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.
"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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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
Can someone explain to me why we have 50 million hungry in America, including 17 million children
I can try, but you might not understand.
The number you are citing most likely comes from the USDA ERS report about food security. It does not represent people who ARE hungry, it includes people who had to buy less desirable food at some time during the year, but they still got enough to eat.
The number of those who are actually hungry, who ate less because they didn't have enough money, is much lower. Among those are people who don't know how to manage a budget and ran out of money just before a new paycheck came. The number of people who are actually starving is very low. We have government programs to deal with these problems already.
Now, I think we should reduce our spending on warfare, but you at least should understand the numbers you're throwing around.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
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.
That's because the F-35 employs the latest in multi-congressional district job program management. It is also far superior to the older F/A-18 E/F because the latter lacks the F-35's advanced lobby-based cash vectoring nozzles.
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?)
Particulary when many of the requirements are mutually exclusive.
There was a really good news special up here in Canada (Can't remember network, may have been CBC), where they interviewed a now retired avaition engineer who was the lead for most of the successful designs in the last several decades in the US.
The whole interview could be sumed up that he thought it was a collosal joke, that it was a failure, that it isn't good at anything with the exception of costing a lot of money and funneling tons of money to Lockheed from the government.
So you want an agile dogfighter, that can also function as a bomber, that has stealth capability, that has an extended range, that (at least in some varients) had vertical take off ability, etc... and so on. Like designing a cargo ship to be small and nimble, you can't have both and really be successful.
I think part of the problem is divergant purposes of these type of craft. As I understand it most air combat (despite Top Gun) is about stand off capability, which is mostly about radar and stealth and perhaps ordance. That is you see them first from a LONG way off, let your birds fly, return to base to rearm without even really "seeing" your targets, let along get in an actual dog fight. However, that is against a modern air force, which historically hasn't really been a problem for a very long time (maybe some migs in Vietnam perhaps, not including cold war). Who are they arming against, China? Who else has any fighter capability to speak of? If USSR was the "Cold War", is China the "Warm and Fuzzy War" as it isn't exactly stoping buisness or relations. Then you get to the fact that most modern wars seem to be against despotic contries that really have little or no air force to begin with, and what they might have either is too old to be effective, ill maintained for any use, or the defect rather than throwing their lives away. That means that most targets are land targets. None of which are close by, Many of which would require use of various "allied" bases of varing degrees, and carriers should you have them (and Canada does, not).
Anyway at least for Canada what would make more sense is a more modest jet, or even going with say two different models say for different purposes. I can understand why Canada wanted to get involved in the project from an ally perspective and coordination, and economies of scale and the like, however after a while it is just throwing good money after bad rather than admint a mistake was made. Personally I would rather see our helicopters get upgraded first, they are older, have been slated to be replaced for longer, and our Frigates which make up the core of what we call a navy actally have helicopter pads. They also make a bit more sense for ground support for loiter reaons, swap out with search and rescue when close to home... I would also like more heavy lift capability such as the C-17 would make more sense and be more useful. Not only would this be able to ferry troops and equipment around the world faster, but would be infinatly more useful in peaceful missions like sending disaster aid and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III#Royal_Canadian_Air_Force
Anyway I am not military analyst by any means, I just hope that Canada isn't getting swindled by a scam whos only purpose it to pump money into a specific defence contractor for whatever political reasons, rather than getting the proper equipment for our armed forces.
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.