[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
> Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft...
It may have looked more expensive on paper with ideal assumptions to produce lots of expensive F-22s instead of a few F-22’s and lots of cheaper JSFs. But in practice I bet the costs would have equalized, due to the increased volume of F-22s and the development of extensive institutional knowledge of that airframe - from manufacturing to maintenance to piloting/operating.
In addition, the threats anticipated that led to its development never materialized.
That's why it was cancelled.
What computing technology can't be put into the F-22? Iirc it has a much bigger radar housing, and EO DAS (fancy term for 360 IR / situational awareness) can be added to it.
To answer the parent term - the F-22 was used for air-to-ground in the middle east, so it can definitely fill that role. There was also an attack plane/bomber variant proposed.
With that said, I don't think "its old" holds.
Retrofitting new computing technology into an aircraft is a huge deal. Just getting a data link into it so it can talk to the rest of the DOD has taken over a decade and I’m not sure it’s even complete yet.
Yes, it’s old. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful, the F15 is far older and still in use and will be for decades, but it was more cost effective to put the money into the new platform instead.
I completely understand that it interfaces with the helmet. I also know that it took ages for the F-22 to get a simple FLIR built in, but if even a fraction of the F-35 resources were directed at the F-22, this would all be more than doable quickly.
As far as I am concerned, the selling pitch of the F-35 is the STOVL and EODAS. At that point the F-22 could be fitted for carrier operations, because no one uses VTOL (or plans to) on the F-35 anyway except for moving it around parking lots with no ordinance.
Again, this is ignoring all the political info.
Also, to get more specific, I don't know of any "sensors built into its skin" - EODAS is just a bunch of little pods with thermal cameras and fancy computing. Obviously don't tell me if it's something that's not public knowledge.
The main function of the JSF is situational awareness. The F22 doesn't even have a functional data link yet. JSF has all of it built in from the beginning. Everything you add to an airframe costs millions of dollars, and there's no point in doing it.
STOVL is an important part of the JSF program. The F22 isn't capable of doing STOVL or carrier operations, you don't refit a non-CVN capable aircraft for carrier operations.
F-35's MADL wasn't added to F-22 because Air Force deemed it "not ready to use" and cited maturity problems with the whole stack.
A lot of JSF sensors are to patch over its horrible pilot situational awareness, mostly a legacy of the STOVL variant (which is responsible for most issues) and which exists only because USMC needs it to fight against Imperial Japanese Army in Guadalcanal. Few other purchases of F-35B happened because building a proper carrier would result in political shitstorm (Japan) or because F-35B being supposed to let build carrier more cheaply and when its issues became known it was too late to refit the carrier with catapult (UK).
As for refitting a non-carrier aircraft to be a carrier aircaft - F-18 is the best known case, and its competitor was navalized F-16. As far as I know, there was carrier variant of F-22 in the works as well.
The JSF was designed around sensor fusion to give the pilot situational awareness like no other aircraft.
Stovl has been used by the USMC in every conflict since they got the Harrier. They flew off of highways in OIF. Japan hasn’t purchased the B model yet, they likely will. But the B model has doubled our carrier force by giving the ARG strike capability.
You do not “refit” a non naval aircraft for carrier duty. The f18 was designed as a carrier aircraft from the ground up, and there was never a carrier variant of an F22 except in some people’s fantasies.
You don't usually already produced units to "navalize", but making a derivative is the norm, and was the case for both.
F-22N was proposed but never went far.
As for JSF sensor fusion - the helmet itself comes form pretty bad visibility from the cockpit. Incorporating modern passive sensors was an obvious choice, though.
(I'm still waiting on reports of "sensor fusion finally works", given our local idiots in charge decided to jump on the Lockheed Welfare project)
And outside of F-35, everything talks Link-16 with possible tunnelling/subnetting, and MADL was considered "too immature" to start fitting on F-22 despite Congress "ordering" it.
The JSF's sensor fusion is not a result of "bad visibility". It's how the aircraft was designed.
F22 also does not talk Link 16, for obvious reasons.
Guide the pilot into a suitable position above the landing area. (with visual indicators, much like those for a bombing run) Once the plane is in the right spot, a computer finishes the job with full automation. The aircraft is stalled. The pods fire rockets. The aircraft is guided down and brought to a stop.
This retrofit would be particularly sensible for the F-15, which normally carries conformal fuel tanks. That would be a fine place to install the retrofit.
Sounds like a great thing for a scifi novel, but not useful to do something like that in real life.
The idea is not feasible.
Also your list of "carrier aircraft requirements" is incorrect, the JSF is a single engine aircraft, and landing gear is a major requirement of a carrier aircraft. The F22 is not a naval aircraft, was not designed to be, and never will be.
As produced, the F-22 is obviously not a naval aircraft. The tail hook is single-use, the landing gear is not reinforced, and the more modern stuff for carrier approach is probably not installed. All of that would be easy to change, and in fact a carrier version was proposed.
There is no such thing as "easy to change", you would have to redesign the aircraft from the ground up. You don't "navalize" an air force asset, you have the air force use Naval aircraft if you want dual use. The F22 is not and never will be a carrier aircraft.
Doing that for fighter jets is actually much easier. The speeds are much slower and the distance is much lower.
It's absurd, as anyone who spent 9+ years on CVNs would know...
Obviously there is no reason to bother with vertical landings on a fully functional full-sized US aircraft carrier. This would be for other ships, clearings in jungles, and cleared-out parking lots.
You'd descend toward an area that has been cleared of debris and personal. It's not more absurd than flying toward a ship at 135 kts and expecting to grab a cable without crashing into things and people on deck. Compared to what we do on a CATOBAR ship, rocket-enabled descent is really tame and safe.
Vertical landing with the F-35 isn't exactly safe. This is the standard for comparison. Rockets can respond faster. This allows better stability and faster shut-down.
Vertical landing with the F35 is exactly safe. It's the definition of safe, it's been done thousands of times with zero incidents. It was done hundreds of thousands of times in the Harrier before, and they applied the safety lessons learned from the Harrier to the JSF. How many rockets has spacex lost already?
rockets are for a completely different use case.
This is a ridiculous discussion. It's absurd.
I note that the F-22 was primarily produced in Georgia. That usually isn't a swing state and it doesn't have a lot of representatives in the US House of Representatives.
The F-35 is produced in nearly every state, certainly including all the swing states. This is terribly inefficient, but probably kept the F-35 from being cancelled.