Yeah, it’s PS’ed. The light doesn’t match and the canopy is showing a different background than the sky. Nowhere near the quality of the MIG-27 over the desert.

Originally posted by SOC
I thought the “Growler” or whatever was to carry five pods (the same number as the EA-6B) and two AGM-88…?

And how far do you think it’d go hauling five ALQ-99 pods? Besides, having four of those jamming pods mounted on 4deg offset pylons (+vibration problems caused by that) i’m not so sure if the Growler can calibrate it’s emissions as neatly as the Prowler can.

Also, while the Growler is indeed ment to replace the EA-6B as a frontline jammer to be part of a strike package, the original thought was to supplement the Growler by more powerful (and longer loitering!) long-range stand-off USAF-jammers with the proposed EB-52 or EB-1, two programs which seem to have died now.

That’s a mentality of no matter the financial costs, as long as nobody gets killed.

Distiller is absolutely right. Thinking you can pull a Mars-mission off without accepting a fairly high chance of losing your crew is probably impossible. The amount of things which could go wrong over a 20+ months voyage is enormous – just thinking of all the could-go-wrong scenarios would require NASA to become an even more monolithical organisation than it already is. Perhaps it can be tried first with a Layka or Ham animal mission, but i’m this would mobilise PETA enough to warrant a huge increase in NASA’s legal department.

I think serious concideration should be given to making it a one-way mission anyway. It’s definately the easiest way for China to win the race 😀

[rant on]

One airframe doing multiple jobs? Wow, the funding guys must love that.

Maintenance figures and MTB which are better than the USN ever had before? That’s great news for the maintenance crews and mission planners.

Increased payload capability? Yes, indeed. It’s mostly one-way though, the increased payload of the Super-Dooper Hornet refers more to the weapons it can land back on the carrier with, than the stuff it takes out to the enemy. No more need to dump your expensive PGMs into the sea just to be able to land – and the beancounters already were so happy from the first bit!

Increased range? Yes, that’s why the extra slammed-on pylons are for. To carry fuel tanks.

Growth potential? Pretty lame argument, it suggests that the plane is a piece of junk now but eventually we’ll make something decent out of it.

These nice theories are all well, and they sure are quite ambitious requirements for a new aircraft. But no, we want a low-cost solution so we want to have all of the above in an old airframe to keep development costs low… thank goodness the entrepreneurs at Boeing offering to modify the F/A-18 airframe have a solid reputation of doing the maximum effort not to waste any of the tax payer’s money.

And what a beautiful design they came up with. As Distiller said, the avionics suite is absolutely great and probably second to none, except maybe when the F/A-22 reaches full service.

But the airframe? Please. It’s an inflated F/A-18, which in itself was an inflated F-17, which was a lightweight fighter. The Subpar Hornet has become an YF-17 but only three times as heavy. Of course, thrust and all that has increased as well, but at some point it is about time to wonder if the basic layout for a lightweight fighter is still suitable for a big, heavy bomb truck. Appearantly not.
Other big aircraft like the F-15C/D (same weight class) have no problem hauling the amount of stuff the Subpar Hornet hauls, and dropping it without hitting the aircraft itself. For this to be possible on the Subpar Hornet, the wing pylons were offset 4degrees outward. Not only is this an absolutely disgraceful and pathetic form of engineering to solve separation problems, it also adds more drag to the already terribly draggy inverted-bathtub pylons which have always bothered any Hornet variant.

Then there is the speed thing. In order to stealthify the Hornet, stealthy intakes were developed. Nice paralellogram-shaped box inlets, looking far more stealthier than the fixed round intakes on the Cobra and earlier Hornets. They offer more air to the intakes and perform better at high speeds – but being fixed intakes, they are not as effective at relatively low speeds, making acceleration or even cruise flight less than it could have been with non-stealthy or adjustable intakes.

Then there is the fuel issue. Yes, it carries more internal fuel than the vanilla Hornet. But it’s also far draggier. Which for a large part negates that extra fuel.

Then there is the speed issue. Which is actually not an issue, because the Subpar Hornet is slow. I’m not sure about the acceleration of the Subpar Hornet Vortex says (i’m actually quite surprised about this considering the drag, intakes and relatively low thrus/weight ratio but Vort is reliable enough IMHO), but the speed certainly is not there. So while it lacks the endurance for long-distance CAP, it certainly also lacks the speed to dash towards a target in order to intercept it. Especially compared with supercruise aircraft. Also, BVR AAM + speed = extra range. Only few extra knots for a Subpar Hornet AMRAAM.

But hey, what is there to complain about? The Navy has been losing carrier-borne capabilities over the years anyway, why not continue this trend with an all-new old design?
The long range, ultra-long range AAMs, great endurance and great payload of the F-14 will be gone soon. In favour of the Subpar Hornet.
The A-6s range and payload are gone. In favour of both flavours of Hornet.
The S-3B’s refuelling capability will be gone shortly. In favour of a short-on-fuel buddy-pod equipped KF/A-18E/F.
The EA-6B’s long-range four-crew multi-band jamming/SEAD platform will be gone shortly. In favour of a short-range two-crew less pods (so less bands) jamming/SEAD platform variation of the Subpar Hornet breed.

What’s next?
The Vikings are on the way out. SF/A-18E/F anyone? It will do nicely, give it a MAD-pod under one wing, two sonobuoys under the other and it will form a lovely hunter-killer pair in formation with an SH-60F.

The EA-3B and ES-3A carrier-based ELINT aircraft are gone for some time now too. An ELINT-equipped ERF/A-18E/F will be able to carry the needed equipment, and will still have the range to identify the radars aboard the AEGIS-cruisers and destroyers inside the Battle Group.

The E-2C is getting old too.
Why not an EF/A-18H with a phased-array system like the Erieye on it’s back? With a little luck, the radar system can actually be aligned with the aircraft itself which will give it less drag than the pylons do. More weight can be saved by making a fixed rather than a retractable refuelling probe – it will be needing it most of the time anyway.

And who brings the mail again? Oh yes, the C-2 Greyhound. Which is old.
But thanks to email, we don’t need that many mailflights anymore. Or we can do with a smaller aircraft. Why not an CF/A-18E/F? A few luggage pods will be able to bring all the important stuff to the carrier with ease. And if you give the backseater a leather ejection seat, an extra large cupholder and a footmassage-bath rather then rudder pedals, you’ve actually got yourself a VCF/A-18E/F.

I only think SAR will still be a problem, While the Subpar Hornet surely is slow enough to be fitted with Fulton gear, i’m not so sure if the person being picked up will enjoy being fried by the F414s. But i’m sure the brilliant engineers at Boeing will find a solution for this too.

[rant off]

Groo asks, Arthur plays… and it gets me an honorary commendation for being Cold War pro-West!

I love this forum!

Muxel,
I stand corrected, RA78760 is indeed an ex-A50. It was ex bort 44, c/n 0093486579

Clean aircraft are ugly!

Originally posted by SOC
Same airplane before being moved indoors 😎

The top pic shows the very same aircraft over Gibraltar… even more 😎