Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Touts Fighter Jet To Rival F-35 — At Half the Price
An anonymous reader sends this news from the CBC:
"In a dogfight of defense contractors, the hunter can quickly become the hunted. It's happening now to the F-35. The world's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, is trying to convince wavering U.S. allies — including Canada — to stick with its high-tech, high-priced and unproven F-35 stealth fighter. But the F-35 is way behind schedule, way over budget and, now, it's grounded by a mysterious crack in a turbine fan. After years of technical problems, it's a tempting target for Lockheed Martin's rivals. It's no surprise, then, that the No. 2 defense contractor, Boeing, smells blood... The Super Hornet, it says, is a proven fighter while the F-35 is just a concept — and an expensive one at that. ... The Super Hornet currently sells for about $55 million U.S. apiece; the Pentagon expects the F-35 to cost twice as much — about $110 million."
I hope they're being sold as "batteries not included"
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
If you bothered to RTFA, you'd see that 500 superhornets are in active service right now. The "Superhornet" isn't really that new and it has issues such as it is still too-short ranged although an improvement over the original F-18, and it suffers from the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none capability profile. However, it is real, it is proven, and it can likely receive some halfway decent upgrades without costing anywhere near as much as the F-35.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Boeing has also been pushing the Silent Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle Which might be an even better choice for Canada. The thing is that Defending Canada is not that high of a priority of the Canadian military. It is working as part of NATO and for that the F-35 will be better. BTW this history of problems and doubt about aircraft is not new. Happened with the F-14, F-15, F-18, B-1, C-5, C-17, Apache, and so on. New airplanes have more problems than older aircraft.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Reaper drones run about 37 million per unit, it'd be interesting to see simulations of 3 reapers vs an F-35.
Sounds expensive!
The FA-18 has always been the underdog. When it was the concept fighter YF-17 it lost out to the F-16 from General Dynamics but the twin engines and the rugged features were a hit for the Navy, so that became the FA-18 now in it's Super Hornet edition, it is a very, very capable aircraft. What amazes me is that the F-35 program for all the promises hasn't been cut or curtailed. It still goes to show that McDonnel Douglas knew how to build planes and I'm still going to be sad when all those MD80, MD83s etc. all get sent out to pasture to. It reminds me of the Monty Python scene from "The Holy Grail" I'm not dead yet. And like Lazarus it keeps getting brought back from the dead.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Sure the FA-18 has been a proven aircraft for some time, and IMHO should continue to be produced after the F-35 is flying, but it doesn't fit all the roles the F-35 is supposed to (I question that capability too). The F-18 has no vertical takeoff capability and upgrading to the same level of avionics I'm sure they are putting in the F-35 would be very costly.
Ultimately the biggest advantage of the FA-18 is it handles its role quite well but it also dosen't try to do as much as the F-35 is. Though I'd like to see either aircraft actually do the job of an A-10...
We do not need either of these jets, in fact the smart money would be spent on faster drones with improved range, optics/sensors and payload capabilities, spend the big money on launching the satellites you need to run the show.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"Batteries not included."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
From a Canadian perspective the big advantages of going with the Super Hornet is backwards compatibility (even more-so than the lower price).
- The Super Hornet is compatible with the current RCAF in-air refuelling technology
- The Super Hornet technology is an upgrade to what we already have - our techs are compatible / familiar with it
- The Super Hornet does not require longer runways for landing - our remote arctic runways are compatible
- The Super Hornet has landing gear better suited for icy runways - our weather is compatible
It's not as stealthy but we are a defensive military.
- The Super Hornet is also half the price.
The Harper Government has a hard-on for the F35 and the Canadian public really has no idea WHY.
Unintentional irony: "... it suffers from the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none capability profile." The F-35 has this FAR worse. At least the SH doesn't have the grossly-compromised aerodynamics of the F-35.
I have often have doubts whether these fighter planes really have any use nowadays. Especially dogfighting seems to be a bit outdated in times of cheap shoulder launched surface to air missiles. Moreover, there are drones, cruise missiles, etc. These planes look a lot like super-expensive adult toys to me. Could someone who knows more about military strategy explain to me for what purposes these kinds of planes are needed? What is the strategy behind them? What about cost/benefits? Is such a plane capable of evading the amount of modern surface to air missiles you could buy for its price?
No attempt to troll, I'm honestly interested.
Um, what? The Super Hornet has been over 500 deliveries and has been flying since the 1990s. It's been in service with the US and Australia for years. It's a known quantity.
About the only downside is that it isn't as stealthy. For half the price, both purchase *and* operational costs, the reliability of a two-engine aircraft rather than single-engine, and given the fact that the current Canadian front-line jet fighter is the F-18, it's a no-brainer. Ditch the F-35 and pocket the rest either as savings or to buy some drones.
Half the price for the piece of paper with the specs on it. But like the dreamliner, Boeing will deliver late, overbudget, and with serious issues forcing it to be grounded. Cos that's how it works. The more you pay, the less you get.
Really? The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement.
Ezekiel 23:20
We are approaching a limit here, where the cost of a single advanced fighter equals the national budget. Before we reach that limit, the price will go high enough to make it too expensive to ever actually risk an advanced fighter in actual combat - couldn't afford to lose one...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Just like the Flanker and Fulcrum families of Russian jets. And still good enough to give Rafales and Typhoons a run for their money.
since when is the government concerned with the price of anything?
For what it's worth, the Super Hornet shares very little with the original Hornet. It's only called the Super Hornet because it was easier to sell it as an "upgrade" instead of a new aircraft.
I read the internet for the articles.
Exactly like the Flanker and Fulcrum -- note that Russia's putting lots of money into the PAKFA, for the same reason. There was a big burst of fighter aircraft design that came to a peak in the mid-seventies, and now there's another one coming to a peak around now.
The F-35 outperforms the superhornet even if the SH is slicked off, lubed up, and going down-hill with another SH pushing it
Not if it doesn't fly...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
From the inception, the F-35 seemed to me like it was doomed to failure.
It was a massive development project which was set up in such a way as to try to convince allies to buy this plane before any existed and have them fund the development. It was supposed to have several different variants including a VTOL one.
It's been plagued with cost overruns, delays, and almost everything else. It's always struck me as an obscenely expensive plane with a lot of risks, and as countries are starting to ask "do we really want this", it could leave those still in the program with mounting costs since it's no longer being paid for by as many governments.
From the start, this was a program designed to get everybody to help pay for a pie-in-the-sky plane which was completely unproven. This is just a program to line the contractor's pockets, and for the US to try to get someone else to help pay for it.
Unfortunately, a lot of people warned about how this would happen, but they got ignored. If anybody thinks this it's a surprise that F-35 program has been ridiculously expensive with very little results, they haven't been paying attention. And unless Boeing already has a plane in the works, I'm not sure I'd believe their claims of being able to do it cheaper any more than Lockheed's.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Except for the whole, if one engine dies in the Hornet/Super Hornet you can fly home of the spare one. If one engine dies on the F35, your in the drink.
We have zero need for advanced dogfighter and air superiority craft currently. What foreign power are we planning to dogfight against? Over what potential enemy do we not already have complete air superiority?
I can't really blame the aerospace companies though. The government said "Here's a couple billion $$ to build some war-planes," without ever putting critical thought into whether or not we actually NEED a billion dollars worth of war-planes. But Lockheed isn't really going to argue, so they start building $100m warplanes. Why not divert some of that funding to space or sea exploration. Sure, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc aren't exactly in that business right now. They might not have the engineering skillset for space or sea, but I guarantee if the government offered up a billion dollar contract to build a better lunar rover, those guys would become experts very quickly.
This signature is false.
That's because the FA-18 used the normal aquisitions process and not the F-22/F-35's "design and build at the same time" process.
The F-22/F-35 should have been finalized instead of the US Government shelling out megabucks for flying prototypes.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Half the price for the piece of paper with the specs on it.
Except for the fact that its already flying, since 1995, and Boeing already delivers the Super Hornet at the price quoted and they are flying and in servicewith other export countries.since 2009. So perhaps attacking it as non-existant is not the most usefulgiven that its been flying for 17 years, operational for 12 in the US and 3 with export customers. Better would be to question the relative utility and cost of the two airframes.
Or even better ask why this is on Slashdot now? The general trend has been happening for a few years nowcountries have expressed interest in Super Hornets as a gap filler for the F-35 delays (or if they couldn't get on the early F-35 production schedule or couldn't afford it at the original price). For the last few years the trade press is full of articles of countries considering increasing (or making new) Super Hornet orders and backing out of their F-35 commitment.
Why buy either plane???? The F-35 is a dog and keeps getting grounded and has yet to see a day a service. We're talking hundreds of billions on a plane there's serious question whether we need it at all! Drones are cheaper and save pilots lives and the biggest claim against them so far is they are doing too good a job at taking out targets.
Where's the open source 3-d printed fighter jet project? Should I go ahead and start the Kickstarter project for that?
Half the price, okay, but still... I remember when the F-18 started out as the YF-17, which I read about first back when I was in junior high -- in 1975 -- and the design dates back into the 60's. Actually "half the price" for an aircraft design that is 40 years old seems kind of expensive.
Proverbs 21:19
It's welfare for the wealthy. It's yet another overblown, overbudget money pit to keep the Military Industrial Complex employed and well-funded, while Congress tries to cut every social program, including the FDA, because the country is broke.
Can someone explain to me why we have 50 million hungry in America, including 17 million children, while we lavish billions that will stretch into the trillions, for a fighter plane we don't need.
If the name of the country I was describing was "Sudan" or "Chad", where they buy weapons while the people starve, there would be outrage, concerts to raise awareness and funds for food, the UN would be making disparaging statements about the banana republic and its dictator, etc.
But because the name of the country is the USA, it's "Business as Usual". No corruption here, just because the engine for this PoS is built in Ohio, the state of the Speaker of the House (note you'll never hear that mentioned when he talks about wasteful spending).
We've got plenty of money to make war, and not a cent for caring for the citizens of this nation, nor our own infrastructure.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Is that not the exact requirements for the F35? I believe this has been the number one concern regarding them, and apparently much of the overruns are due to having to satisfy so many masters and have so many varients.
It's already flying.
The F-18 was a complete boondoggle. I'm going from memory, but IIRC it was born out of a competition for a single aircraft to serve both Air Force and Navy (sound familiar so far?). The design that would become the F-16 won, but the Navy wanted a second engine so we ended up building TWO fighters. F-16 development went fairly well, but the F-18 proved to cost far more than initially thought as the specs changed underneath of it. A major design iteration (redesign?) resulted in the Super Hornet, and both configurations currently fly. But the path was not smooth or cheap.
If anything, the F/A-18 program shows how iterative design is generally smoother and more cost effective than a clean sheet design. Other examples include the gradual changes that keep the 747 and 727 viable, versus the 787 or A-380 programs.
Not that a clean sheet design is doomed - you have programs like the 777, which went pretty well. And sometimes the technology changes significantly enough that iterative design will no longer result in acceptable performance. I'm not sure what it would have cost to modify the F/A-18 to include stealth and internal weapons, but I'm betting it wouldn't have been cheap. And it almost certainly would not have produced a VTOL version.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The F-35 doesn't suffer from 'jack of all trades' anything. It has one trade: It's a strike fighter, and it will be good at this role. All other roles are secondary
Isn't that why it underperforms the F/A-18E as delivered? Not only is it slower and less maneuverable, it also carries less weaponry. Just about the only edge it will have over the Super Hornet is in avionics, and those can be installed in the Hornet via the proposed upgrade.
Or ask them about Wedgetail, the AWACS-like aircraft for Australia, they won over competitors Lockheed and Raytheon E-Systems. After a few years, the Australian government was back begging for the losers to re-submit their bids, because Boeing was a day late and a dollar short.
The list is nearly endless. The Minuteman missile bid is infamous: when the government asked for Boeing to provide a basis for the bid they submitted, Boeing pointed to two boxcars of data, not sorted into any particular order. At the time, they weren't required to structure data so anyone could make sense of it, and they hadn't. The government was stuck with their bid, because it was the lowest, and they had cleverly found a loophole which allowed them to not tell the government what the government got for the price quoted.
To give credit where it is due, the government did have the common sense to close that loophole.
Your history is a bit off (it's more like you are talking about the F-111 fiasco) - the YF-17 lost to the YF-16 in the USAFs lightweight fighter competition. The navy needed a new fighter, and were told to look at the YF-17 as a base, which was developed into the F-18.
My in the drink? Please explain.
In an often debated subject of military acquisition disasters Boeing won't do anything unless there is a check in it for them. This is a sour grapes in many ways since Boeing lost out on the contract for the F35, but Boeing hasn't forgotten what happened to Northrop with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark#FX_stumbles_and_F-20_emerges program.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Want to make fighter jet more effective and orders of magnitude less expensive? Remove the pilot! Manned fighters are soon to be a thing of the past. (Long range bombers probably still need to be manned.) Sure, communications and control can be cut off... but a manned fighter can't take any action without checking with control first either!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The F-18 was a complete boondoggle.
Agreed. The F/A-18 was supposed to be the navy's "low cost" fighter, as opposed to the "high cost" F-14. However, the original F/A-18 versions could only, amongst many other shortcomings, fly far enough to refuel. The whole thing was a bill of goods. When the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornets" were finally produced they cost as much as the F-14D, but still didn't have as much range or other capabilities. And while the F-14 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter, when they made a few mods to it it proved itself not only a better fighter than any F/A-18 but a better ground attack plane as well. There are reasons the first navy aircraft to hit Afghanistan were F-14's, even though that was a few years after the navy had adopted their new whiz-bang "Super Hornets".
The F-35 outperforms the superhornet even if the SH is slicked off, lubed up, and going down-hill with another SH pushing it.
You'd have known that if you actually had a look at the performance charts of the SH (no, they aren't classified).
The F-35 doesn't suffer from 'jack of all trades' anything. It has one trade: It's a strike fighter, and it will be good at this role. All other roles are secondary.
Nothing, and I mean nothing like your claim shows up in examining this. The F35 doesn't have performance advantages, its weapon loads and range are not vastly in another league, its power to weight and other performance metrics don't show this, and it may only be in systems, or avionics and stealth where it is ahead. And the feedback in testing is that its not an inspiring fighter plane. Which isn't great feedback given that its job and cost are both focused on that.
We`re all equal
It's already flying.
Not in combat it's not. Same with the F-22. Sexy technology that wasn't used in the last 12 years of tactical bombing of a country with no fighters or anti-air infrastructure. Even the B-2 saw action.
"Isn't as stealty" is an understatement. The SH has no significant stealth technology. It is a 1970's design that is supped up. It's a great plane for it's era, but it isn't going to survive the next 50 years in the expected high-threat environment.
In any place where the environment is protected by SAMS the SH requires jamming and perhaps Wild Weasel type missions to accompany it. F35 wont require that.
The other thing I don't get. We already HAVE the SH deployed. Why will we buy more of the same?
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The main problem I have with the F35, besides the ridiculous cost, is that it's another idiotic single engine fighter like the F16 (lawn dart) which is so wrong for a combat aircraft. Redundancy is everything in a combat aircraft and when you lose an engine in a single seater the only option is to grab the eject handles. The number of F16's that could have survived if they had just had that extra powerplant I don't know but I do know that they crash at an unhealthy rate, over 342 according to an article I read back in 2011. I see no reason to believe the F35 with one engine will do any better. Especially if they can't figure what's up with the tubine blade problem. I think the F35 is just Lawn Dart 2.0
Can they actually deliver it for that price.
The F-22 hasn't been flown because we haven't been involved in a conflict where air superiority was a requirement of the mission. If/when that happens, like in a conflict with Russia, China, Iran, or...who knows, Germany could go all batshit crazy again and start invading other countries, the F-22 will be used.
As for the F-35, it's not flying combat sorties yet, because it's still in the testing phase. In another couple years, once it's ready, it will more than fulfill the roles it's intended to fulfill.
appalling inefficiency of Boeing's design process in deliberately leaving unused space on the F-18 for future upgrades ($$$).
What you call "Appalling inefficiency" I call 'looking ahead'. With an average service life of 30 years or more, you KNOW components and upgrades are going to come down, and if you already have some space, putting them in becomes a whole lot easier, not to mention cheaper.
One example I can think of would be for installing new communication systems.
I don't read AC A human right
That's not the F-35s fault, that's the fault of the armed services that decided to buy one aircraft platform that would do basically everything.
Nothing the DOD buys costs what they say it will.
it suffers from the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none capability profile
maybe they should rename it the Yellow Jacket of All Trades
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
It's kind of sobering to realize that no fighter coverage of something like Afghanistan would be possible with the F-14 now retired. You'd have to rely on the radar-evading capabilities of the B-2, or bases in neighboring countries. They do have the "buddy tanker" capability on the F/A-18, so maybe that mitigates things somewhat.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
yep, SH flys now. F35 may be better but too expensive (many in DoD are having doubts). You all readers know what that's like, there is a much better car than what you are driving right now. How come you don't get it? Because you cannot afford it and you will never buy it. Stop making plans using something you will never get.
mfwright@batnet.com
We need the F-22 for when we enter World War III. Until then, we need to be paranoid about secrecy. Every time you fly over enemy territory, you risk that the plane will fall into enemy hands. They may get a lucky shot, perhaps the pilot suffers a stroke, perhaps birds get sucked into the engines...
Life is faster than it was 70 years ago. You can't expect to design and build many thousands of fighters in the middle of the conflict. You also can't rely on drones, because the first thing that happens in World War III is the loss of all satellites. Building 5000 of the F-22 would be a good start; note that the price plunges as production goes up.
For mundane conflicts, the Super Hornet and the Silent Eagle are excellent choices. They get the job done without risking exposure of the most important secrets.
The F-22 hasn't been flown because we haven't been involved in a conflict where air superiority was a requirement of the mission. If/when that happens, like in a conflict with Russia, China, Iran, or...who knows, Germany could go all batshit crazy again and start invading other countries, the F-22 will be used.
As for the F-35, it's not flying combat sorties yet, because it's still in the testing phase. In another couple years, once it's ready, it will more than fulfill the roles it's intended to fulfill.
Of course it will -- because it's operating specs keep getting downgraded to match the capabilities of the plane. When the specs get reduced to "Must park on runway with its nose pointed in the general direction of the enemy", then it will be in full compliance with its required specs.
If the current operating specs were put out to bid today, what would the proposals look like?
Canada will be invaded by Siberians and Mongolians looking for a more hospitable climate :D
The "declaration of war" is made by blowing satellites to bits. Without any satellites, the Reaper can't fly very far from the runway before running out of signal. (if even that... will it even fully power up without GPS lock and a verified long-range communications link?)
World War III will not be fought with drones.
Every Super Hornet has been delivered on time and on budget. The same cannot be said about the F-35, which is already two years late, and is expected to be between 7-8 years late at the moment.
The F-117 Stealth Fighter used Wild Weasels and Jamming aircraft, as far back as the Gulf War as standard operating procedure. That won't change with the F-35.
The F-117 that was shot down in Serbia, was done with a SAM site from the 1960's (with 1950's tech) on a mission where their normal escort was not sent up with them.
Agreed. The F/A-18 was supposed to be the navy's "low cost" fighter, as opposed to the "high cost" F-14. However, the original F/A-18 versions ....
So you want an airplane that's twice as expensive, twice as heavy, and twice as likely to fail? Maybe there's a difference between the F-35 and F-22 designs for the same reason that there's a difference between the F-16 and F-15 designs. Perhaps, stupid fuck, aircraft are designed for the mission.
The first thing to happen in World War III will be satallite destruction on a grand scale. The drones will be without normal communication and navigation. Do they even have HF radios and star navigation? HF radios are too damn low bandwidth to support video feeds.
The drone will be in fail-safe mode due to loss of communication link. The satellites go bye-bye the instant World War II starts. The drone might not even come home successfully without GPS.
most of the Super Hornets drawbacks stem from teh fact that it isnt new. Its an upgrade of the Hornet; refreshed avionics, tweaked aerodynamics (chiefly around the inlets), etc. But essentially still airframes that date from the mid 80's at best (since upgrades tend to be just that: old airframes with new parts....few of them are totally new manufacture from the ground up). Any additional Super Hornets will likely be new made, since all the original hornets have either been upgraded or boneyarded by now. but new made with older gear.
so like said: its main drawvbacks are around its age, and though more and newer upgrades can be performed its
-not stealthy
-doesnt have the range needed for the Air Force
-cannot replace the Harrier for the Marines
-has older/less capable avionics (compared to the new shinies)
and so on.
will more Super Hornet purchases happen? Unlikely.
The Air Force, while its fleet is aging and any new SH's will truly be new made, has penty of multirole F-16s and 15s. The SH isnt really designed for Air Superiorty, though capable of it (just not as capable as dedicated designs like the F15 and 22), and isnt really needed to supplement the 15s and 22s in that role.
For the Navy, they dont lack for SH's already; they have em. What the navy wanted was naval stealth supplement, much like the 22 and 35 were to supplement the lower tech 15s and 16 for the air force. (a total stealth force while nice, is prohibitively expensive and most planners agree not economically feasible for the forseeable future). What they navy also currently lacks is a dedicated air superiority plane, since the retirement of the F14. The 18s have fulfilling that role, but they arent dedicated to it, and arent as capable as even the 14s were (remember the 14 was designed quite literally around the PHeonix missile, which itself was tailor made for the navy, to stop enemy planes far far away from the fleet to keep them from threatening the fleet with anti-ship missiles). a navalized 22 has been talked about, and the navy has proposals and requests for ideas out about a dedicated AS plane, but so far its still not moved past the talking phase.
The Marines also already have SH's, and again, what they were looking to get from the 35 was a replacement for the Harrier that is due to leave service very soon. That's why the Marine version had VTOL ability, so it could operate off the same LHA's and LHD's, alongside our helos, that the Harrier did. The stealth being an added bonus as frequently the Marine MEU's dont have Air Force Stealth squadrons to make a pre-strike run for them and clear the airspace before they go in (which is standard AF procedure when stealth aircraft are available).
So i dont really expect to see many more SH's purchased by the US unless the 35 program completely falls through, which simply isnt that likely
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
turbine engines are also a whole helluva lot more reliable, by multiple orders of magnatude, than when the Navy SOP was to require two turbines for that reason. Navy hasnt had a hard on for that since the mid 70s (reason they picked the YF-17 to become the F-18 after it lost to the F16 for the air force competition). and even then analysts were pointing out the two engine requirement likely wasnt that necessary anymore, for the same reason.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
you KNOW components and upgrades are going to come down
That may be true of the general public consumer market, but it is not true for defense. With the public you can get away with any cheap chinese manufacturer of your choice. In defense you can't do that. So when an authorized supplier decides to stop selling you the screws you previously ordered, guess what, you now have to find a new authorized supplier. That means over time maintenance costs for military applications *goes up* especially as more of the supply chain today is overseas and parts are obsoleted.
incorrect. the F-117 went in first and killed known strategic targets, including SAM sites, without any backup. It was designed for, and performed in, an unsupported first strike role for the duration of the conflict. the very first aircraft sortie of the gulf war was a flight of 117s hitting high value/threat targets.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
About 15 years ago, Grumman made a similar proposal; to build F-14s for half the cost of the F/A-18s. In that case, like this one, the F-14 was a faster, more capable platform than the F/A-18. The DOD response was to order Grumman to destroy all the F-14 jigs, so that they could never possibly build another one. I suspect the same will happen now.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
and that one that got shot down in Serbia was a lucky shot. it wasnt detected or tracked by the radar. but if you knew anything at all about Russian designed SAM installations, which they were using there, the systems as one of its redundancies includes not jsut the radar tracker, but also proximity fuses, including magnetic type, and a master detonate-on-command switch as well. that sam site launched every missile they had loaded, and the operator manually detonated the warheads when his spread of missiles reached a proper height. essentially he recreated the old WWII scneria of throwing upa curtain of flak (shrapnel) for the plane to fly through.
your facts are wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A lot of ignorance in your post. The Marines do not have Super Hornets. They have legacy Hornets; A+, C, D. The F-35 is supposed to be a replacement for the Harrier and the Hornet. Also, strike into an Integrated Air Defense system is not one of the six functions of Marine Corps aviation (MCWP-3-2: Aviation Operations).
In order to conduct an amphibious operation and close air support, you need to have air superiority. In a small war it's probably a given because the enemy isn't a nation state with advanced technology. If the enemy has a chance of gaining local air superiority for even a minute, you can assume the Marines won't be taking that beach all by themselves. There will be Air Force and Navy covering that landing.
On the JSF, VTOL is a Marine requirement, but I doubt the Marines were pushing stealth. My main criticism of the JSF is it's an "all eggs in one basket" approach. Without a viable fallback option the Marines could wind up being a helicopter-only force, especially as more and more legacy Hornets reach their end of life. I'm not bashing the JSF in any way, but the program is risky. The military has a poor track record of managing risky projects, especially joint ones..
The F-14's were delivered in the 1970's. Then instead of ordering new F-14's in the 1990's they ordered the "we stop for JP-5" Hornets in the 1990's. You're comparing the maintenance requirements and failure rates of brand new airplanes to ones that had been in constant service for 20 years.
And the F/A-18E managed to nearly halve the F/A-18's numbers.
So creating an F-14E model couldn't have done the same? 20-30 years of improvements in electronics and software technology can make that a lot easier.
So Grumman would have had to make some maintainability/reliability improvements to the F-14, while McDonnell Douglas had to completely redesign their F/A-18 to give it enough range to get close to the target. And even after that upgrade (which gave it the same price tag as new F-14's) the F-14 was still a better fighter and a better ground attack plane. There is a reason the navy kept the F-14's going for as long as they could - they were simply a better plane. F/A-18's looked pretty on the flight deck, but when it came to actual combat missions they used the F-14's as much as possible. And they put their best pilots in them because of that. You had to spend at least 3 years as an F/A-18 pilot before they'd upgrade you to a real airplane like the F-14. On the bright side, I suppose that means the F/A-18 makes a decent trainer.
Ask any mechanic about tools. Why does he need all those wrenches? He'll tell you to use the right tool for the job, and he'll say multi-purpose tools are junk for use by amateurs, because they have too many compromises. That's what the F-35 is. The Marines need ground-support planes for assisting their troops on the ground. You don't put troops on the ground without first getting air superiority. Who has air-to air fighters superior to the SuperHornet? Nobody! So the best plane for ground support is still the slow A-10, because 1)it's slow 2)it's armored, and 3)high payload.
But don't pat Boeing on the back. They want to replace P-3 antisub planes with 737s. That's great for Boeing, but dumb. Use the right tool for the job.
One example I can think of would be for installing new communication systems.
I read somewhere that there's actually been a trend towards electronic systems shrinking. ENIAC was bigger than my laptop, right?
The Super Hornet was a great plane in it's day, and should continue to be sold to other countries, but today, the Air Superiority fighters are being replaced by the Air Dominance fighters like the F-22 and F-35. Another fully developed plane that could be put on the market would be the F-23
Fact is, these may very well be the last manned fighters. Drones are proven to be very reliable, and less expensive.
Thanks to Google, and Boston Dynamics, automation of such equipment is humanlike and more reliable. I have no doubt within my lifetime, we will seen an almost entire robotic and/or cybernetic military.
Even the aircraft carrier is at it's end. A next generation drone launching dreadnaught will be out soon.
The reaper will probably become a drone.
"Probably"? It already is. Or did you mean that the F-35 will probably become a drone?
I think an air attack drone might be interesting to see. The current generation are all biased towards ground attack - Much like how the A-10 would make for a rather lousy anti-air asset, they're just not equipped to do the task.
I don't read AC A human right
Had the Spitfire not been a newer design that the German equivalent, this post might be in German (well, actually it wouldn't because my father would have gone to a concentration camp, but you know what I mean).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Aren't Typhoons submarines? You're gonna shoot down Marko Ramius?
Analysts usually don't have to fly combat missions.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Engine reability is not your only problem, when you have hostiles trying to take you down. F-18 can survive with one engine shot by enemy planes, F-35 no.
Oh that's cynical. Meanwhile in the UK, the Labour Party has just announced that if it wins the next election it will replace the Trident nuclear submarines, which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Labour votes from the Scottish shipyards, and sabotaging the campaign for Scottish independence. $40 billion for a useless piece of kit that cannot influence any foreseeable wars, but keeps the Scots onside. Perhaps that's it: it's called a strategic deterrent because it strategically deters the Scots from becoming independent and losing the work.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
In WW2, after the Battle of Britain the most successful British aircraft was probably the twin-engined Mosquito, an early stealth fighter/bomber. I was taught at school by the former wing commander of a Mosquito wing, and he told us that flying Mosquitos was considered a real privilege because you expected to survive the War. Mosquitos could fly to Germany, pathfind for heavy bombers, do a little precision bombing themselves and be back in time for breakfast, even if someone put a shell in an engine while over the target. Single engined fighters and 4 engined bombers had far higher loss rates.
The significant point is the kind of opposition you could expect. Bombing Third World countries is a bit different from bombing First World countries.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Not in combat it's not. Same with the F-22. Sexy technology that wasn't used in the last 12 years of tactical bombing of a country with no fighters or anti-air infrastructure. Even the B-2 saw action.
The reason the USAF hasn't been challenged for decades is because it is so powerful no-one dares to fight it. The US economy can afford its military (which is mostly a jobs program with teeth) because the US economy is huge [it is borrowing to fund voter-bribe entitlement programmes that is destroying the US; as this completely dwarfs Department of Defence spending]. If the USAF looks like it will become vulnerable then expect the uppity folks around the World to start wars that the US will have little choice to avoid - this will be much more expensive that maintaining the USAF air dominance fleet. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" n' all that. It is much much cheaper to maintain Pax Americana through a strong military then to be "penny wise and pound foolish" and slip back into an even more expensive multi-polar world. Think strategically.
Look at the intakes on the SuperHornet, and other parts of the redesign. Partial stealth is part of all new designs. It is not comprehensive stealth features but it is "significant" in reducing the radar cross section is a tactically significant way.
Yes, but the SuperHornet does not have the capabilities of the F-35. We could extend your logic to an extreme case and say that your could produce Spitfires these days with lower mass and smaller budget than years ago, but would you want to be in a Spitfire against an F-35 (or Su-30, or PAK FA, or F-20) ? Similarly, the F-35 is more expensive than the SuperHornet because it is a next gen fighter that is superior to the Super Hornet. The F-35 is a slug with a full fuel load but by the time it gets to the combat zone/FEBA it has burnt off most of that fuel and its performance becomes pretty good. It is also more stealthy and has better electronics (offensive and defensive) and much better situational awareness for the pilot with better displays and better datalinking. The SuperHornet is simply not as capable as the F-35. The people against the F-35 are those against all military equipment (and Boeing in this specific case, since they are trying to use teething problems to convince politicians to take their product that cannot compete on capability).
http://www.blueridgejournal.com/navy/lingo.htm#D1
The Drink : The Sea. Going into the drink is not a good thing. Not in an airplane.
For everyone who has "drone" and "unmanned" in their minds ... great idea for the future. I'm sure Boeing and LM and others will be on it as quick as possible.
But right now -- drones are slow dumb craft with EASILY subvertible suppressable communication channels, and this is how well they do in air combat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY&t=33s
Drones as they exist right now are for monitoring and strikes in an area whose airspace you already completely control.
This whole purchase is what we need now (now in military terms meaning within the next 5-7 years), and there's no choosing planes that don't exist** at all.
(**) Yes yes, the F-35 just barely exists -- wait, no, that's not true, currently there are 63 of them in active use, although acceptance testing and staged development are still ongoing, and costs are still a little in dispute and could change... but the American's are committed to buying near 2000 of them. Whether or not some other country or three buys 50 or 100 of them isn't going to affect the final cost all that much...
What a nice piece of MIC $hill you are.
Denmark (!!!) is going to invade Canada. Yeah, and the Vatican will invade Germany by means of his mighty swiss guards forces on mules, I guess.
Then, the nasty Russkies fly their two remaining operational bombers (build in 1950 or so) up to 300 miles to the ACTUAL Canadian borders. After having scavenged 150 rusting other bombers for spares to get these two flying. What they actually do is to send a message that the Anglosaxons should not do too much shit all over the globe (Iraq, Crackistan, Yemen, Somalia and 75 other shit places) without ever consulting the Russians. They certainly DO NOT want to actually "invade" any Canadian territory. Russia is the largest nation by geography and that means they have the most raw materials of all nations.
Dogfighting and shoulder launched SAMs are pretty much two completely different subjects.
Even the expensive shoulder-launched missiles lack the range to attack a plane at altitude. Today they're pretty much only threats during take off and landing.
Cruise missiles are extremely expensive and have the disadvantage that you need to determine the target before launch(normally). With a fighter you can launch and finalize the target during the mission. I agree that drones will eventually be everywhere, because they have most of the same capabilities. One capability that a drone might not have is absolute ability to operate through jamming. A manned plane will still be able to hit targets despite having communications jammed, that's a little more problematic with drones. Of course, military communications are already extremely hard to jam. Oh, and stealth - while there are ways to transmit 'stealthily', it's still subject to detection if the enemy is good enough. A manned plane can more realistically go radio silent than a drone.
Other questions:
Purpose: Hitting high value/mobile targets in high threat environments where you need the ability to dynamically adjust depending on changing conditions
Strategy: Get in fast, hit hard, leave fast. Be hard to see/hit even while you're there.
Cost/benefits: Debatable, but on average I'll fall back to an old statement: "The biggest waste of military spending is a military that loses"
Evasion: Not if you put $XM worth of missile systems right in it's path. However, fighters are highly mobile, so odds are 90% of the SAMs won't be in range of the plane if the mission is properly planned(the US puts a LOT of effort into this). You have to distribute your sites carefully otherwise you'll suffer from a mixture of them being avoided, hit first, distracted, decoyed, or otherwise neutralized while a plane hits the high value targets that they were protecting.
I don't read AC A human right
It also hasn't been flown in combat because a growing number of F-22 pilots refuse to fly them. Apparently being able to breathe is pretty critical.
Before we reach that limit, the price will go high enough to make it too expensive to ever actually risk an advanced fighter in actual combat
Sounds like a great defensive strategy. It's too expensive to risk on offensive operations, yet you need advanced fighters to fight advanced fighters, so unless you can somehow afford to risk them, you aren't going to be attacking somebody with them.
I say this because it'll be too expensive to risk on offensive operations long before it's too expensive to risk on defensive ones.
I don't read AC A human right
The F-35 doesn't suffer from 'jack of all trades' anything. It has one trade: It's a strike fighter, and it will be good at this role. All other roles are secondary
Isn't that why it underperforms the F/A-18E as delivered? Not only is it slower and less maneuverable, it also carries less weaponry. Just about the only edge it will have over the Super Hornet is in avionics, and those can be installed in the Hornet via the proposed upgrade.
Actually the main advantage it has is that it's stealthy (from the front). The F/A 18 is a tier 2 fighter which is heavily outclassed by all the leading Russian equipment in range, power, and in the future stealth.
A strike fighter that can take off vertically if there's a Marine flying it, off a catapult if there's a naval aviator flying it, off a regular runway if there's a air force pilot flying it....
This plane
Because there seems to be some confusion: When I said 'upgrades are going to come down', I meant that upgrades using new technology are going to be downward directed and funded. I really meant 'come down the pipe'.
IE you KNOW that the plane isn't going to end it's life with the same electronics it started with.
To answer the AC questions(I don't normally reply to them at all):
1. Yes, I know that military upgrades tend to get more expensive as time goes on. Wasn't trying to imply that.
2. Yes, electronics systems tend to shrink over time, but one problem you have with military types is that we always seem to demand NEW capabilities while keeping all the old ones. Plus, not everything shrinks - the radar isn't likely to get smaller. We're more likely to demand yet another radio than simply replace one with a newer, smaller radio unit that does the same thing. We might need another module to add data networking to interface with F-22s, which are supposed to be able to act like mini-AWACs, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
Just shows how weak America has become. These pussy pilots can't even stop breathing for just ten minutes !!!
This is true, on paper.
Every engine has a crack tolerance on the turbine fan blades (and they all develop cracks), the tolerances allowed greatly differ between single and twin engine jets. Remember, when you lose your single engine, you don't just lose thrust, you lose all power as well, so while they have a backup, it typically only lasts about 10 minutes. They don't take chances. Because of this, F16's made in the 80's and 90's actually need engines replaced FAR more often than the older twin engine aircraft made in the 60's by a significant amount.
I worked on these aircraft, for every engine I changed on a twin, I did at least 20 on singles, and no, that isn't an exaggeration. Send them to the desert and things only got worse.
Don't say so ! I have a woolly pig here which gives me ten litres of milk per day. My entire family is now being clothed with its wool ! And we daily eat some of its meat, which we cut from the live animal !
I swear !
Signed
James A. Porkstar IV
Vice President of Washington Affairs
Lockheed-Martin Co.
The US economy can afford its military (which is mostly a jobs program with teeth) because the US economy is huge [it is borrowing to fund voter-bribe entitlement programmes that is destroying the US; as this completely dwarfs Department of Defence spending].
In 10 years, the entitlement programs will dwarf the DoD. Right now, they're about equal in spending. In fact, the 15% payroll tax completely pays for the entitlements. It's the ~5-20% sliding-scale tax that fails to pay for all the (current) non-entitlement programs.
NO, three different models which are improperly labelled as "almost the same". One of the models can't even perform its basic function (arrested landing), because the GEOMETRY is fucked up.
That particular model is actually one of the most important ones, because the STOL model is simply crappy in terms of payload. STOL is a hugely expensive feature nobody can really afford. Not even the US. When your finances are fucked up, I guess you need to consolidate your three air forces into two or maybe even one. You cut the crap (STOL) air force first.
The Pentagon boys are nowadays so corrupt they don't even read their own basic regulations.
Carefully read their own $hilling blog and see how they screwed up: http://whythef35.blogspot.de/2012/09/f-35c-tailhook-update.html
In any place where the environment is protected by SAMS, Canada is likely to be there with allies who do have jamming equipment. Alternatively, with these kind of savings, Canada could easily afford to buy a couple of EA-18G Growlers to go with the Super Hornets. It's a natural match given that they are based on the same airframe.
Canada does not have the Super Hornet, we have the the regular F-18. Why by replacements? Because the F-18s won't last forever.
The electronic warfare guys NEVER have sufficient space for Yet Another Widget. These days you
* Jam in Band 1
* drop IR decoys
* drop chaff against Band 2
* try to blind some other IR missile with a laser
* drop some more chaff in a different band
* listen to Band 3 for SIGINT
* have a warning receiver for Band 4
* have a radar
* have a SAR radar to map ground movements
* have a radar looking out of your ass
* need 25 more vector processing CPUs to process all the signals, in addition to the 172 CPUs you already carry.
And that list is not complete.
why was this rated a "Troll"? Are the LM supporters feeling besieged?
Only I can judge you.
"but he problem with the military types seems to be that they are real pussies and actually want to come home after flying closer than 200 kilometers to an S400 battery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_%28SAM%29
"The S-400's radar[which?] is capable of tracking over 100 targets at ranges of over 600 km (370 mi), and engaging up to 12 of these targets at varying ranges, depending on the missile used (see infobox)."
" The 40N6 very long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi). Active radar homing head. (expected in 2012)[10]
The 48N6E3/48N6DM long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 250 km (160 mi). Passive radar homing head.
The 9M96E2 extended range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi). It has the highest hit probability against fast, manoeuvrable targets such as fighter aircraft. Active radar homing head.
The 9M96E medium range missile.
The ABM capabilities are near the maximum allowed under the (now void) Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty."
The GAO after the Gulf War slammed Lockheed and the USAF for those statements. A very long time ago. Funny how myths continue to be repeated.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf
Again, old information that has been proven factually wrong. Even by the two involved in the incident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20209770
Never mind the fact that most modern RADAR units are being designed by multiple countries are exploiting the same method that he used to get enough of a lock to allow his missiles to do their job. By lowing the frequency to something a stealth fighter cannot protect itself from.
If one engine dies on the F35, your in the drink.
My in the drink? Please explain
If your main complaint with the jet is that the O2 system needs futzing around with, that's pretty damned good.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf
Flight maneuvering was restricted to 5.5 g’s, 550 knots, 18 degrees angle-of-attack, and below 39,000 feet altitude, and was further constrained by numerous aircraft operating limitations that are not suitable for combat.
Actually, that whole report goes onto say that the F-35 isn't suitable for combat, and the F-35A, back when the JSF competition ended was supposed to become operational in 2011. It's current time frame doesn't put that goal till 2018 or there about. And that is without factoring the current year and a bit delay for operational software that they barely have started on.
So in your comment about "The Super Hornet does not have the capabilities of the F-35", I'll have to respond that a single pilot recreational plane such as a Cessna, according to that DOT&E report has the same capabilities of the F-35.
Aircraft carriers were never really designed for that role anyway.
Initially they were for taking islands in the pacific ocean and supporting naval task forces, and they worked really well for that. They'd do fine in this role today. Then their main purpose was to screen the US against bomber squadrons coming in over the North Atlantic or Pacific.
In a marine role they're as good as just about anything. However, they're really not a replacement for an army and air force. You really do need ground bases in the areas you operate in if you want to operate inland.
It doesn't exactly need 'futzing with'...the military believes that a combination of several different systems' tuning and issues that they have apparently fixed were the cause...but they're not sure:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-force-smoking-gun-22-problems/story?id=16898676
The "mosaic" of issues, Lyon said, includes a malfunctioning valve on the pilot's upper pressure vest, the size and shape of hoses and connectors in the pilot's gear and, for a period, a charcoal filter that the Air Force installed after the problems began to try and catch potential contaminates.
Instead of re-evaluating the system when experts first brought it to the Air Force's attention, they decided that the recommended fixes would be too expensive on the already overbudget jet and they basically said 'fuck it' and let one of our servicemen die. Now, experienced Air Force fighter pilots (not exactly the type known to be sissies) across the country refuse to fly this jet because it is unsafe. But that's pretty damned good, right?
Keep what we have; there is no cold war but we keep up a pace as if we had somebody we had to keep pace with. The "old" stuff is good enough and in high enough numbers. Work on AI drones and forget this stop gap next gen. Dumping that kind of money into AI could benefit mankind, putting it into these things is a waste.
Not that I'm for AI/remote control killer robots so cowards can rule the world, but there are plenty of rich cowards besides those in the USA who will build robot armies so they can take the diminishing resources. Yes, it is cowardly to fight by remote; war needs a high price or it becomes a game. To the psychopaths it already is a game and we have plenty of them already but when you lower the bar more people pass the threshold.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That's a hell of a down-side. F-35 is much more difficult to kill then a Superhornet, which means it's much more likely to come home after a mission.
How much are your pilots live's worth?
It is a 1970's design that is supped up. It's a great plane for it's era, but it isn't going to survive the next 50 years in the expected high-threat environment.
I hope that's a joke. The "high threat environment" that we've been in since 1930. Going on 100 straight years of "war any day now". Korea ended in a stalemate, so we started another war in Vietanm to keep up the military-industrial complex.
There is no threat. We have at least 20 years until China has the ability to project force beyond its own borders. In that time, the "old" designs will be as useless as you assert the SH to be.
The other thing I don't get. We already HAVE the SH deployed. Why will we buy more of the same?
Because we have a budget, so we have to buy something, what else are we going to do, lower taxes and pay down the debt? That's commie talk.
Learn to love Alaska
They should bring in Patrick McLanahan at Sky Masters as a consultant.
Word is, he could provide fighters and fighter/bombers more capable than the F35 for about seventy-five dollars apiece :-)
The RIAA and MPAA, that's who.
Interviews with actual pilots say it doesn't perform as well, the aircraft is not meeting the written specs, that's half the problem. (Ref: Four Corners, ABC)
And this is a force that defines itself by technical superiority.
You see that makes a bit of a difference. Per dollar earned, the poorer people pay more.
Therefore to raise taxes, you need to make the 5% poorer.
Idiot.
I know oxygen is required, and it is an important system. But as far as a jet program is concerned, it's a fairly minor system. Worst case, they put a traditional system back in the jet and move on. It's hard to sort out the truth from fiction, but if it really turns out to be a valve in a suit, then I'd argue it's not really part of the jet at all.
Most of the problems you describe are with the military bureaucracy, and will affect any weapons system. The F-22 is actually a pretty decent program, even if it wasn't strictly necessary in hindsight.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well, no.
Changing the pilot doesn't magically change a F34B into a F35C or a F35A.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
While I feel that the cost of the F-35 has become outrageous, I have a hard time believing that Boeing could do a better job of it. The F-35 is one of the most complex systems ever, and the complexity extends beyond just production, but to operations and support as well.
the biggest reason the F18 was such a huge success is because they already had it in the bag from the contest with the F16...
they lost that battle... but won the war because of the NAVY not wanting to eat another AIR FORCE plane...
I still think the F16 would have looked pretty damn awesome on the flight deck....
Sounds like a repeat of the TFX scandal back in the 60's. See: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/30/the-on-going-scandal-of-the-f-35/
Step1: Take off
Step2: Spend a minute spotting the reapers
Step3: Shoot them down (they cannot even see what's behind them and have no air-to-air capabilities)
Step4: Do some aerobatics, do a little sight-seeing, (anything to enjoy the time in the air and burn-off a little fuel so you don't have to land with full tanks and so you feel like it was worth the time to suit-up for the otherwise spectacularly short and easy flight
Step5: Land and plan a trip to the local mini-golf facility for something challenging
First, the F-17 Cobra was not the same plane as the F-18. There are actual significant differences that actually matter.
Second, The F-18 Super Hornet is not the same as the F-18 Hornet. Calling them both the "F-18" and the "Hornet" was a marketing breakthrough that let [a] the Navy buy a new more-Tomcat-like plane without drawing too much anger from certain parts of the government and [b] the same vendor provide a new plane without the usual competition. This is not as bad as it sounds: the vendor had a good product and the experience base, supply chains, manufacturing lines etc and the Navy was experienced with the similar plane, and the taxpayer avoided the extra costs and delays to get a plane to fill some of the capability voids left by retiring the Tomcats and the Intruders.
You need to find a photo of a Hornet sitting next to a Super Hornet to see just how different they are. They look superficially the same (the one being derived from the other and sharing all the aerodynamics) but the Super is a physically larger plane and there are two-seat variants for certain missions. Note to the casual observer, you can easily identify the two (when they are not sitting next to each other and size is not obvious) by looking at the shape of the intakes. The intakes of the Hornet are round and tucked-in close to the belly; the engine intakes of the Super are rectangular and seem not so tightly-nestled under the plane.
... never had an engine-out over the middle of the Pacific. Air Force guys who spend lots of time flying over land tend to like the sort of plane you listed. Naval aviators (Navy and Marine Fliers) are acutely aware that they are in a much more severe survival environment if they have to punch-out (bobbing like a cork in the tropical waters of the Pacific might seem good to you, but it's not so great if you have injuries from ejecting, or if there are Sharks about, or if you are further north and it's winter, etc. You cannot just hike to a nearby town or stretch-out under a tree for a nap). Naval aviators also need to have a very reliable bunch of jet thrust when they land (You land on a carrier with a lot of power so you have the speed and power to avoid a swim if you miss the cable... A carrier deck is very short and jet engines take too long to spool-up so you cannot land at low power setting and then jam the throttles if you miss the cable). One other thing you seem to have missed: Naval Aircraft have to have much heavier structures to handle cat shots (being thrown into the air by a mechanism shoving on the nose gear (this is an entirely different mechanical load-path from that of the engines) and slamming down onto heaving and pitching carrier decks at full throttle.
Actually the "Super Hornet" was always in the plans when the original Hornet was designed and built. The plane was originally built with this upgrade path in mind as a major MLU. And as far as shares, it shared about 80% of the tooling with it's older sibling. Some of the major components aren't interchangeable, i.e. engines, but a lot of the other stuff is the same between the two aircraft. McDonnell Douglas actually came in on time and under budget on the Super Hornet I believe the R&D for the Super Hornet was around $200M. With over 500 built that works out to what, $400k per airframe in R&D costs.
Airforce could have done the same thing with the F-15, which Boeing has done with the Silent Eagle anyway for export, and we could have had replaced old airframes at a fraction of the cost and probably had enough left over to build a successor to the A-10. Which if you read the after action reports from the past 25 years they all say the same thing: need more A-10's and B-52's. They've been the most effective aircraft on the modern battlefields.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
gosgog: What bother's me is, that despite the various things that have come along to keep grounding the F-35, it, according to articles I have read in Business Inquirer, is the fact that thus far, even if flying, it wont come close to doing all the things it is designed to do, and now costs 3, yes three times as much money to produce! Other items, that bother me, is its ONE COMPANY that is the producer! YEAH I KNOW as the Astronauts, always said "Here we are in Outer Space and and everything's on LOWEST BID!" Well it seems to me there are a number of things wrong here, This Giant Corporation is so deep into the pockets of those "Wunnerful Politicians", plus Military authorities assigned to work with the supplier, are then hired on retirement by said corporation...so each assignment becomes a career! And also the history of so many items that are designed to do everything...are seldom as good as those things designed to do a specific function!
What is shares is tooling, systems layout and flight controls. Which is 90% of your training costs right there.
Not sure what you are replying to, but that's a bomber. It has no fighter capability.
Same fighter for both airforce and navy is a STUPID FUCKING IDEA. Completely different set of requirements means that your one plane will be twice as heavy, twice as expensive and twice as behind schedule. Enter the F-35.
It's not a stupid idea if your need to cut costs exceeds your need to have the absolute best possible plane that technology can provide. Whether that is the case for the US is the point of the whole argument.
Remember, most nations don't have any kind of air force on the sea, much less a stealth jet.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Interesting article, and while I'm not exactly the biggest F-35 fan, in the article Traven leaves the reader with a false impression.
Australia hasn't "given up waiting" for the F-35. It's being hotly debated here, whether we buy more super hornets or wait for the F-35.
The Super Hornets were bought to tide us over until the F-35 is finished, and was chosen because we have existing F-18 Hornets which there is some part compatibility (though not as much as you'd think for two "hornet" "models", it's a bit misleading to link the two). But we are far from "giving up" on the F-35.
Australia may end up purchasing more Super Hornets, but just like Canada it's a short term sale. For these countries (IE, not the US) an airframe is expected to last 40 or so years (We recently retired our F-111s). The US will halt production and use of the super-hornet before Canada and Australia do. We won't be buying Super Hornets next decade, so if we purchase more now, we'll have to pay the extra costs of running mixed air wings (bigger issue for Canada/Australia than the US).
The F-35 is a safer purchase. Buying a super hornet is buying a product that will be obsolete and EOL in half the time (20 years) we want. Given the 5th gen planes China and Russia are madly working on, the super hornets may not be the deterrent we need in the near future.
Unfortunately, theres no cheap and safe solution.
It's been flying "since the 1990s" in the same way that the F-35 is flying "in the 2010s" at this point.
The super hornet was in service from 99, the very end of the 90s. And It's been used in Australia for only 5 years.
The Super Hornet has a buddy-buddy refueling system. It also has JHMCS helmets for quicker target selection unlike F-22 pilots. They still haven't decided on a helmet for the F-35 after the issues they had with that 'horned' helmet. It has two engines so it has more redundancy. Plus it has more range than the F-35.
The F-22 still does not have an integrated helmet sight unlike the Super Hornet. The available weapons payload is inadequate and the oxygen generator system apparently does not work properly. Of course these are all fixable but it will cost time and money.
How about lack of JHMCS?
Wasn't that a budget saving move? Does it even need it?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well just try reading about the OODA loop and tell me if it makes sense to slave the firing system to the helmet and do eye tracking or not. Not to mention the F-22's limited support for off-boresight missiles due to stealth considerations again.
I read up on it after your initial post, and it does indeed seem like a good system. But it would cost some money to implement, and money is scarce. They seem to be judging that the aircraft is already sufficiently capable without the upgrade... that's always going to be a judgement call and always subject to perfectly reasonable criticism. As it should be :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.