User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 8:34:36 AM EDT
[#1]
Now it can replace the F-117!!!!111one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 8:35:51 AM EDT
[#2]
What's with all the Hornet bashing on this site???
Personally it's one of my favorite planes. Oh well. I love the bug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 8:42:58 AM EDT
[#3]
I like it too. It's just kinda traditional, what with the Navy trying to fit the SuperHornet peg into every aviation hole they have. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 8:45:03 AM EDT
[#4]
sounds good to me, now if they could give it some longer legs then they probably could replace everything with it.
f18s are cool |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:38:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Here's a random question.
Those 18 F-35 squadrons, where are they gonna take their names and numbers from? Deactivated F-14 squadrons or what? Also, does the F-35 have a name yet, or did I somehow miss it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:48:55 AM EDT
[#6]
The F-18 will replace everything. All your base are belong to F-18 Super Hornet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:57:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Most of the F-14 squadrons (VF-211 for example) have converted to the F/A-18 and have changed their name to reflect their new mission.
VF-211 became VFA-211. They keep the history of the previous squadron, just like when they were F-4 squadrons and F-8 squadrons and so-on. The F-35 is un-named. I'll go out on a limb and say that each of the services will place their own name on their version of the JSF.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:57:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Sorry. An airplane with external carriage will never have a RCS as low as an airplane with internal weapons bays. Well, maybe not never, but not with the current arsenal. Cole-Carbine - Can you cite a source for that article? Some folks here might be interested. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:59:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Janes UK.
Google News search on the headline... Boeing hedges against JSF delays with stealthier Super Hornet Jane's, UK - 6 hours ago A Boeing Phantom Works team is working on the design of a ... is being studied as a hedge against further delays ... Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which has ...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 9:59:40 AM EDT
[#10]
If the F-35 progam stumbles and falls, I'll wager you will see the USAF being told to buy the F/A-18E/F, the new guy at DoD purchasing favours a cross service solution to all the services air needs.… …and if the F-35 fails you will see the RAF & Royal Navy flying the F/A-18E/F too.. I suspect Beoing is positioning itself for market share from a possible F-35 program collapse and cancellation. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:00:11 AM EDT
[#11]
So someone with a subscription to Janes can post the entire article....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:02:14 AM EDT
[#12]
I tried a search on "Hornet Block 3" while you were posting, but didn't uncover anything pertinent. Thanks. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:04:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Please take note of the, uh, punctuation I used. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:11:00 AM EDT
[#14]
I'm trying to locate the article in our internal web site - no joy, they don't make navigating the damn site easy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:11:32 AM EDT
[#15]
okay |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:13:45 AM EDT
[#16]
I'd love to see a side-by-side model similar to the SU-32. It could take on old A-6 roles and be bad-ass at the same time.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:17:00 AM EDT
[#17]
Jane's does not come up on the search engines as it's subscription only. And my copy of Janes is in the tray at work and as it's 7.20pm in the evening here I ain't going back to fetch it.  ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:17:09 AM EDT
[#18]
More likely we'll end up buying Fantans and F-22 knock-offs from China. They'll have F-35s before we do. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 10:25:25 AM EDT
[#19]
My dad was on the design team at Northrop to retrofit the YF-17 to engines the Navy wanted instead of the ones on the test plane. The YF-17 then became the F-18. The elongated back end has his name on it.
This was back in the late '70's. I'm glad it's still around. I think of my dad every time I see one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:19:34 PM EDT
[#20]
let me know when they mount the fricken laser beam on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:33:49 PM EDT
[#21]
I have heard that the Navy wants a COD (carrier on board delivery) version of the F-18, using big underwing cargo pods, as well as an AWACS version. They are struggling to fit the radome on the AWACS version, but the engineering is mostly done. That way they can operate only one airframe for all carrier roles.
 Seriously, this one airframe thing is getting a little out of hand. The f-18E/F is a fine plane, but it still represents late 1970's aerodynamic technology, no matter how many ipods and HDTV's you stuff into it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:41:40 PM EDT
[#22]
You ain't seen nothing yet. In season 2 of Battlestar Galactica they are going to replace all of their lost Vipers with Superhornets. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:48:31 PM EDT
[#23]
God, I've gotta go buy LOMAC. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:49:29 PM EDT
[#24]
 Coming soon to Star Fleet!  ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:52:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Limey Wanker.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 2:56:43 PM EDT
[#26]
A friend of mine owns a trucking company, I think he is buying Superhornets this year to replace some of his older equipment.....
 That reminds me, I need a new toaster. Can I get a Superhornet with a 4-slice module?   Ohhhwww, I kill myself......I'll be here all week folks. And make sure to try the roast beef, it's great.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 4:55:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Did you here about the SuperHornet that had a runway collision with an F-22 Raptor?
It destroyed the Raptor but did 2 million dollars in improvements to the SuperHornet.  Just kidding, I am an old Air Force guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 5:14:39 PM EDT
[#28]
McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) did exactly this same thing with the F-15 versus the ATF (i.e., offered a "stealthy" version of the F-15 in lieu of the F-22). I guess we know how that one turned out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 5:33:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Speaking as a guy periferally involved in maintaining EA-6Bs, the EF-18G can't be fielded fast enough.
Retire the Prowler, please! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 5:42:23 PM EDT
[#30]
As long as Sailors drink beer and the Navy buys Scotch-Weld and Mil-S-8802 they will continue to fly Prowlers.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 6:12:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Might be a manager - all of ours believe the work is done when the sketches show up on powerpoint slides. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2005 6:33:07 PM EDT
[#32]
MDC offered the F-15XX as an interim airplane to be used until the F-22 or F-23 was available - it had ATF engines, a 900 square foot wing, and some other stuff, least of which was RCS reduction. At the time, none of the projects were hardware - if anything, at least the F-15 had flown some of the ATF technologies in preparation for ATF. At any rate, all three airplanes missed four or five of the required performance parameters, and they all missed them by numbers in the fuzz (i.e., they were so close as not to matter), except the F-15XX couldn't make RCS. [At the time, MDC was not a major player in the world of low signature, but that wouldn't have helped the F-15 airframe anyway. Today, well, we are.] Besides the airplane's performance, our second, real advantage was cost - we estimated that we could build 325 F-15XX airplanes for the non-recurring cost of ATF. That could be considered a major bargain for the taxpayer. The ATF SPO didn't like this threat to their pet and before the smoke cleared, the director of F-15 Advanced design was accused of being a traitor by a USAF general at the SPO, and he was fired shortly after. I know this story because I was there; thank God we didn't need the airplanes. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 10:21:50 AM EDT
[#33]
Not buying the F-15XX was a dumb move of the first order, 325 advanced F-15's in the hand (back in the day), is worth 170(ish) F-22's in (the budget constrained) bush. ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 4:07:19 PM EDT
[#34]
I wasn't saying the F-15 with the ATF engines was a bad airplane. Although I didn't work that project, I heard that it met almost all the performance metrics (and that the ones it missed, it didn't miss by much). But, the USAF wanted stealth. Did they absolutely need it? Maybe not. But if you think politics doesn't play a part in a multi-billion dollar program, you are mistaken. The USAF got ticked-off at MDC for peeing in their pool with the unsolicited F-15XX option. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in a battle between a stealthy Super Hornet and the JSF. That was my only point. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 4:15:39 PM EDT
[#35]
... You biotches can line up to kiss my dimpled arse!
... Of the few things Big Blue does right - It's the manufacturing of the Super Hornet! ... It seems we're in the same company as the M4, 1911 & M14 - they're old. they perform fabulously, but are hated by the "trailer park elite" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 4:27:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Yes, the Hornet is a fine plane with a mission. Using it for every task thinking it will perform all those tasks as well or better than a purpose built plane is idiocy plain and simple. If you pay attention, THAT is the issue most people here have a problem with, not the plane itself. There is plenty of money around to go back to building purpose built planes, but of course that would mean scrapping much of the leftists welfare nanny state programs, and I doubt that will happen any time soon if ever. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 4:29:53 PM EDT
[#37]
... I guess I'm just not as convinced of this as you are - believe me, I'd like to be |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 4:36:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Hence my disclaimer, of sorts, following that sentence.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 5:20:04 PM EDT
[#39]
AG nailed it. I have no problem with the Superhornet itself. What I find disturbing is this one size fits all doctrine the flying services are suffering from. The Navy in particular seems hellbent on reducing the carrier air wings to one operational airframe. I think the Navy would be tickled pink at this point to see the JSF fail so they could do just that with the Superhornet.
I also think the inability of the aerospace industry to TIMELY produce new designs is a huge problem. All the new CAD technology that was supposed to speed up design seems to have had the opposite effect. The F-18, by way of the F-17, first flew in 1975. That is 30 year old technology. Sure the bells and whistles have been updated. But it is still 70's technology. The Superhornet would have been a great evolutionary design, if it was entering in full scale service in 1990 instead of 2005. My point is, we should be well onto the next all new design by now, if not the third generation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 5:25:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Never mind the money (which I'm not convinced we have...budget woes getting worse and worse); we don't have the deck space. The navy likes the versatility of multi-role craft, and they're here to stay. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 6:45:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Sorta like TA Wilson trying to get the USAF to buy 747's instead of C-5B Galaxy's. PO'd the Air Force big time. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2005 6:56:01 PM EDT
[#42]
I find it interesting to contrast the USAF and USN strategies.
The USAF is waiting on their hand-built sports cars and the Navy is upgrading its family sedan now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 3:41:19 PM EDT
[#43]
It's all about money. You interested in knowing the number one impediment to designing and fielding these complex machines? It's access to wind tunnels. The second impediment is politics, inter agency bickering, and lack of leadership in the Pentagon. The third is analysis methods and lack of automation. Airplane design is way more than drawing a bunch of parts with CAD, they also must be analyzed. In fact, the drafting and conversion to manufacturing tools are outrunning our ability to provide sufficient analysts. Structural analysis will never lend itself to automation because of the infinite combinations and configurations. [Anyone that believes that everything can be handled by running finite element programs does not understand the problem or the job.] Small pieces, such as lug analysis can be sped up with the appropriate computer routine, but I can do many of those by hand quicker than I can fire up a clunky computer program, often designed by somone that is not an analyst and doesn't know how to arrange the work. Here is an example- when I first started as a strength analyst, we estimated our work as 3 designers for every strength engineer for new design and 5 to 1 for sustaining and manufacturing support. Nowadays you better plan on a minimum of 3 strength engineers for every designer in structures, and 2 for every subsystem designer, and that is only possible with leaders that know what the hell they are doing. An airplane design can be turned around in 36 months if the stars align and every single player involved is on board and committed. Construction of parts and ordering of long lead pieces can start somewhere around 12 months after the first powerpoint chart. The problem is, there is no will in this country to work this way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 3:48:01 PM EDT
[#44]
We call it 'gold plating'… everyone wants to build the 'perfect' plane not one that is 'good enough'. And 15 years down the road when the parts are ordered they cost so much due the enormous amount of R&D and stuff people say "How much!!!! F**k me! It must be gold plated and diamond tipped at that price!" ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 3:49:44 PM EDT
[#45]
So how did we get to the point where it takes 15 years, plus or minus a couple, to get a new plane operational (the F22 in this case)?
In the 50s to 70s new designs were conceptualized and then in the air within a couple of years. I too had the impression that with the advanced design and manufacturing tools we have today, this should be an even faster process. Could part of the reason be far, and I mean FAR less competition among aircraft companies since most of the companies that existed in the 50s-70s have been bought out or merged? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 4:08:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Wind Tunnels? Is there just no interest in building them? The days of design to production in a year is gone, because of the incredible complexity of these things. In the 1940's, it was an airframe, an engine, and you stuck the guns, controls, and fuel somewhere. Now we have radar, RWR, refueling systems, weapon targeting and release systems, FLIR, countermeasures, engines...you get the idea. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 7:00:39 PM EDT
[#47]
We were still chugging out planes in two years or less in the 70s, and they had/have pretty much all those things. I still wonder why it takes so long to get a plane flying these days, and why it costs so goddamn much. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 8:25:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Two years??
The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, taking off from Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport. Initial carrier trials were carried out by BuNo 143391, (fourth production F-4 built) which was first launched and recovered aboard the USS Independence (CVA-62) on February 15, 1960. Board of Inspection and Survey trials began at NATC Patuxent River in July of 1960. The last US built Phantom was delivered on Oct. 25, 1979 (Phantom No. 5057). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 8:53:45 PM EDT
[#49]
I really hope the F-35 program gets off the ground running without too many stumbling issues. That will be a badass aircraft and I love it almost as much as I love the F-22. If it gets shitcanned in favor of the F-18 Super Hornet, I think I'll puke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2005 9:53:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Wasn't the F14 flying in about two years since it was conceived? I know the U2 was, not sure about the F15 and F16 but I assume it was close to that amount of time. What about the SR71? I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to military aviation, so if I've made errors above, please educate me.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
