JFrazierThat’s why I was trying to nail him down on his sources. Someone there DID actually quote an F-22 pilot and the Mach 1.9/60,000ft claim and gave the pilots name.
I know the quote he’s talking about. The guy didn’t give out the pilot’s name and Dozer said something about the speed being classified or something.
JFrazierIdesof has no idea was he’s talking about most of the time. The most I could see the Raptor supercruising at would be Mach 1.8. I wouldn’t pay much attention to him.
JFrazierThe money save by not developing the Super Hornet could have been spent replacing many of those same Hornets! Yet, now the USN will be forced to keep then until the F-35 arrives. So, your logic is really reversed?
Nope. The SH had a much better chance of going into service without major delays than the JAST/JSF/F-35. That’s the advantage of sharing the basic Hornet airframe. The USN doesn’t see the SH has a hinderence like you do. They have a plan for it and they plan to use as well as they can.
Regardless, anyways you spin it a USN Airwing of Super Hornets and Lightnings is “never” going to be as effective as one wholly made up of Lightnings. The future is clearly stealthy types like UAV’s, Raptors, B-2’s, and of course Lightnings. Which, would be like debating the Pro’s of propellers at the advent of jet aircraft…………….IMO :rolleyes:
The problem is money. Yes, those stealthy types of aircraft are great but they aren’t exactly the cheapest thing to buy. Who knows how much the F-35 will end up being by the end of testing.
JFrazierMaybe you should listen to yourself? According to you the Hornet doesn’t have room for growth and the USN just couldn’t get by until the F-35 Lightning entered service! Well, maybe you should walk over to the USAF for a day as there world must be crumbling down around them. 😮 As they have a much larger fleet of older F-16 Blk 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s! Surely, you are now saying that F-16’s have more growth potential than a F/A-18C/D? Are You? Also, I have no idea how the USAF is going to get by as when the Lightning does enter service as she won’t be able to replace all of those F-16’s all at one time. Lastly why would anyone want half a Airwing of Second-Day Strike Fighters and another with First-Day Strike Fighters. When you could have a whole Airwing of First-Day Strike Fighters……..you’ve totally lost me here. That like saying I can bring two cars to the race track. This years car and last years…………… :p
USAF F-16’s haven’t had nearly as hard a life as the Hornets have. There aren’t ANG units in the Navy. All of the Hornets get used and they are pounded into the ground almost everyday. Don’t forget about the constant pounding of carrier landings and the sea spray that messes with the paint. Most of the operational Vipers are still fairly young in terms of airframe hours.
The situation for the Viper is different than the Hornet. Many people, including me, think that the USAF could get away with using existing F-16s for a pretty long time. Ask ELP about that one. The reason why the Hornet has no more space is that the extra cooling and space required for new electronics would cut into the measly fuel fraction the C model Hornets have now. The Viper doesn’t have that problem. The extra electronics can be put into a dorsal spine and CFTs can be put on. The only way to fit more stuff onto the Hornet and make it better was to make it bigger.
The Super Hornets are first day strikers now. They will be transferred once the Lightning becomes available in decent numbers.
The F-35 is a needed asset on the Navy carriers no doubt. However, there wass a huge gap that had to be filled and the Super Hornet was the plane chosen to fill it.
JFrazierBasically, more Hornets would not be capable of replacing the F-14, A-6, EA-6, S-3 and KA-6(tanking). I agree with ELP in saying that we need an F-22 style fighter on the carriers instead of an all F-35 wing.
JFrazierHow many times do I have to say it? Buy new F/A-18 Hornets until the F-35 is ready! The Hornet is more than capable of handling any current threat………..as for your question?
Reasons for not buying new Hornets:
*Said Hornets would also be in service after the F-35s. They would be outdated compared to the Super Hornets we have now. You can’t just AMARC them as soon as the F-35 comes on as it would be viewed as a waste of money.
*There is no more room for avionics upgrades in the legacy Hornet. Those Hornets you ordered would be out out of touch in 2010.
*The Hornets would have been the only planes on the deck from 2005 to whenever the F-35 becomes operational. Those outdated fighters would have to remain there afterwards as the F-35 would still need to build up numbers.
*The increased number of Hornets on the carriers would have created a need for more tankers which the Navy would not have.
*There is nothing resembling a deep strike capability with the legacy Hornet.
*There would be no aircraft on board the carrier capable of carrying large loads. Yes, there is a need for the much increased bring-back capability the Super Hornet has in wartime.
Today the Hornet is still very capable of winning……………in the future the Super Hornet will not!
The SH will be used as primarily a second-day strike fighter in the future. It will still be useful just like the other 4.5 gen fighters.
JFrazierThe F-35 Lightning will be exported in very large numbers! If, memory serve me the Super Hornet is yet to receive a single export order………… 😮 😮 😮
That has nothing to do with US Naval Aviation.
Regardless, if any Air Force had a choice between the Super Hornet or Lightning the choice is clear! :rolleyes:
That has nothing to do with the Navy’s situations either. The problem is that the F-35 will not be available in great enough numbers to replace the F-14 and F/A-18C/D period. To say that the Super Hornet isn’t necessary now, that it and other 4.5 gen fighters are obsolete, and that the Navy should have waited for the Lightning is flawed thinking.
JFrazierHow are they “obsolete” even in 10-15 years? As a strike aircraft the SH is good and only getting better. Where…. the F-35 will never be produced enough to meet all carrier deck needs anyway. Not to mention F-35 has less than 1% of it’s flight testing done. C model F-18s are getting so many hours on them it is scary. That is why there are more orders for SH coming down the pike. Not to mention USN asked to delay F-35 for available money reasons alone.
Exactly.
JFrazierI wouldn’t bet on the USN ordering many more Super Hornets pass what is projected. Nor would I count on any major delays in the F-35 Program. Why is the Super Hornet Obsolete or will be? Well, why was the Me-109 obsolete when the Me-262 entered service in 1944? Because the new type offered capabilities that far outclassed the preceding design. In layman terms the Super Hornet is a piston engine fighter and the Lightning is a jet fighter…………..one is the future and one is the past! :rolleyes:
I can almost guarauntee that the F-35 will have project delays. Any advanced project on this scale will have them. The Raptor had them and its project was on a much smaller scale. Heck, the Lightning’s weapons clearance prgram will take forever.
The problem is that you can’t go from the Hornet straight to the Lightning. It just wouldn’t work. I don’t think you know how maxed out the legacy Hornets are. They have almost no more space for any updated avionics and the airframes are the workhorses of the Navy. At the time the A-12 and Super Tomcat were cancelled, do you even think that the Navy had the JSF on their mind? There was pretty much one option. As ELP said, in a pure strike role, the F-35 will not be that far ahead of the Super Hornet.
The F-35 is still a compromised aircraft. It won’t be as dominate as the Raptor on the battlefield. It will be a escort/strike fighter with stealth features unlike its precedesors. However, the Lightning isn’t best for every air force.
JFrazieri saw a orange f-22 raptor pic once!!
Are you sure that wasn’t the yellow primer? All of the F-22 look like that out of the factory. It’s pretty funny to see when they are next to their F-16 chase planes.
JFrazierWell, to many loosing 9 times out of 10 would be considered obsolete! 😮 Also, a large portion of combat won’t be at WVR……………most Aircombat happens at BVR and will for the forseeable future. As for Strikers I have to stand corrected! I guess you would have to consider the Super Hornet “State of the Art” (Oh that hurt) and 1st rate while the others have the potential. Yet, with the advent of the F-35 Lightning just around the corner that’s almost a mute point……………………….. :rolleyes:
They are not considered obsolete considering that they will constitute the majority of fighters in the air in the next 10-15 years. The Raptor should be getting those numbers against any fighter in the air right now. Hopefully the Lightning will be almost as good.
Also, I wouldn’t consider the F-35 as just around the corner.
JFrazierRPG you’re calculations are not very accurate. And I wouldn’t have the Su-33 at the top of my carrier-borne fighter list especially considering the measly amount of weapons it’s able to take off the deck.
JFrazierBuying more Hornets would be a short-term solution like the Super Hornet. Yet, it would cheaper now and offer more later! 😀
I see what you are saying, I just don’t know if the Navy brass would have allowed it. If they couldn’t get the F-14 updated they were going to get a bigger, better Hornet. I think an all-Hornet deck just wasn’t going to happen.
In a sensible world your idea would work. However, there are people’s egos and beliefs to contend with.
JFrazierThe only problem is what do we do with all of those obsolete Super Hornets after that? 😮
They won’t be “obsolete”. Considering the SH obsolete would make the Eurocanards and Super Flankers obsolete in the next 20 years which they won’t be.
They will be around for second day strike and other various roles. The F-35 will be the first day strike aircraft. It will be very good at that role too.
JFrazierSo, in the short-term the Super Hornet will offer the US more capability (i.e. @ high cost) on the otherhand in the long-tern she will offer less! Otherwise why buy expensive F-35’s and/or F-22’s……………just have a fleet of Super Hornets! :p SOunds like you are saying “less is more”? Sorry, but its NOT! :p
Why do you keep bring up the F-22? It’s role has been defined and it’s perfect for what it does. I have no doubts about it’s capabilities. However, it has almost nothing to do with naval aviation.
Yes, an all F-35 wing would be the best thing. However for a short period of time we might have been stuck with an all-Hornet deck. Long-term the Navy will get whatever F-35s in needs. The mix will become more and more dominated by the F-35 as time goes on.
I just don’t think that the Navy was entertained about keeping the legacy Hornets no matter the age for however many years it took for the F-35 to come on line. They messed up plain and simple. They needed a big fighter/bomber to fill the F-14’s, A-6’s and others role while they could round up some more money. The legacy planes just don’t have the space or the size to replace those planes.
Sign In
