Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AvWeek Article On Super Hornet Taking On JSF Sales  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

Just got my latest copy of AvWeek dated 3 September and on page 34 they talk about the “counter-stealth race” and in particular how the F/A-18F Block 2’s with AESA radar and the EA-18G’s are beginning to amount to a really formable strike force and one that may rival the JSF. The article talks about how the RAAF is even discussing an additional 24 Super Hornets for a second squadron as well as possibly even some Growlers. The article details how recent USN tests have shown a strike package of block 2 F/A-18F’s and EA-18G’s can detect not only tiny cruise missiles but also even stealth aircraft. Soon as the US government approves the late model AESA equipped Super Hornet and Growlers for export they may likely very well begin directly competing with the JSF, something the RAAF buy has already begun.

Now I like the F-35B alright as long as it’s only replacing the AV-8B+ for the USMC, but not to replace all of their F/A-18’s. I am adamantly in favor of the USMC acquiring late model AESA equipped F/A-18F’s to at least in 2 to 4 squadrons worth as well as another at least 2 squadrons of EA-18G’s; modern technology in the form of avionics and electronics is enabling the Super Hornet airframe to wield quite an impressive foray of ordinance, and I strongly believe the USMC would benefit from a combined fleet of Super Hornets and F-35B’s versus going the route of just an all F-35B fleet.

Look at it this way – the USN isn’t even going to an all JSF fleet and their going with the F-35C which will have greater payloads, range, and loiter time than the F-35B, so if the USN isn’t even going to put all their eggs in one basket (despite even having more capable “eggs”) than perhaps the USMC should reconsider their plans? For the USMC to buy into the Super Hornet program they would be getting the absolute lowest costs with literally zero risk and than being able to take advantage of all the savings in using a common airframe that the USN has already got integrated.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

The JSF is a much better plane, let's not continue that nightmare call a Super Hornet.

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Congress will have to force the USMC to go with the F-18, even though the US Navy is ultimately in charge of USMC aviation. Read an article some time ago - don't remember when or where - which stated that the main driving force for the new Marine and Navy integration in terms for more marine squadrons deploying on carrier air wings is to make up for the shortfall of recruitment and retaining of navy pilots. To make up for the shortfall, they decided to use the Marines who is one of the only service's to regularly maintain their recruitment goals, after all the technical jargon concerning better training, etc, the ultimate goal was to properly staff the carriers air wings.
The problem for the marines is that the more they deploy with Navy personell, they will start to loose their Marine uniqueness, air force and navy pilots do not routinely train on the ground in dirt and mud, hence their appreciation for air to ground support when the call is made is different. Opinion here folks, and many person's believe it's all bunk for show, like marine pilots having camo gear on their helmets etc. Whether show or not, the marines are regarded as among the best in providing air to ground support and it is what marine aviation is geared towards, its why they have been pushing so hard for the VTSOL version of the F-35, it allows them to retain their air component which the navy can only take away by getting rid of all the brown water ships.


User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5770 times:

Derivatives and improvements will be available for 30-50 years for the F-35 series. It's akin to compare international acquisitions of the super hornet/F-35 to a decision about the Mirage F1 vs. F-16 in about 1978. Both were great aircraft, but one obviously had a lot more miles ahead of it, and "big picture" operators see things like that. Boeing, however, is pretty good at selling its wares.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

Come on AirRyan, you are just buying into Boeing propaganda. Don't you know the sainted Lockheed can't do no wrong.  Wink


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 2):
Congress will have to force the USMC to go with the F-18, even though the US Navy is ultimately in charge of USMC aviation

Yeah, as stubborn if not ignoarant as the Marines can be sometimes, the bottom line is they are still under the Department of the Navy and as the EA-18G only becomes more and more evident as to its capabilities, the Corps is going to have a harder and harder time trying to justify not purchasing it.

As for Marines and Sailors serving together, that is the way it's always been and that is the way it is always going to be. If anything, Navy pilots learn more from their Marine counterparts than anything, but any good Marine worth their salt won't lose their edge just by serving alongside a few squids; if anything it just makes the Marines stand out that much more.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 2):
Whether show or not, the marines are regarded as among the best in providing air to ground support and it is what marine aviation is geared towards, its why they have been pushing so hard for the VTSOL version of the F-35, it allows them to retain their air component which the navy can only take away by getting rid of all the brown water ships.

The LHA-R is a joke as it's currently proposed - removed the well deck so you can get more F-35B's onboard?

Like I said earlier, once the Corps pops their head outta their asses and realizes that they can get an otherwise highly potent F/A-18F block II with AESA radar and 11 hardpoints of ordinance hauling muscle, for nearly 1/3 the cost of an F-35B they are going to have to reconsider replacing current legacy Hornets with F-35B's; the Corps can come in and save so much money (that they arguably already spent on the V-22 program) by taking advantage of using the same aircraft that the USN has invested a lot of time and money into - they don't have to dump the F-35B just reduce the buy since their going to pay expoentially for it anyways and replace Marine Hornets with Super Hornets, not F-35B's that cost three times as much yet arguable don't even provide for any more capability. As this article points out, the advanced AESA radars can nearly render current stealth technology useless (because it can see them,) so what good will the F-35B really be bringin to the table?

Quote:
In this latest update of its JSF report, the Congressional Research Service calculates that the program unit acquisition cost (PUAC) will reach $121.9 million per aircraft, on the basis of a revised total program cost of $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...k38AAAEAAFRR2loAAAAN&modele=jdc_34


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
As this article points out, the advanced AESA radars can nearly render current stealth technology useless (because it can see them,) so what good will the F-35B really be bringin to the table?

Do potential opponents have something even remotely akin to the AESA radars? If so, you have a valid argument. If not, then the JSF stealth technology is still one of its strong points. On the flip side, if stealth technology is now useless, as a result of AESA radars, what's the next step to shield our combat planes from radar detection?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
The article details how recent USN tests have shown a strike package of block 2 F/A-18F’s and EA-18G’s can detect not only tiny cruise missiles but also even stealth aircraft.

That's no secret. Stealth is as good as worse your counterpart's radar is. It was never a question of IF you can detect stealthy targets, but how close you need to get. Given the non-stealthiness of the F/A-18E/F platform I can hardly imagine they can gain any advantage from the quality of their radar when confronted with stealthy aggressors.

The F/A-18G is certainly is nice Jammer, but a Jammer does not need to be stealthy in the first place. In practice one would first try to aim at the emissions of the jammer and not the jamming airplane. Locking on the jamming aircraft itself would be extremely difficult unless you have some technique to overcome the jamming technique. It is less difficult in general to make a successful home-on-jam approach rather than to overcome the jamming itself.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
As this article points out, the advanced AESA radars can nearly render current stealth technology useless (because it can see them,)

No, I would not go that far. The advantage of AESA is that it can focus on a certain point. That in turn can help you clarify what really is noise and clutter and what not. But the problem still is that you have to actively control this process and have to decide on which suspicious clutter might be a stealthy target. That way you might be able to double the recognition distance of stealthy targets. However, finally it does not help you much if can spot the target from 40km instead of 20km when the aggressor can launch an attack from more than 100km.

This principle can even be used by non-AESA-radars. Russian MiG-31(with PESA radars) make use of it since 20 or so years. They can overlay radar data from two or more MiG-31s via data link and that way clutter and noise filters out naturally because they are mostly random patterns. The remaining suspicious emissions have a high chance of being a real airborne object. The advantage here is that you don't need large computers with complex algorithms that evaluate the clutter (which you would need with single AESA type of approach).

Finally it is important to say that passive radar-emissions are only one type of emissions of an airplane. Today it is still a lot safer to detect stealth fighters by their IR-emissions rather than to wait until they pop up on your radar. It might way too late then ...

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):

Do potential opponents have something even remotely akin to the AESA radars?

AESA is a technical principle not a range of product. The latest Russian and Chinese Radars are AESA-type of radars, as well es the Eurofighters second generation radar will be AESA (either CASEAR or NAMSAR).

Comming back to the Jammer, it is important to know that AESA radars are much less susceptible to Jamming than traditional radars, because for the Jammer it is extremely difficult to determine what and how to jam. LPI might be the magic word here. But again LPI is also not limited to AESA radars, they can just use more and faster LPI techniques.


User currently offlinePlayloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5474 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 7):
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
The article details how recent USN tests have shown a strike package of block 2 F/A-18F’s and EA-18G’s can detect not only tiny cruise missiles but also even stealth aircraft.

That's no secret. Stealth is as good as worse your counterpart's radar is. It was never a question of IF you can detect stealthy targets, but how close you need to get. Given the non-stealthiness of the F/A-18E/F platform I can hardly imagine they can gain any advantage from the quality of their radar when confronted with stealthy aggressors.

That really says it all right there. A radar should always detect a non-stealthy target further away than it will detect a stealthy target. If stealth aircraft can be detected from further away than it used to (due to new radars), we counter it by building longer range AA missiles. So long as the range of our missiles is greater than the range at which a stealth aircraft can be detected, the stealth aircraft should have a big advantage in the fight.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting Playloud (Reply 8):
That really says it all right there. A radar should always detect a non-stealthy target further away than it will detect a stealthy target. If stealth aircraft can be detected from further away than it used to (due to new radars), we counter it by building longer range AA missiles. So long as the range of our missiles is greater than the range at which a stealth aircraft can be detected, the stealth aircraft should have a big advantage in the fight.

Okay but if that F/A18F block II with AESA can sling 11 upgraded AMRAAM+'s and your JSF can only carry less than half of that, which one would you rather have if your a potential foreign export customer considering the F/A-18F can be had for a fraction of the cost?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Okay but if that F/A18F block II with AESA can sling 11 upgraded AMRAAM+'s and your JSF can only carry less than half of that, which one would you rather have if your a potential foreign export customer considering the F/A-18F can be had for a fraction of the cost?

How far can the Rhino fly with that kind of load? How much does it matter that the F-18E can lug more AMRAAMs if it can't maneuver worth diddly with all that hanging under the wings and can only fly half as fast and half as far as an F-35 with that kind of load? The F-35 has gotten to the fight, taken its shots and headed back to the ship by the time the Rhinos have refueled enroute and huffed and puffed their way to the target.

And the Rhino shines like a lighthouse on the enemy's radar with all that weaponage hanging out in the slipstream. So the enemy will be ready and waiting by the time it gets there.

Rhinos are a good stopgap measure, but that's about the best that can be said for them.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 1):
The JSF is a much better plane, let's not continue that nightmare call a Super Hornet.

How do you know this. The JSF has only stealth and verticle take off capabilities over the Superhornet and that has been questioned by some in the armed forces as to if its enough to justify the costs. I agree the JSF is a goo dreplacement for the Harrier but I would have to argue that its more capable in air to ground an dair to air than the superhornet.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
How far can the Rhino fly with that kind of load? How much does it matter that the F-18E can lug more AMRAAMs if it can't maneuver worth diddly with all that hanging under the wings and can only fly half as fast and half as far as an F-35 with that kind of load? The F-35 has gotten to the fight, taken its shots and headed back to the ship by the time the Rhinos have refueled enroute and huffed and puffed their way to the target.

the F-18E can Manuever and preform as well as most aircraft out there in air to air combat excluding maybe the Raptor and the eurofighter..2 aircraft that it will probably never see action against. The JSF has the same Manuverability as the F-16 with only stealth as an addition. While its a good strike fighter to say it totally would out shine an F-18E in battle its to be debated. With the extra costs on the JSF its a big debate!!. I agree I dont think it would hurt for the US to look at a more Viable role for the superhornet other than a stop gap plane. I think it should also be looked at for the US airforce to replace the F-15's that the F-22 wont be able to replace due to cut backs.

[Edited 2007-09-11 07:24:36]

User currently offlinePlayloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Okay but if that F/A18F block II with AESA can sling 11 upgraded AMRAAM+'s and your JSF can only carry less than half of that, which one would you rather have if your a potential foreign export customer considering the F/A-18F can be had for a fraction of the cost?

If the F-35 can still get the first shot off (due to the benefit of stealth and AIM-120D missiles), I would rather be in the F-35. A Super Hornet that can't detect the F-35 in time will just get shot down with 11 AMRAAMs still on its racks.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Okay but if that F/A18F block II with AESA can sling 11 upgraded AMRAAM+'s and your JSF can only carry less than half of that, which one would you rather have if your a potential foreign export customer considering the F/A-18F can be had for a fraction of the cost?

That pretty much depends on the type of policy pursued by the potential customer and emphasis he puts on having stealth as opposed to a more conventional design with a higher weapon load. I cannot recall that any air force ever asked for the ability to carry eleven AMRAAMs. I would call that a rather theoretic and especially for export customers an irrelevant feature.


User currently offlinePlayloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

I imagine Taiwan wouldn't mind having 11 AMRAAMs on their fighters. Their potential adversary has a huge numerical advantage, and a very short distance to fly.

User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 11):
How do you know this. The JSF has only stealth and verticle take off capabilities over the Superhornet and that has been questioned by some in the armed forces as to if its enough to justify the costs. I agree the JSF is a goo dreplacement for the Harrier but I would have to argue that its more capable in air to ground an dair to air than the superhornet.

A Super Hornet can not go supersonic with a full payload, a Super Hornet is in my opinion, under powered for a fighter it's size. A F-22A at military power produce as much thrust as a Super Hornet dose at combat power, that's not good!


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Quoting Playloud (Reply 12):
If the F-35 can still get the first shot off (due to the benefit of stealth and AIM-120D missiles), I would rather be in the F-35. A Super Hornet that can't detect the F-35 in time will just get shot down with 11 AMRAAMs still on its racks.

As the article suggests a formation of multiple AESA powered radars working together in concernt with another formation with EA-18G's is actually quite intriguing; I'm just pointing out what the AvWeek article talked about, I'm no expert on the subject.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 15):
A Super Hornet can not go supersonic with a full payload, a Super Hornet is in my opinion, under powered for a fighter it's size. A F-22A at military power produce as much thrust as a Super Hornet dose at combat power, that's not good!

Yeah, but a JSF can't carry a full load without exposing itself from it's stealth shadow nor can it super cruise with all of it's external hanging from it wing. GE developed years ago an upgrade to the GE F414 that adds a fair amount of thrust as well as lowering the maintenance costs while increasing the durability of the engine, but the US Navy at least at that time has decided not to fund the program, hopefully they will in the future.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5218 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 16):
but a JSF can't carry a full load without exposing itself from it's stealth shadow

I guess that depends on what you call a full load. The difference between the F-22/F-35 and current contemporary fighters is a true multi-role ability. With internal weapons bays they can carry both AIM-120s, AIM-9X and SDBs or JDAMS with no aerodynamic penalty. You can't fly a Super Hornet into a war zone with LGBs and expect it to do air to air and be competitive.

Sure the stealth fighters may not carry as much but they will do the job with a lower impact and with more inherent self defence ability than current aircraft.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting Playloud (Reply 14):
I imagine Taiwan wouldn't mind having 11 AMRAAMs on their fighters. Their potential adversary has a huge numerical advantage, and a very short distance to fly.

I think there is an error in reasoning in your statement.

If you outnumbered you probably won't live long enough to employ all those AMRAAMs. Instead you need more fighters with longer range weapons compared to your contender. And when you look at the Taiwanese Air Force that is pretty much what they are trying to do ..within their resource limitations. High amounts of single-seat (--> minimizes human losses), light (-->cheap, saves resources) aircrafts with BVR capability (-->range).


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5075 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 18):
If you outnumbered you probably won't live long enough to employ all those AMRAAMs. Instead you need more fighters with longer range weapons compared to your contender. And when you look at the Taiwanese Air Force that is pretty much what they are trying to do ..within their resource limitations. High amounts of single-seat (--> minimizes human losses), light (-->cheap, saves resources) aircrafts with BVR capability (-->range).

And the chance of each of your airfields getting wrecked (rendered unserviceable) by cruise missile strikes before aircraft from either side leave the ground also points to having more aircraft more evenly spread. Hence in the 21st century an aircraft which can carry more missiles is not a particularly good argument for acquisition.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5046 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 18):
And when you look at the Taiwanese Air Force that is pretty much what they are trying to do ..within their resource limitations. High amounts of single-seat (--> minimizes human losses), light (-->cheap, saves resources) aircrafts with BVR capability (-->range).

On a side note, the US Congress has been notified of possible P-3C and missile sales to Taiwan. It could be that the halted sale to them of 66 Block 52 F-16s might push through, after all.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...M38AAAEAABQelMYAAAAE&modele=jdc_34

TAIWAN:
Quote:
"-- Taiwan is seeking to buy 12 surplus P-3C maritime patrol aircraft with T-56 turboprop engines, data terminals and a mobile operation command center at a cost of $1.96 billion if all options are included. The aircraft would be upgraded by Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins Inc, Raytheon Co, EDO Corp and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc, the Pentagon said. Also included in the package is assistance to allow Taiwan to integrate its intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance network.

-- Separately, Taiwan also requested 144 SM-2 Block 3A Standard naval air-defense missiles for its destroyers. This package is valued at $272 million. Taiwan already has SM-2 missiles in its inventory."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

Quoting Playloud (Reply 12):
If the F-35 can still get the first shot off (due to the benefit of stealth and AIM-120D missiles), I would rather be in the F-35. A Super Hornet that can't detect the F-35 in time will just get shot down with 11 AMRAAMs still on its racks.

Not totally true the AESA radars have been known when linked can track the Stealth aircraft.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 15):
A Super Hornet can not go supersonic with a full payload, a Super Hornet is in my opinion, under powered for a fighter it's size. A F-22A at military power produce as much thrust as a Super Hornet dose at combat power, that's not good!

Very true but we are talking about the F-35 not the F-22 the Superhornet is not even in the same class and I wouldnt expect it to be. The f-35 does not have the Stealth capabilities that the F-22 has and the fighting ability. Lockheed martin made an F-16XL (delta Wing) that outclasses the F-35 in everyfield but stealth but wont produce it since they would be competing against themselves. So why is it so unbelievable that a superhornet could do the same. Sorry guys I am just not sold that for the money that the F-35 is the answer and not just building more Superhornets.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5002 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 19):
And the chance of each of your airfields getting wrecked (rendered unserviceable) by cruise missile strikes before aircraft from either side leave the ground also points to having more aircraft more evenly spread. Hence in the 21st century an aircraft which can carry more missiles is not a particularly good argument for acquisition.

Countries that were confronted with such issues mostly went for emergency landing strips on high- uand freeways. Or autobahns, where I live. I don't have enough knowledge to speak on the Chinese cruise missile thread, but I assume that the Tainwanese doctrine is a little older  Wink.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 21):
Lockheed martin made an F-16XL (delta Wing) that outclasses the F-35 in every field but stealth but wont produce it since they would be competing against themselves.

The F-16XL program was conducted years ago, right about the time the F-15E was little more than a technology demonstrator (modified F-15B, as I recall). Has Lockheed Martin actually done a comparison of that earlier airplane and the F-35? And if so, surely they didn't compare the F-16XL with any version of the F-35 other than the dedicated land-based model.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4908 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 23):
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 21):
Lockheed martin made an F-16XL (delta Wing) that outclasses the F-35 in every field but stealth but wont produce it since they would be competing against themselves.

The F-16XL program was conducted years ago, right about the time the F-15E

The F-16XL wing configuration is not very evident on these photos.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers


I still think an F-15E+ Super Eagle incorporating all the technology gained in the ACTIVE programme and the latest AESA radars would have given the JSF a run for its money (except for stealth), and for a lot less cost.....

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Pho.../F-15ACTIVE/Small/EC96-43456-6.jpg

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Pho.../F-15ACTIVE/Small/EC96-43485-3.jpg


Although the Hornet itself did have a go at active aero elastic wing development....

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/AAW/Small/EC03-0039-1.jpg

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/AAW/Small/EC04-0361-12.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 Post contains links RedFlyer : Here's a couple where it is. Look at the very end on the second article. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...art=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1 ht
26 Wvsuperhornet : First and foremost the F-16XL isn't exactly a poormans fighter I would suspect the cost to run on the average of a superhornet. Yes it was originally
27 RedFlyer : Just so you know, I don't have an opinion either way. I was simply surprised to read that after over 20 years of technological advancements in milita
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AvWeek Article On Super Hornet Taking On JSF Sales
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Super Hornet News Article posted Fri Jul 26 2002 14:13:36 by 2912n
Can A Super Hornet Takeoff A F/D With Out Cats? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 05:34:40 by 747400sp
Super Hornet Mishap At Pensacola... posted Mon Dec 4 2006 16:36:49 by Ulfinator
Why No Blue Angels Super Hornet? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 00:41:26 by FlyUSCG
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
What Do You Like About The F/A-18-E/F Super Hornet posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:12:13 by 747400sp
What's Wrong With The Super Hornet? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 12:03:40 by TheSonntag
Super Hornet Mishap posted Tue Feb 1 2005 02:00:41 by FutureUALpilot
Blue Angels To Super Hornet's Around 2008 posted Sun Oct 17 2004 00:42:33 by Maiznblu_757
Who Has Seen The Real Super Hornet Demo? posted Wed Mar 10 2004 19:18:57 by Maiznblu_757

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format