 43.4 (43,735 lb, 1008 sqft body area+wing area)
"Nothing you've said and nothing in the report you cited is specific to the F-22. It's all been general concepts about the requirements for a carrier aircraft. Nothing has stated that the F-22 can't meet those requirements. Nothing has stated that the F-22 was tested and couldn't meet the requirements."
DeletePerhaps we didn't need to simulate an F-22 landing on a carrier because every intelligent person knew it was a silly idea that never going to work.
That GAO report is dated March, 1990, a year before the F-22 was selected. True, the report spoke in generalities. But, it outlined fairly specific design changes the Navy needed in order to adopt the ATF for carrier use. Navalizing the ATF was a far more complicated effort then just adding a tail hook and beefing up the landing gear as so many seem to think.
"Navalizing the F-22, despite what so many think, was never a simple task. In addition to the unique design and flying requirements for carrier aircraft, everything on a land-based aircraft has to be compatible with the harsh maritime environment and that is easy nor inexpensive."
DeleteWhether it's navalizing the F-22 or another design from scratch project, the bottom line is that the Navy needs an interceptor/fighter with longer legs than what it has now. We made the whales work 60 years ago, and surely our technology has come a long way since. so there ought to be a way to do it. The problem is whether the USN will see the need and address it. With the increase in carrier size and the reduction in air wing size, we ought to be able to fit it on, and operate from, carriers in numbers.
"That GAO report is dated March, 1990, a year before the F-22 was selected. True, the report spoke in generalities. "
DeleteYour entire basis for doubting the suitability of a navalized F-22 is a report written SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THE FIRST F-22 FLIGHT. Thus, there were NO ACTUAL SPEC'S FOR THE F-22 AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT. IT WAS PURE SEPCULATION and, to be exact, it was generalized speculation and not even speculation about actual projected weights, dimensions, calculated landing speeds, landing angle of attack, wing areas, and wing loading. IT WAS PURE, GENERALIZED SPECULATION THAT DIDN'T EVEN CONCLUDE THAT THE F-22 COULDN'T BE NAVALIZED! It simply noted the general carrier aircraft requirements.
Setting aside that work of fiction, we've presented in the comments actual wing area and wing loading data for the F-22 and other carrier aircraft, none of which suggests the F-22 couldn't be navalized. Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't but nothing in that report and nothing you've offered demonstrates that.
This blog is based on data and logic. Your comment did not rise to that level. Unless you have some additional actual data to present, this line of discussion is probably at an end.
"We made the whales work 60 years ago,"
DeleteWhat Whales??? Who needs Whales? We made the A-6 Intruder with a Wiki-credited 1000+ mile combat radius with max payload!!!!!!!!! It ought to be child's play to create a fighter version with some stealth shaping. With today's more fuel efficient engines and better understanding of aerodynamics, we should be easily able to design a 1000+ mile air superiority fighter.
Didn't we go even bigger once and test a C-130 landing/taking off from a carrier?
ReplyDeleteYes, that was a stunt, though, not a practical operation.
DeleteF-111B Aardvark was the largest and the heaviest aircraft who landed and take off from the aircraft carriers. Sure this type could replace the Whale and Vigilante as long-range bomber aircraft.
ReplyDeleteThe F-14 Tomcat was very close to F-111B Aardvark in weight and size. Tomcat 5th generation models known as F-24 Tomcat II, offered much more space in its internal bomb hatch.
The Navy never can win by the number of aircraft. They should do their planes with longer range of flight, number of points for missiles, better maneuverability and sensors.
Instead of talking number of aircraft, I find it more relevant to talk their spot factor and weight. Here is a spreadsheet I worked up with known air wing compositions over time and MTOW. The helos are missing from the 1991 Gulf War stats. You can see we are light in relation to late cold war wings. Especially with using the CRUDES Helos and COD aircraft as cheaters to add weight. However, the percentage weight has not gone down as much as the number of airframes. Aside from that 80s all F-14/A-6 wing we used to have light attack aboard in substantial numbers and now we don't.
ReplyDeleteWhether the Whale flew from smaller carriers is less relevant than numbers. It maxed out with 10 airframes on a Forrestal back when the fighters were tiny. It's later use in small numbers also didn't necessarily mean it was taking off at MTOW.
Norman Friedman's carriers book has all the stats on the older catapults and landing distances. Reality is we have a much safer carrier today and we should consider aircraft with substantial range which might grow in size.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12UHuyeKp7KMSp_K3D3jQ4Zk9ooN0b2uCGYfz3LpHp1g/edit#gid=0
"We’ve forgotten what we were once had and what we were once capable of doing"
ReplyDeleteIt's like people in the Dark Ages being awed by Roman buildings.
Civilisational decline.
This is exactly what our Navy needs today, but I wouldn't sell it as an air superiority idea. You could have 20 aboard with several options. They could serve as tankers with a removable bladder like the KC-130. They could fill the COD role with twice the payload and three times the range as the clunky MV-22s. Carriers are likely to quickly run low of missiles and supply ships will run behind or fear entering combat zones. Imagine what a flight of 20 KC-3s could carry. And Medevac. In wartime you may need to fly out lots of wounded and fly in replacements.
ReplyDeleteIt could also serve as a bomber to pound an enemy with dumb bombs or glide/smart bombs released a dozen miles from the target. Or carry Tomahawks to triple the attack reach of a carrier.
Its interesting how much disinformstion and/or misunderstanding of facts is out there.... From the size/weight limits of planes and air wings, to "armor makes ships slow", undefeatable, omnipotent hypersonics, and much more... Social media is so full of it. Thankfully that doesnt cause poor DOD decisions, but still, this blog and others are sadly the few places where actual truth is heard...
ReplyDelete"The Whale proved that we don’t need EMALS or Advanced Arresting Gear to operate large, heavy aircraft. The ancient steam catapult and landing gear were perfectly adequate."
ReplyDeleteMost of what I've read about EMALS says that it's better for launching light unmanned aircraft, not large, heavy ones. Of course, that presumes that there is some significant value to light unmanned aircraft in order to justify the EMALS.
We launched the A-4 Skyhawk which has an empty weight of 9800 lb. What aircraft do you see us operating that's lighter than that?
DeleteOnce you get below a certain weight you don't even need a catapult! The empty weight of an F6F Hellcat was 9238 lb and that could take off without a catapult.
EMALS was just magic beans. It offered no real benefits. We just traded massive steam machinery for massive electrical machinery. The significant difference is that we could fix a single down steam cat whereas we have to take ALL the cats down to fix one EMALS. We degraded our overall catapult combat system performance.
The Navy makes these marketing claims (lighter launches) without any actual operating justification and we just jump onboard without critically examining them.
Given that EMALS did poorly on all previous short deployments, I'm trying to follow events for the USS Ford's first six month deployment. Little news as it loiters between Italy and Greece, close to US Navy air stations.
Delete@G2mil. Yeah, Ford has been out for awhile now with not much news....wonder what info we will get when it comes back or will it be just more disingenuous info? Really wish we had a leaker inside USN to pass along real data on Ford.
Delete"wonder what info we will get when it comes back"
DeleteNo need to wonder. We'll get press releases pronouncing it the most successful deployment of all time. They wrote the press releases before they set sail, just to save time.
"We launched the A-4 Skyhawk which has an empty weight of 9800 lb. What aircraft do you see us operating that's lighter than that?"
DeleteI'm not seeing us operating anything. I'm just repeating (and I think refuting) the USN arguments I have seen. I think we agree that EMALS and all the other stuff on the Fords are pretty useless.
"ComNavOps has proposed a very long range, air superiority fighter"
ReplyDeleteThis won't happen unless there are revolutions in engine technology, for instance, scramjet, etc. which enables aircraft to fly higher and faster.
This kind R&D have been going on for many years.
"This won't happen unless there are revolutions"
DeleteA. There are advances in technology all the time. For example, the adaptive engine is being developed. Engines, in general, are becoming ever more fuel efficient. Aircraft materials are becoming ever more lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics understanding is improving all the time and airframes are being designed with less drag and more lift all the time. And so on.
B. We had nearly thousand mile radius aircraft decades ago. It's unrealistic to believe we haven't improved enough over the subsequent decades to design a thousand+ mile radius aircraft today, IF WE MADE THAT A REQUIREMENT.
All evidence indicates that we can design a very long range, air superiority fighter today. The ONLY revolutionary aspect would be ELIMINATING everything from the design that didn't directly support the air superiority mission - in other words, no gold plating with add-on ISR, EW, strike, SEAD, unmanned quarterbacking, etc. that serve only to dilute mission focus and increased cost and weight.
"B. We had nearly thousand mile radius aircraft decades ago"
ReplyDeleteThis.... I know everyone is all about new tech...but again... How hard is it to dust off old plans, and use them as a rough template. Make the largest incremental changes possible, without it becoming a fresh design, and build it!! Its all about the urgency. If only we had some...
If this new long range air defense fighter doesn’t need to be stealthy, then the wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented one more time. The F-111 was the correct design for long range fleet air defense, whether the Navy liked the design or not. That plane was hamstrung by immature and under-powered engines, coupled with 1960s materials limitations. Saving money by using D6AC steel and 7xxx series Aluminum was a very bad idea that should’ve been dropped in favor of Titanium and composites, which General Dynamics and Lockheed tested extensively in the early to mid 1970s, but never incorporated into that airframe. If a 1,200 mile combat radius is vitally important to out-ranging our enemies, then only a fighter roughly the same size as the F-111 has enough internal fuel to do that using existing and thoroughly tested engines.
ReplyDeleteInternal Fuel Capacities (in gallons):
F-111: 5,015
KA-3: 5,000 <- For a 1,200 mile combat radius, this is where you start
YF-23: 3,529
F-15E: 3,475 <- This is where our current heavy fighter is at, with a combat radius of about 790 miles with two external tanks
A-12: 3,136
A-5: 3,100
F-35: 2,941
Super Tomcat 21: 2,721
F-22: 2,647
F-14: 2,353
A-6: 2,344
F-18F: 1,993
Adding 1,500 to 2,000 gallons of internal fuel to a fighter the same size as the F-15 or F-22, is not very practical. It’s not about the weight, it’s the volume required for something that can still maneuver like a fighter. Maybe a very large all bonded composite tailless delta wing design like a twin-engine Boeing X-32 variant, FA-XX, or Lockheed X-44 MANTA could carry around 4,000 gallons, which is still not enough.
How about a major airframe materials / engine / radar upgrade to the only fighter we ever produced that had the combat radius the Navy is after?
kbd512
"The F-111 was the correct design for long range fleet air defense"
DeleteAs you correctly note, the F-111B was a fleet defense INTERCEPTOR not an air superiority fighter. It was intended for anti-ship missile and bomber intercepts.
What is needed now is a pure, long range, air superiority fighter. The F-22 is the conceptual starting point basis for such an aircraft. A naval version of the F-22 with the F-22's air-to-air combat capability, stealth, speed, and maneuverability plus additional range added is what's needed. That is NOT an F-111B.
" the combat radius "
Combat radius can be achieved two ways:
1. With the range inherent in the airframe (high fuel fraction, fuel efficient engines, aerodynamic form, etc.).
2. Combat tankers. For a thousand mile mission, refueling partway to the operation area and then again on the return leg can also achieve the desired combat radius. Unfortunately, we lack a suitable carrier combat tanker. The MQ-25 is entirely inadequate.
By the way, I hope you understand the difference between fuel capacity and fuel fraction and what their impact on range is? I ask because your comment suggests that you may not.
Someone beat me to the punch remembering our first "Joint" aircraft failure in the F-111. 100,000 Lbs. Max Takeoff Weight! Talk about a whale!
ReplyDeleteLoved that CNO remembered the wonderful A-4. During the 80s in San Diego, my neighbor was a retired A-4 pilot. His daughter was the most beautiful, blonde hair, blue eyed girl I ever knew.
But, speaking of old A-4 pilots: It is a testament to the bravery of the late Sen. John McCain (and a black mark on his commanding officers) he was forced to fly strategic bombing missions over North Vietnam in a subsonic, ground attack plane with no Electronic Warfare capability, no RADAR, no anti-missile systems, and only primitive bomb sight technology.
CNO,
ReplyDeleteIf the Navy procures tankers large enough to support long range air superiority missions, then they would have to be about the same size as the F-111 to deliver sufficient fuel, which was still smaller than the KA-3.
F-111B
Empty Weight: 46,100lbs
Internal Fuel Weight: 34,102lbs
Internal Fuel Mass Fraction: 74%
Total weight with 5,015 gallons: 80,202lbs
Max Internal and External Fuel: 8,623 gallons / 58,636lbs
Max Speed with TF30 Engines: Mach 2.2
Service Ceiling: 65,000ft
Range with 6 AIM-54 missiles: 2,100 miles
Ferry Range: 3,200 miles with full internal fuel and a pair of 450 gallon external tanks
Thrust-to-weight with 2 F-135s, 34,102lbs of fuel, and no other changes: 1.07:1
F-22
Empty Weight: 43,340lbs
Internal Fuel Weight: 18,000lbs
Internal Fuel Mass Fraction: 41.5%
Total weight with 5,015 gallons: 77,472lbs
Max Internal and External Fuel: 5,450 gallons / 37,060lbs
Max Speed with F-119 Engines: Mach 2.25
Service Ceiling: 65,000ft
Ferry Range: 2,000 miles
Thrust-to-weight with 2 F-135s, 34,102lbs of fuel, and no other changes: 1.11:1
kbd512
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to say that a tanker must be large, everyone except the Navy understands that a useful combat/mission tanker has to be large.
DeleteCNO,
DeleteIf this new F-22 variant isn’t incredibly structurally and aerodynamically efficient at carrying internal fuel for its missions, then it will require so much tanker support that it will create aviation fuel shortages aboard the carrier. The air wing will require a large tanker for however many F-22s we intend to fly long range missions with, at any given time. I assume the combat tanker will refuel this fighter twice per mission, so the F-22 can achieve the desired range while also remaining stealthy and maneuverable. Each mission would then require a KA-3 tanker or equivalent, carrying 5,000 gallons, which provides 2,647 gallons to refuel the F-22 twice per mission, achieving the stated range goal.
The Nimitz class carries 3,000,000 gallons of aviation fuel. At a burn rate of 7,647 gallons per long range air superiority mission, if we generated 12 sorties per day, the carrier is out of fuel in 32 days. Generating significantly more sorties per day with two embarked squadrons, over more than a handful of days, would be highly impractical without more aviation fuel capacity aboard the carrier and more replenishment oilers. I assume that the rest of the air wing will also be consuming fuel. Alternatively, we’re not flying very many long range air superiority missions per day. If we still need that capability, then perhaps a different approach is required. Better engines would help, but not enough to resolve the carrier’s aviation fuel capacity problem.
I don’t think saddling the F-22 with external fuel tanks is very practical if it’s supposed to remain stealthy and maneuverable, but that would be the only other way to reduce tanker support requirements. External tanks are fine if the mission involves shooting down enemy bombers and cruise missiles, but long range fleet air defense is an interceptor mission, as you noted.
If we attack the enemy's fuel depots and runways first, then we probably don't have to worry about their land-based fighters and bombers flying more than one or two missions. We already have stealthy attack aircraft and cruise missiles specifically designed to do that.
kbd512
"however many F-22s we intend to fly"
DeleteI'm assuming you understand this but, just to be sure, NO ONE is talking about an exact F-22 flying from carriers. The F-22 is referenced as a relevant STARTING point for a long range air superiority carrier fighter design not as the final design. The F-22 has so many of the characteristics we need that it's a good design starting point.
"Each mission would then require a KA-3 tanker"
Missions would require multiple tankers!
" carrier is out of fuel in 32 days."
Carriers don't stand and fight. They sortie, execute a brief, specific mission and then return to base. 32 days worth of fuel is several times more than is needed. If the carrier does need more av fuel, that's what replenishment at sea is for. Tankers routinely resupplied our carriers at sea during WWII. That would not change today.
"I don’t think saddling the F-22 with external fuel tanks is very practical "
Of course it is! On a thousand mile mission, only the last few hundred miles require stealth. The first several hundred miles are, presumably, 'safe'. It's perfectly reasonable to use external tanks initially and drop them as you approach the mission area.
You need to come up to speed on general naval aviation combat concepts.
CNO,
ReplyDeleteNever for a moment did I believe that the actual as-designed F-22 was anything more than a starting point. My point is that there are unavoidable penalties to pay in terms of weight, drag, maneuverability, support requirements, and/or monetary cost, when it comes to designing any kind of long range aircraft, especially ones that deploy from carriers and maneuver like tactical fighters while carrying significant weapons loads. Something has to be sacrificed in order to make what you want achievable. I think it’ll be cost, service life, and number of available aircraft, because the Navy has already accepted those trade-offs.
Flying a pair of tankers to support each long range fighter either means most of your air wing is tankers, or you’re flying few air supremacy missions at any given time. One way or another, there’s a basic numbers problem here. A handful of sorties per day will never defeat an adversary with as many planes as China has. China is a threat by sheer force of arms, in much the same way that America is a threat to China. They have at least as many combat jets and warships as we do. Even if every one of these missions results in a kill, sniping at a handful of their fighters and bombers is not going to deter them from attacking Taiwan. Russia has traded away plenty of aircraft and helicopters. They’re still destroying whatever is left of Ukraine, despite their losses. There’s little reason to believe that the Chinese would balk at losing a few planes per day if it meant they captured or destroyed Taiwan at the end of their campaign. They will replace whatever they’ve lost.
What you’re describing about carrier tactics is probably how aircraft carriers should be used, because it clearly worked well enough during WWII, but it also doesn’t describe any of the actual combat operations that took place during OEF, nor the Viet Nam War for that matter. During OEF, our air wing flew missions every day of the week, for months on end. The only time we stopped flying was when the other carrier that was operating with us, in the same general area, took over during the day or at night, dependent upon rotation. Flight ops lasted for at least 12 hours every day. Flying all or most of the time is at least part of how you establish local air supremacy. After you fly often enough, with enough planes, into at least one generalized area, and have killed everything in the air or on the ground that’s shot back at you, you now have air supremacy. It's not a one-and-done affair and never has been, not even during WWII. If you strike once and leave the area, assuming the strike was successful, that doesn’t establish air supremacy. The enemy will still be there the very next day. If you immediately withdraw and return to port, then you haven’t established air supremacy.
Did our battlegroup move around before and after launching planes?
Yes. Even if we thought someone was almost incapable of finding and attacking us, we wouldn’t make it trivially easy for someone with a map and protractor to draw a straight line from where they spotted our planes, back to our carrier. That’s showing basic respect for the fact that the enemy are also thinking and adaptable, and will counter-attack if the opportunity presents itself. As to whether or not there was ever any real threat of a bunch of terrorists finding and sinking our carrier while it was out in the Indian Ocean conducting flight ops, we didn’t think or operate that way. USS Cole was an object lesson, or at least it was back then. For all I know, they’re right back to acting as if we can’t be attacked, but that was the sort of negligent behavior that allowed such a thing to happen to begin with.
kbd512
"Flying a pair of tankers to support each long range fighter"
Delete????? Tankers support several/dozens of aircraft each. A tanker doesn't completely refuel an aircraft. It 'tops off' the aircraft. Consider ... a plane that has, say, a several hundred mile unrefueled range only needs enough additional fuel to reach the thousand mile mark (if that were the mission). A topping off on the way in and one on the way out is all that's needed. That would still require several tankers but not two for every fighter!
"My point is that there are unavoidable penalties to pay"
Every design of every aircraft, ship, or vehicle is a compromise between the various desired characteristics. That's basic design 101. You seem to be suggesting that we can't achieve an acceptable design and every bit of evidence we have suggests the opposite. We have/had aircraft that pretty much met every design characteristic we want. It's just a matter of combining the various characteristics in an acceptable balance. Adding in the advances we've made in engines, fuel efficiency, aerodynamics, materials, etc., I see no reason why we can't achieve our goal and every reason to believe we can.
"sniping at a handful of their fighter"
That would not normally be a mission. A fighter mission would be for the purpose of establishing temporary LOCAL air superiority in support of some other aspect of an overall mission.
"probably how aircraft carriers should be used"
Of course it is!
"but it also doesn’t describe any of the actual combat operations that took place during OEF, nor the Viet Nam War"
First, those were not naval wars and, second, they were conducted by idiots at both the civilian and uniformed military leadership levels. This blog is about intelligent warfighting.
CNO,
DeleteHere’s what I think will be required to create a fighter similar to the F-22, which can achieve the range target:
1. 8,000hr fatigue life limitation on the airframe, with no possibility of service life extension. CFRP fatigues when highly loaded, despite claims to the contrary, it’s just very difficult to predict when a part will fail because it involves fibers breaking within or pulling away from the resin matrix.
2. Minimize Titanium use to reduce the structural mass fraction. The aft fuselage is where it’s actually required. A more expensive stainless martensitic ultra high strength steel like Aermet 100 could replace the weaker Titanium forgings. It’s about 30% more expensive than Titanium, but has a very high yield strength, ductility, and corrosion resistance. The F-22 uses 140ksi machined Titanium forgings or plate stock, with a few Titanium castings or HIP parts, to save cost. Aermet 100 can be heat treated to 240ksi and still retain its ductility, and has a higher service temperature limit than Titanium. There’s about 9,000lbs of Titanium in the F-22. Aermet 100 and CFRP can probably save 2,500lbs. We need larger wings and fuselage to carry enough fuel, so the apparent weight savings won’t be so dramatic, until internal volume is considered.
3. Double the fuel tank volume of the wings from 375 gallons to 750 gallons of fuel per wing.
4. Increase total fuselage tank volume by 500 gallons, bringing total internal capacity up to 4,332 gallons.
5. Reduce fuel burn by 25% by optimizing engine efficiency for subsonic cruise, which is what the AETP prototypes have promised.
6. Replace the traditional Copper wiring with Copper-doped CNT with BNNT insulation. This saves about 1,000lbs of weight, because there’s that much wiring, especially if we use the F-35’s electro-hydraulic actuators. CNT and BNNT are very expensive, only used in military satellites at the present time. CNT is very flexible and exceptionally difficult to cut. Bulk Copper-doped CNT is only as conductive as pure Copper, but at reduced weight.
7. The wings are now an all-bonded composite like the X-32’s wing was, so NDI will require very expensive tools. If they’re ever damaged in combat, repair is only practical at the factory, if at all.
8. Stop demanding so much bleed air from the engines to avoid prematurely burning out the hot sections for lack of cooling airflow, which is what they’re doing to the F-135s right now. This will mean less IR stealth, a slightly reduced top speed, and less cooling power for electronics. More modern electronics will help.
Fuel burn rate: 11.625lbs / mile (adaptive cycle engines)
Internal fuel range: 2,534, no reserves
Empty weight: 40,000lbs
Weight with full internal fuel: 69,458lbs
A pair of 600 gallon external tanks can be used to preclude the need for tanker support, assuming they're punched off when empty. Weapons load assumed to be 2,600lbs or less (6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9). Weight remains within the operating limits of the catapults and arresting gear. We haven’t demanded more from the airframe, engines, or carrier equipment than they can deliver, and haven’t sacrificed too much maneuverability to achieve the desired range. This looks completely doable, if cost is ignored.
kbd512
That's interesting. I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I can't assess the validity of your suggestions but I'll assume they're valid. However, the focus on range/weight/materials fails to address the key parameters or does so only indirectly. The key parameters are:
DeleteWeapons Load - MUST carry a mix of 12 missiles internally. Perhaps 6 AIM-120 and 6 AIM-9 or, more likely, 4 AIM-120 and 8 AIM-9? Stealth v stealth air combat requires large numbers of missiles. Radar locks will be very difficult (unlikely) to secure, hence, the emphasis on IR.
Maneuverability - This enables successful close range A2A maneuvering which is what stealth v stealth will devolve to.
Power - This aids momentary A2A maneuvering.
Stealth - Goes without saying.
The F-22 currently has the A2A maneuvering but lacks the internal weapons capacity and the range although external tanks and/or tanking mitigates the range issue.
Note that catapult weight is not an issue. Aircraft rarely (never?) take off with a full weapons and fuel load. They take off light on fuel and top off before heading off on the mission. Thus, your value of 69k lbs with full fuel would never been an operational condition.