[jki275]

No.

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.

[p_l]

F-22 has datalinks, including the one datalink that appears to be ultimately the only one really used - Link-16.

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.

[jki275]

All incorrect.

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.

[p_l]

The F-18 is navalized YF-17 (specifically, it's based on YF-17 model 267). It's competitor was literally F-16 "navalised" by team up of General Dynamics and Vought Aerospace, with resulting model being Vought Model 1600.

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.

[jki275]

The F18 has some roots in the YF-17 program, but it is not a YF-17. It was a new development effort that used some of the tech developed from the YF-17 program. And even at that, the modern F18 is a totally new aircraft that vaguely resembles the previous models and retains the name for funding and programmatic purposes.

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.

[burfog]

STOVL can certainly be retrofitted the same way lots of things are: as an external pod.

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.

[jki275]

LOL.

Sounds like a great thing for a scifi novel, but not useful to do something like that in real life.

[ohaideredevs]

It's been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO The primary requirement for a carrier jet is two engines, decent thrust, and enough body rigidity to take landings. The F-22 has all that. The MIG-29 had less, and had a carrier version. Same with the SU-27.

[jki275]

JATO is for takeoff, thrust in the aft direction is not the same as trying to rocket assist a landing. Completely different. It's also extremely hard on airframes.

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.

[burfog]

He is correct about carrier aircraft requirements. The navy was forced to accept the JSF.

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.

[jki275]

The Navy spearheaded the JSF for both its CVN fleet and for the USMC. The JSF is not the first single engine Naval aircraft, and its engine is reliable enough that it's not an issue. People look at the tomcat and hornet and make up requirements that have never existed.

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.

[burfog]

This was said about recovering orbital rocket boosters, yet now SpaceX does it most of the time.

Doing that for fighter jets is actually much easier. The speeds are much slower and the distance is much lower.

[jki275]

Carrier decks are not drone ships. People work on them, they conduct hundreds of launch & trap cycles per day.

It's absurd, as anyone who spent 9+ years on CVNs would know...

[burfog]

Oh come on. You're just dismissing it, seemingly with the assumption that we'd have manned aircraft dropping into tight aircraft parking spaces with all the grace of the very first SpaceX landing attempt.

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.

[jki275]

We have aircraft designed to do stovl and do it correctly.

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.