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.
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"
"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.
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
The F-18 has no vertical takeoff capability.
Neither does the F-35. Only the F-35B is short-takeoff-vertical-landing. The A variant takes off and lands normally and that's the one Canada is/was considering.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The F-18 has no vertical takeoff capability
So what? Neither does F-35.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just like the Flanker and Fulcrum families of Russian jets. And still good enough to give Rafales and Typhoons a run for their money.
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.
Especially dogfighting seems to be a bit outdated in times of cheap shoulder launched surface to air missiles.
Shoulder-launched missiles have a severely limited performance envelope. Besides, maneuverability is still a significant portion of why missiles often fail to hit their target. If you want to survive an approaching SAM, you had better be sitting in a maneuverable airplane.
Ezekiel 23:20
The big issue is do you want one plane to do the job of three or do you want three planes to do the job of three? The F-35 was designed around the premise that a single airframe could be purposed into multiple roles. Except now the various F-35's have essentially different airframes. Yes, there are some similarities but overall, you aren't saving any money or time and you're losing flexibility - you have a bunch of expensive eggs in a small basket as opposed to a larger number of cheaper aircraft.
The F-35 is designed to fight against other aircraft that haven't been developed. The F-18 / F-16 are still more than equal to other current fighters. In reality, the only enemy we need to be worried about it the Chinese and if we end up in dogfights with them, which philosophy - a few expensive, highly functional planes vs. a whole shitload of narrower role aircraft - do you think they will chose? (Yes, I know, they're copying the F-22 and F-35 but then again, so are the Iranians).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
There are multiple roles for small fighter jets:
- Air to Air interceptors. Drones don't go all that fast and as of yet don't have the same sensor processing ability of a human being. You need somebody to scope out the situation and report back. Bonus points for being survivable. You also need somebody to protect the big slow transports.
- Air to Ground. Yes, the drone can drop a hellfire or two. Absolutely worthless compared to an A-10. (Of course, we don't really have anything that is an upgrade to an A-10 but that's another issue). The current crop of drones are capable of blowing up fragile little meat popsicles but not a whole lot beyond.
Yes, eventually we will have mecca wars with no humans involved. But not just yet.
-
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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!
Modern air defense systems are getting more and more sophisticated in counter missile technology. At some point, and the hypothetical is that you are engaging someone in the next 20 years (the minimum before you even start thinking of another replacement aircraft) with counter missle tech, you need a stealth system to infiltrate far enough into enemy airspace to deliver munitions before the air defense can respond. Stealth on missiles would drive their cost up to ridiculous levels (as well as the maintenance/storage requirements).
Other thoughts
- In a modern war you would expect jamming out the wazoo and likely all GPS-like systems to be either jammed or disabled. That would put a severe crimp in any medium/long range smart bomb's accuracy. Closer you are, better then chance of hitting it
- Close air support against a modern enemy would be against a LOT of anti-air firepower. Stealth increases survivability and your friendly guys on the ground likely don't want you firing your supporting missiles from a dozen miles out blindly. Fighters with their higher speeds have superior survivability to air to air defenses than helicoptors.
- The basic airframes and systems of our current fleet of fighters in the US is sadly outdated when you compare them to the technology you have sitting on your desk. That's largely due to how long it takes to design/produce these systems which is easily 10-15 years to get to operational status from when they started designing it, so when it gets on the field, it's behind the power curve technologically already. US F-15/16 fighters already have many decades of service under them with B-52s having I think an average age of around 55 years for the fleet (and they aren't planning on retiring it anytime soon). Would you hop into an aircraft that old (although with service life extensions and modernizations when feasible) and go to war with it? Do we need something with the bells and whistles of the F-35 along with its pricetag? That's very debateable. Do we need a tech refresh in the somewhat near future? Yes. You can only modify an aircraft cost effectively so much before you should throw the whole thing out and start over again. Also as the years go on, the basic structural fatigue is showing up in the news as aircraft literally break in half in the air due to wear and tear.
Where's the open source 3-d printed fighter jet project? Should I go ahead and start the Kickstarter project for that?
Except now the various F-35's have essentially different airframes.
Ostensibly this means that the F-35 is a failure, in relation to its original intent. Still, though, if R&D is limited to one basic group of planes, then perhaps there could still be overall savings, even with a higher per-unit cost. Programs aren't limited in cost to the per-unit acquisition cost - there is at least R&D to consider in addition to maintenance and supply.
The bigger trouble, though, is that these things don't seem to be very good at anything. For instance, the -B model, which can do VTOL for the USMC can't do that at austere locations. The USMC says it will have to pour special high-strength concrete pads for F-35 VTOL to work. OK, it's smaller than an air strip, but by time you secure an air base, get a concrete pumper in there, and let it cure, the Marines' job should be well over for a given operation.
The Marines should use an Osprey if they need VTOL. The Navy can get them close enough and the Air Force can provide actual air combat.
I say all this in light of the USG needing even more war planes, while it is threatening to cut Meals on Wheels, heating assistance, and air traffic controllers today instead of discarding unneeded weapons platforms.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Not to bitch at you personally, but it's a pet hate of mine seeing the tired old "These things are useless nowadays" arguments.
People were saying the same thing years ago about the Sea Harrier here in the UK, then the Falklands happened.
The point is, just because we're fighting low tech opponents hiding in mountains right now, doesn't mean we wont be fighting a completely different type of war tomorrow.
These sorts of military purposes are made not because of what's going on right at the time of development, but as a piece in the larger military puzzle that'll be expected to have a life of 20 - 30 years. A lot can happen in that time - in the last 30 years cold war style dog fighting was still a very real prospect, and manned jets were essential to missions in The Falklands, Yugoslavia, and Iraq.
Whilst we're at a point where drones could replace some functionality, the Slashdot mindset that drones can replace every manned air function is false. This wont always be the case, but right now maintaining a manned air to air presence is smart unless you want to risk being caught with your pants down.
Put simply, it doesn't really matter what type of wars we're in right now or have been for the last 10 years, the question is, can we absolutely guarantee that there will be no use for manned aircraft in the next 30 years? Is it 100% guaranteed that there wont be say, a small skirmish over disputed islands between China and it's neighbours? Can we absolutely guarantee that Russia wont attack an Eastern European state that is more strategic to the West than Georgia was requiring some intervention? The answer is no, absolutely not, we most certainly cannot guarantee these things, and whilst that remains true, these new planes serve a purpose - getting rid of them, even if they only act as a deterrent and they never actually have to be used, would only make such scenarios more likely.
The likes of Chinese pilots in their new stealth aircraft would love nothing more than a turkey shoot of pathetic drones with their lack of situational intelligence and awareness, their high latency and so forth in a combat situation in 20 years time.
Regarding your question about avoiding missiles, shoulder launched SAMs tend to have pretty limited altitude, and even more expensive systems don't necessarily seem particularly effective. Remember that Israel flew some older F15s/F16s right through some brand spanking new Russian bought Syrian SAM batteries to blow up their nuclear program and out again without incident.
It's about insuring against the unknowns over the next decades until drone technology is genuinely mature enough to completely and utterly replace it. That's what it's about.
since when is the government concerned with the price of anything?
We have a Conservative government, they need to spend money, put us back in debt (we had a balanced budget for 8 years until the right wingers got into power with their cut taxes and increase spending policy) so they can cut the things they don't like such as science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Could someone who knows more about military strategy explain to me for what purposes these kinds of planes are needed?
As far as I can tell, the goal is to be able to deal with the Russian and Chinese air forces if those countries chose to attack us. Of course, there are other ways of preventing those kinds of attacks, like diplomacy and trade, but we don't have time for cheap and sensible solutions!
I am officially gone from
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.
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.
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.
The "austere locations" crap that the Marines keep talking about is just that: crap.
What's actually going on is that, in addition to the eleven supercarriers that the U.S. Navy uses, they also have another nine "amphibious assault ships", which would be called a small aircraft carrier if they were in any other navy. (The newest design, the America-class, doesn't even have a well deck for launching boats; it's just a smaller aircraft carrier.) These carriers can't field catapault-launched aircraft like the F/A-18; they're more like the UK's carriers in that they only field helicopters and VTOL aircraft. Right now that means the Harrier, but the Harrier is a clunky old piece of shit and BAE ain't making new ones anymore, so once those wear out it's either F-35 or helicopters only.
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.
Dog fighting outdated? Not so fast!
Those who don't know history, are bound to repeat it.
The art of the dog fight has been dismissed as unnecessary before. Military planners who thought they knew, dismissed the need for dog fighting by saying "Hey, we have missiles and radar, nobody is going to dog fight anymore!" Poof! We got the F4 Phantom, which was a great interceptor with a really powerful radar, but a less than ideal platform for dog fighting. You could quickly get your opponent in range, but you had better kill him with the first missile shot because if you got into a turning fight with most of the opposition, you where going to loose in the bulky F4. We adjusted tactics and used the F4 high speed to swoop in, shoot a missile and bug out at Mac 2 before getting shot at. Didn't always work that well, but it helped keep the kill ratio up. We struggled with that oversight for decades until the F-16 came along and fixed the problem and allowed us to dog fight again.
History teaches that Air superiority requires both advanced missile technology AND superior dog fighting capacity. Stealth is a great feature, but it is only going to really help if you can shoot the opponent before he can see you. Once you are in visual range, you had better have the best sustained turn rate and a gun or you will loose (which is where the F4 failed).
You may not need flocks of F-35s, but having some is a good idea. Having flocks of F-18's is not a bad idea, as it's a fine dog fighter too. I vote we buy a mix of about 1 F35 to 4-5 F18's myself. But don't.. Please don't dismiss the importance of dog fighting to air power.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
You don't understand. The conservatives are anti-education for precisely the same reason the Taliban is anti-education: an educated population is much less likely to support them. It's no accurate that all the bastions of liberalism and Democratic voting in Virginia are exactly the same as the areas surrounding universities.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
canada is a defrosting steak. As the poles melt it looks juicier to other countries, and the flies are already circling, and others have already landed and staked a claim. And some USAians already call it the 51st state.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Im going to list some of the most successful fighters in US history. We produced thousands, and they in turn downed thousands of North Korean, North Chinese, and North Vietnamese pilots. In addition they carried out thousands of ground attack sorties and dropped thousands of pounds of ordinance.
F-80
F-84
F-86
F-100
F-102
F-104
F-105
F-106
Each of these aircraft has one thing in common: they only have a single engine. And these were the aircraft from the days when turbines were "unreliable" and had incredibly short work cycles (maximum hours flying time) in between total overhauls. In one case, the F-105, the platform was responsible for over 75% of all ordinance dropped in Vietnam; yes, the F-105 dropped more than 3x as many bombs as all other aircraft combined in that war, and that includes the massive B-52 bombing runs.
This single engine lawn dawn thing was a baseless criticism leveled at the F-16 by its competitors, and it stuck. But it was baseless then, and its baseless now.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
There are multiple roles for small fighter jets:
- Air to Ground. Yes, the drone can drop a hellfire or two. Absolutely worthless compared to an A-10. (Of course, we don't really have anything that is an upgrade to an A-10 but that's another issue). The current crop of drones are capable of blowing up fragile little meat popsicles but not a whole lot beyond.
Yes, eventually we will have mecca wars with no humans involved. But not just yet.
-
Just to be as accurate as possible.... An A-10 is NOT designed for the fighter role. It is an "attack" role airframe, specifically designed for attacking armored ground targets in this case. It's not that an A-10 cannot be used for ACM, or that the pilots don't train for air-to-air situation, it's just not it's role and wasn't designed for this kind of thing so it pretty much sucks as a fighter.
How can you tell? Well, in the US we use the first letter to designate an aircraft's role. "C" - Cargo (C130, C5 etc), "A" - Ground Attack/Close air support (A10, AV8B, A-4, etc), F - Fighter (Air to Air platform, F-4 F14, F16, F-18 etc), "O" - Observation (OV-10) , T = Trainer, K = Tanker. Some aircraft have two letters. FA-18 means an F-18 outfitted with Ground Attack capacity that can still do Air to Air missions.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So, um, why don't fighters have rear guns?
even something automatic like a small version of the ship missile defense systems? instead of using flares/chaff/jamming to distract a missle, just shoot it directly.
(maybe they do, but it's super-secret?)
A+++++ would pedant again!
Yes, of course I should be more careful.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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."
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.
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.
There's a difference between keeping up with the Jonses (or rather, staying a step ahead of ...) and ordering almost 2,500 of the most expensive fighter jet ever designed.
I'm not suggesting we completely axe any and all defense spending ... just that we take an honest look at how insanely much we spend, and what we're actually getting as a return on investment. Do we honestly need 2,443 of these fighters (and yes, that's Washington's current order)? In what possible scenario is that useful?
Any cuts that are made can be supplemented with other endeavors. I gave Space and Sea exploration as examples, but we can certainly go down other paths. Keep our engineers employed without filling a thousand hangars with unused F-35s
This signature is false.
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.