WI: USN/USAF/USMC standardize fighters WWII-present

Could the F-22 operate off of carriers?

  • Yes, with modifications

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • No

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Doesn't matter. The F-35 is a better dogfighter, and cheaper too

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8
Ok, the idea is to have the US Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps use the same fighter as a matter of policy starting in WWII. The advantages are simple enough: lower research and development costs, more standardization of training and maintenence, etc. OTL the USN and USAF both used the F-4 as their primary fighter in the 70s until the F-teens came along.

My own idea is for the F4U to get put into production earlier and get into action in the Pacific with the USN/USMC. Once the USAAF sees how effective the Corsair is, they decide to hang drop tanks on it and use it as an escort, later turning it into a strike fighter as well. The air superiority role can be left to the Spitfire.

In the 40s/50s, the Navy can decide to stay with the FJ-2, the F-86's naval cousin, instead of the F9F and F7U. In the 60s/70s, go with the F-4 as in OTL.

In the late 70s, the USN/USMC can adopt a naval variant of the F-15. The thing is built like a tank and has plenty of power to get it off the deck.

The problem is with the 5th gen fighters. The Raptor may be able to handle carrier takeoffs, but I'm worried that reinforcing the structure for carrier landings will affect performance. And I remember reading that the sea air and rough conditions really did a number on the stealth coating. Is there a way to solve these problems, or is another design in order?
 
IIRC this was attempted with the F-4 Phantom.

EDIT: You addressed this in the OP, I see that now. Whoops.

Right now it seems to be the goal of the F-35 program.

There was talk of a navalized F-22 in the early 1990s but that never really went beyond the concept stage, from what I recall.
 
Last edited:
Taking naval aircraft and using them as land based has worked well, the other way around not so much. Once we get in to jets, the Navy prefers aircraft with two engines as much as possible, this has not been exclusive but the majority. Issues of structural strength, special problems with landing gear, corrosion resistance and more apply to naval aircraft. The FJ-2 was a stopgap measure. For the Brits, the experience with the Sea Hurricane and Seafire, adapting them for naval use, were less than optimal. The naval version of the F-35 has significant differences between that model and the USAF model.

Commonality of USAF and USN/USMC tactical aircraft is a continuing holy grail. When this has worked, with the F-4 and the A-7 navy to air force. Going the other way really hasn't worked. Do note that several air forces used the A-4, most notably the Israelis, as a land based attack aircraft - again navy to land.
 
But no Navy Fighter would have worked with SAGE Ground Control for ADC use. The F-101/F-102/F-106 had a couple tons of vacuum tube electronics to allow that early network link
 
@marathag : I agree, point is the services had some missions that overlapped, and others that were pretty distinct. Therefore, some aircraft that overlapped, many did not - get the right aircraft for the right mission
 
Why can’t the USAF adopt the F/A-18 as well? It is a multi function aircraft. It could replace the OTL F-16.
What do you think about “the last of the gunfighters” The F-8 Crusader in Air Force use?
 
IIRC one of the reasons YF-22 was chosen over YF-23 was easier navalization. Stealthiness might have been affected by maritime conditions, but that could be balanced out by the Navy having a more Soviet-style fighter doctrine emphasizing maneuverability, missiles, and active electronics over stealth.
 
Top