The source you provided explains the misconceptions and inaccuracies within your posts. Aviation week have demonstrated a distinct bias against the F-35 program since its inception and any article they run relating to it needs to be read with that in mind. If you read their old stuff on the program and compare it to facts available today you will see how far off the mark they have been.
F-18 Advanced Hornet
- Thread starter Guynumber7
- Start date
Probably worth remembering the F35 isn't just a one trick bird when it comes to combat - there's a bunch of other stuff it does as well as being LO - sensor fusion is a big deal.
Recall that there's a six fixed camera system pointing in all directions around the aircraft plus the integrated EOTS system, all pushed into the pilots field of vision via the helmet. That means the pilot can be alerted to threats, respond to them very naturally, and cue weapons just by looking in the direction of the target (even if that's through the bottom of the aircraft)
Supposing your hypothetical Canadian soldier is nose to nose with an enemy force, scattered through a series of buildings in a rapidly evolving contact and needs fire support right now? Which would you rather have overhead? The aircraft tied straight into blue force tracker, with a live image of everything available from JSTARS, or the one where the pilot is looking out the window trying to work out which side of the street the good guys are on?
Recall that there's a six fixed camera system pointing in all directions around the aircraft plus the integrated EOTS system, all pushed into the pilots field of vision via the helmet. That means the pilot can be alerted to threats, respond to them very naturally, and cue weapons just by looking in the direction of the target (even if that's through the bottom of the aircraft)
Supposing your hypothetical Canadian soldier is nose to nose with an enemy force, scattered through a series of buildings in a rapidly evolving contact and needs fire support right now? Which would you rather have overhead? The aircraft tied straight into blue force tracker, with a live image of everything available from JSTARS, or the one where the pilot is looking out the window trying to work out which side of the street the good guys are on?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Well, here is some help for you. Here is the link to the article, "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades".
Given your apparent take on the article, I would suggest seeing an optometrist, you might need glasses for reading. Or if you already wear glasses your prescription might have changed. Or they might need cleaning.
Basically the article does not support any of the assertions you have made.
LO weapons pods are in development, but not deployed yet. Their primary usage will be to minimize the negative LO/Sig management impact of externals carriage upon aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. They should (if also developed or compatible with 4.5 Gen fighters) help reduce the negative impact the odd shapes of external stores have on the RCS of legacy fighters like the Super Hornet, etc. However, even a 'clean' Superhornet operating under EMCOMM is believed to orders of magnitude easier to detect than a 'clean' F-35 operating under similar rules.
The article basically explains that Boeing 'expects' more Super Hornets will get ordered, but also plans to have the production rate for them slowed to about half the current production rate within about two years, just to keep the production line open.
The article also quoted the Boeing VP for the Super Hornet, who would naturally (his job and current position literally depends on this aircraft) put the best face forward on the prospects for 'his' aircraft. Even with that in mind, it was mentioned that a half-dozen countries were potentially interested in the Super Hornet, but it was specifically mentioned that no announcements were expected in the near term, and that even if new orders are placed for the Super Hornet, production is still most likely going to be slowed.
Such a slow-down is a tacit acknowledgement that the aircraft will soon be surpassed by a newer design. Which in turn raises the question of the long-term viability and survivability of the design. From an airframe perspective, a SHornet ordered now and properly maintained should have sufficient airframe flight hours to see it safely flying around 2040 or so. This assumes an order placed now gets delivered by Boeing in 2015 and has about 25 years of flying. However, the expectation is that the flying conditions in a contested or hostile air battlespace will be significantly different before then (IIRC starting sometime around 2025-2030 or so). Sufficient that current 4th Gen fighters would not be 'survivable' except in uncontested airspace and where ground-based threats have been suppressed or destroyed.
Given that a new fighter aircraft purchase is likely to see two+ decades of service before replacement, would it make sense to purchase a design when the writing on the wall is already indicating a short and/or limited future.
What does that article say that supports any of the things you've listed? It's a fairly positive article on how Boeing is a bit in disarray given it's lost the SK bid for it's next fighter (to the F35) and then goes on to mention that a couple of previously reported issues with the F35 have been resolved.
Whoopee..
Oh, wait, you're not referencing the article? You're referencing an unreferenced comment *on* the article. Ho..kay..
I shall call Mr Dudly on the price.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-7-contract-agreements
That's your "off the shelf" price for low rate initial production jets purchased under contract, minus the engine and some other GFE (government furnished equipment)
LRIP 7
"· 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet
· 7 F-35B STOVL - $104 million/jet
· 4 F-35C CV - $116 million/jet"
Those figures are of public record.
I'm not wasting my time creating an account with Avleak, just to rebut an unsourced and provably untrue claim that the F35 costs $618 dollars, just like I'm not signing up to VINE to argue the toss with people who claim vaccines don't work, or any flat earth folk out there to persuade them the earth is round.
EDIT : I can feel my IQ decreasing as I read the comments on that article..let's take a couple:
" The USAF won't fly single-engined F-16s over Arctic ice"
Bzztt..192nd air wing operates F16 north of the Arctic circle. The Norwegians might want to differ as well..
"The USMC will declare an IOC on now an essentially unarmed F-35 - it won't even be able to drop iron bombs for at least it's first year of service."
I doubt the USMC cares about dropping iron bombs - no-one else does - they're going IOC with GBU-12, JDAM and SDB is either here or coming RSN.
"This program has disaster written all over it. Low-tech numbers will overwhelm it. A couple GPS sat problems and we have the most expensive iron bombs on the planet."
Right, so there are no weapons available with inertial guidance or a second or third mode seeker then? Does this bloke know SDB II comes with a tri mode seeker for instance? One assumes not.
Last edited:
I remember it being common knowledge that Western equipment was vastly inferior to Eastern block gear and that the West was extremely fortunate that the USSR never attacked. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait and the rest is history.
Basically western, in particular US, gear was found to have been greatly underestimated and eastern stuff very much overrated. 125mm sabot failing to penetrate Abrams or Challenger MBTs while rifled and smooth bore 120mm was dispatching T-72 at much greater than expected ranges. Is there any point going into what western airpower did the Iraqs IADS, probably no since they have done it again and again around the world since.
Its the same old story, commentator invent problems and slag off against equipment and can only proven wrong when the proverbial hits the fan.
Basically western, in particular US, gear was found to have been greatly underestimated and eastern stuff very much overrated. 125mm sabot failing to penetrate Abrams or Challenger MBTs while rifled and smooth bore 120mm was dispatching T-72 at much greater than expected ranges. Is there any point going into what western airpower did the Iraqs IADS, probably no since they have done it again and again around the world since.
Its the same old story, commentator invent problems and slag off against equipment and can only proven wrong when the proverbial hits the fan.
IIRC Paveway IV is due to fly with anti GPS jamming equipment later this year, the kit can be fitted to Paveway II too.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Boeing reports 2016 as the end of the F-18 if no new orders are received. At present the USN's unfunded 2015 request for 22 Growlers is the only opportunity left.
I don't remember anything like that, & I grew up paying close attention to the Cold War, because if it went hot I'd have a good chance of being fried, living as I did between Strike Command HQ & a base with nuclear-armed strike aircraft, & then moving to a few miles downwind of an atom bomb factory when I started working. Friends of mine were in the forces, facing the Warsaw Pact in Germany.
I remember it being 'common knowledge' in some quarters that western equipment was vastly superior, & the only reason the VPAF shot down any US aircraft was the restrictive RoEs of the USA over Vietnam. I remember great shock among many people when the Israeli air force took significant losses from SAMs in 1973, because they'd assumed that Soviet SAMs were junk.
I also remember it being said, by more sober-minded people, that perhaps our superior quality equipment would be enough to counter Warsaw Pact numerical advantages.
More recently, I've read armour specialists who now know what Soviet tanks were actually like, saying that they were better than was thought in the 1960s & 1970s.
When an F-18 Hornet goes up against a Formula One race car, who will win in this speed showdown?
This adrenaline frenzy was hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force at a base near Melbourne, just ahead of the Australian Grand Prix this week.
Reigning F1 champions Red Bull lined up their latest driver, Aussie native Daniel Ricciardo, alongside a the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet for the spectacular drag race, according to the Daily Mail.
Let’s be clear, jets and cars can’t really race each other, although it’s always awesome to see the stunt. When starting from a dead stop on a runway, almost any car with at least six cylinders could get a head start on the 16-ton fighter aircraft.
But when the F-18′s two massive jet engines kicked in, blasting roughly 24,000 pounds of thrust per engine, the Formula One race car — with its V6 1.6l turbo engine boosted by an electric motor — didn’t stand a chance.
This adrenaline frenzy was hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force at a base near Melbourne, just ahead of the Australian Grand Prix this week.
Reigning F1 champions Red Bull lined up their latest driver, Aussie native Daniel Ricciardo, alongside a the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet for the spectacular drag race, according to the Daily Mail.
Let’s be clear, jets and cars can’t really race each other, although it’s always awesome to see the stunt. When starting from a dead stop on a runway, almost any car with at least six cylinders could get a head start on the 16-ton fighter aircraft.
But when the F-18′s two massive jet engines kicked in, blasting roughly 24,000 pounds of thrust per engine, the Formula One race car — with its V6 1.6l turbo engine boosted by an electric motor — didn’t stand a chance.
Video mate, video please. I know you can't post links but if you post the link with http entered as hxxp then of us can clean it up for you. For example: hxxp://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-18-advanced-hornet-12727-7/#post277787
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
I was goint to post this up a few weeks ago.
Its a classic hornet not a super
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luH-rOYixY8
Its a classic hornet not a super
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luH-rOYixY8
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Defensenews.com is reporting that Kuwait is likely to order some Superhornets. This should keep the line open for a few more years, no doubt a relief to the USN just in case the "C" doesn't work out as planned. Unfortunately for the RCAF, having the F-18 SH production line continue allows the Canadian government to further delay the purchase of new fighters as there will still be two U.S. jets to choose between. The anti-F-35 crowd here will now try to push the ASH as a better choice. This will be made easier by the likely defeat of the Conservative government in Oct.
Alexendra M
New Member
One of the best Naval queen
Always admired this aircraft despite of its less manuvering capability but extremely incredible radar signature reduction capability and anti ground collision capability ( as f 16) ...we always expected this aircraft at least for indian navy
Always admired this aircraft despite of its less manuvering capability but extremely incredible radar signature reduction capability and anti ground collision capability ( as f 16) ...we always expected this aircraft at least for indian navy
I'll admit in the past I've been dead set against the F-35 but even I can admit the cost per has decreased significantly and have made some good strides in getting them ready.
That aside I do have some concern's/queries.
- Operating costs, While the purchase price can decrease doesn't always mean they will become cheaper to fly. Some use specialized fuels while others are more maintenance intensive. Seen costs for the SH ranging from $11k to $20k (I'm more inclined to believe the $20k+ figure), Costs for the F-15 at $40k (give or take) and costs for the F-35 at $60k+. Does any one have any idea on operating cost of the F-35 vs say the SH??
- Stealth, Based on an article I read with the USN or member's of it saying that stealth was over rated. How accurate is this view? and if it is is it worth while bothering going for a less maneuverable aircraft (If I'm incorrect on this please correct me) whose stealth may be of little to no use down the track?
Operating costs are only a small issue in the grand scheme of things but the stealth is the biggest issue, If it is going to be obsolete down the track then a number of nations are going for an aircraft when other's are more suited to there needs.
On the subject of Canada operating two different air frames (Old but just gone through and read it all), Operating the ASH and F-35 would be impossible in the number's Canada is looking at. For a small air force wanting to operate two air frames about the best one could do would be the ASH and the Gripen since they share engines, Beyond that as far as I know every other combat aircraft globally in production are all just too different.
That aside I do have some concern's/queries.
- Operating costs, While the purchase price can decrease doesn't always mean they will become cheaper to fly. Some use specialized fuels while others are more maintenance intensive. Seen costs for the SH ranging from $11k to $20k (I'm more inclined to believe the $20k+ figure), Costs for the F-15 at $40k (give or take) and costs for the F-35 at $60k+. Does any one have any idea on operating cost of the F-35 vs say the SH??
- Stealth, Based on an article I read with the USN or member's of it saying that stealth was over rated. How accurate is this view? and if it is is it worth while bothering going for a less maneuverable aircraft (If I'm incorrect on this please correct me) whose stealth may be of little to no use down the track?
Operating costs are only a small issue in the grand scheme of things but the stealth is the biggest issue, If it is going to be obsolete down the track then a number of nations are going for an aircraft when other's are more suited to there needs.
On the subject of Canada operating two different air frames (Old but just gone through and read it all), Operating the ASH and F-35 would be impossible in the number's Canada is looking at. For a small air force wanting to operate two air frames about the best one could do would be the ASH and the Gripen since they share engines, Beyond that as far as I know every other combat aircraft globally in production are all just too different.
The F-35 isn't 'less maneuverable' than the Super Hornet. Its acceleration, agility and E-M charts are most comparable to late model F-16's. The difference is that Super Hornets and F-16's require external stores in combat configuration, wheres the F-35 doesn't (though obviously it can). This gives it a tremendous performance advantage compared to most fighters. The majority of performance comparisons aren't conducted on like basis.
The second aspect is the tremendously large amount of fuel the F-35 carries. It carries nearly 19,000lbs of fuel internally. The Super Hornet carries 14,000 odd pounds internally while the F-16 carries about 7,000lbs... Most performance comparisons are predicated upon light air to air missile loads and 50% internal fuel. Put the F-35 performance metrics in that perspective and you see why many critics argue it isn't great. However apples aint apples because no fighter enters combat with a light air to air missile load, no sensors and only 50% fuel. Not if they wish to survivein modern combat anyway. External stores provide drag, vibration and 'G' maneuvering restrictions. The F-35 obviously has no such restrictions as it can be and will most often be 'combat configured' with no external stores of any kind.
The F-35's performance is predicated upon 2x 2000lbs JDAM's, 2x AMRAAM missiles and 9,500lbs of fuel.
Put that on any fighter you choose to compare and see how things look then...
Superhornet - excellent aircraft.
JSF 35A - will be an excellent aircraft.
The difference between the two,well have the debate.
What I will suggest is that both government and the RAAF have got fast air right both for now, transition and for the future.
I would also like to see a MATURE debate on the F35b option.
Take away the emotion,what are the facts:what are the needs and what's the opportunity cost.
LHD's aside there is not that many runways in this part of the world.
+1. Agreed. The further its developed it will only continue to solidify itself as a system despite the critics
I don't have any personal opinions on F-35B for Aussie LHDs, mainly because if I assumed to have much knowledge on what the RAN wants to achieve, I'd be guessing.
Suppose it depends on if you need the LHD capability, how much will those 6 or so F-35B offer with respect to the lift capability lost etc, I don't really know.