Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Super Hornet now can carry the same internal fuel as the F-35.


Read the article about the CFT's here.

Someone has to get the balls to ask.  What do we need Naval Aviation to do?  Long loiter time while performing CAP missions to protect the Fleet?  Long loiter time to provide Close Air Support for Marines and other ground forces?  Deep strike missions against enemy installations??????

If you have the integrity to ask those questions then the next thing that must be asked is quite simple.  Does the F-35 provide enough value to justify cutting the Marine Corps down to 150,000?  Does it justify another decade or two driving a 50 year old Amphibious Assault Vehicle?

I'm just asking.

NavAir is sitting back, chilled the fuck out...laughing its ass off at the Marine Corps and Air Force.

13 comments :

  1. I saw this and I couldn't help but to laugh. The Navy did not provide any funds for the Advanced Super Hornet program, but they did work with Boeing to observe the tests. The office of the Chief of Naval Operations is also working with Boeing on the Advanced Super Hornet program. If the Navy shifts funds from the F-35C to buy more Super Hornets then the Ensign who wrote "Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis" was completely right.

    I also read through the comments section and it made me laugh even harder. By the way, sferrin, I would like to point out a fundamental flaw with your argument when you said, "What should be painfully obvious is that flight deck is a fixed size. So compare the capability of 36 F-35Cs to 36 'Super' Hornets."

    You are neglecting the fact that we have multiple flight decks and need to fill all of those flight decks with aircraft. The flight deck is a fixed size, but the number of flight decks is not. Those carriers will also need to be spread around and must disperse themselves at different corners of the globe.

    What we should NOT be comparing is 36 F-35Cs to 36 Super Hornets in a fight against an enemy. What we should be comparing is a reduced carrier force with a mix of Super Hornets and a small number of F-35Cs versus a full carrier force with a full load of Super Hornets in terms of the global scale of possible military conflicts. At the moment it is really obvious that the full carrier force armed with a ton of Super Hornets is far better. With the upgrades that are cheap to produce for the Super Hornet it brings nearly the same capability of an F-35C to each aircraft at a much cheaper cost. That makes the F-35 a losing deal hands down. The Super Hornet simply fits NAVAIR like a glove.

    ReplyDelete
  2. With the upgrades that are cheap to produce for the Super Hornet it brings nearly the same capability of an F-35C to each aircraft at a much cheaper cost. That makes the F-35 a losing deal hands down. The Super Hornet simply fits NAVAIR like a glove.

    But the upgrades aren't cheap, and the Navy is not funding them for precisely that reason. Upgrading the engines alone is going to cost on the plus side of 1 billion dollars.

    So all this bullshit about "cheaper" is total horse puckey, you will more to get an F-18 doing a poor JSF impersonation. Why pay more to get less?

    The hope is that in the future the Navy can upgrade its EXISTING hornets with SOME of the Block III stuff. but as of right now it is a Boeing, not Navy funded project, and a new build BK III SH AINT CHEAP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you serious? Only 1 billion dollars? Compare that to what we're spending on the high multi-billion dollar F-35 dumbass. Also, the figures for a Block III Super Hornet are around $90 million dollars. The F-35C's 2013 cost is $199.4 million dollars and it's projected to go up, unlike its sister variants. The Block III Super Hornet is dirt cheap.

      The Navy is not funding them because it doesn't have congressional approval and Lockheed has a good number of congressmen on its payroll for campaign funds. You seriously need to think before you speak.

      Delete
    2. I'm not talking about a small number. I'm talking about replacing every Legacy Hornet with them and buying a few extra so we can fill our air wings with Super Hornets. We have built plenty of them already. If we proceed with more we will have built enough of them for the needs of the Naval service. Also, the number we plan to sell around the world combined does not even reach 1,000. It is a little over 700 with numbers changing somewhat. The Navy has bought 687 Super Hornet air frames (counting the Super Hornets and Growlers combined). If you factor in the 36 Super Hornets for the Australians that number reaches 723 air frames total having been ordered. That's roughly already in the same ball park of the F-35 numbers we plan to sell to foreign buyers. These buys have helped lower the costs of the Super Hornet air frame and the upgrades rely on existing technology, it is very low risk in terms of cost. The increased production orders for the Super Hornet would also lower its already affordable price too.

      The US Air force is the largest F-35 customer and is the only customer that actually plans to buy over 1,000 jets. Do you even know what you're talking about?

      "Is that right? How many fully upgraded Block IIIs have been built so we can compare? Oh right they are all mock ups. "

      Let me ask you this: How many fully functional F-35s have been built so we can compare its finished cost? Oh right. They are all not real combat aircraft that we're making. The flaws in the F-35 designs will require many billions on their own to fix. The tailhook for the F-35C is just inexcusable. The software challenges are another matter entirely. These jets will be far more expensive to fix than it will cost develop the Block III SH. There have been so many changes in the F-35 production line than many of the jet we've already built will not ever be able to be made combat ready since they are too different. This is wasting dollars.

      "Sorry its not. And the price difference is not enough to warrant the development."

      Sorry, but in comparison to the Just So Fucked F-35 it REALLY is. Actually I'm not really sorry at all. It's just the facts.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but in comparison to the Just So Fucked F-35 it REALLY is. Actually I'm not really sorry at all. It's just the facts.

      The problem is that spending dev money on the SH only helps the Navy and the RAAF. Spending dev money on the F-35 means thousands of aircraft as you point out. Unless you expect the USAF to fly SHs.

      Sorry buddy big picture the F-35 is going to win every time which is why its going to "win" We will probably never see a full out BK III F-18E/F with all the bells and whistles built from the ground up to be a BK III. We might see partial retrofits after the JSF is fielded

      Sorry its just the facts.

      "Let me ask you this: How many fully functional F-35s have been built so we can compare its finished cost? Oh right."

      The USN has more F-35Cs flying than BK III SHs baby

      Delete
    4. I'd like to jump in here and btw...thanks to the poster over on F16net who directed the attention of it's members to this blog entry in particular.

      Regarding your opinion and argument; "...that spending dev money on the SH only helps the Navy and the RAAF. Spending dev money on the F-35 means thousands of aircraft...", also recall that development spent on follow-on upgrades to the Super Hornet upgrade path is completely inherent to the Aircraft's original design and intent. i.e., The Super Hornet (like the F-16, or F-14, or F-15) was NOT supposed to be some sort of 1-or-2 block max upgrade path and then simply retired fleet-wide as an operational aircraft type after merely 15-20 years of being a short-term stopgap platform.

      C'mon man. That is not putting your thinking cap on and flat out not accurate or prudent/economical strategy; especially given the initial R&D (fairly substantial).

      Simply, if the Navy has plenty of funds for implementing the stay-the-course F-35C Program acquisition, then there should obviously be sufficient funds for 'less-expensive' SHornet upgrade path too (and FYI, said 'upgrade path' doesn't necessarily need to come in the lump form of some complete 'Block III' package in the first place). Yet, if there is in fact USN funding problems for implementing effective, timely upgrades for something as affordable and reliable as the Super Hornet Program, then there should absolutely be red flags raised and alarm bells going off on the questioned sustainability and realistic affordability of F-35C's expected Procurement (and timely block upgrade path) plan and acquisition process.

      Something will simply need to give vis-a-vis the expected USN/USMC Tac recap and modernization plan, period. And that's likely what Navy acquisition 'deciders' are currently assessing and evaluating today in terms of how prudently to proceed in fulfilling 'medium-term' requirements in a substantially changing paradigm. imho.

      Delete
  3. LOL CFTS are "internal fuel" now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Closest thing to it.

      They add minimal drag, don't take up pylon space, and, in some cases, actually add lift.

      Delete
  4. Minimal drag is it Doug? They provide minimal subsonic drag I agree. They massively increase supersonic drag, an area for which the Super Hornet is hardly impressive to start with and unlike tanks, remain on the aircraft for the duration of the mission...

    In any case, this is the same stupid argument as comparing any OTHER mid-life updated to F-35. These things are mid-way through their design lives already. F-35 is beginning it's life. It's capabilities will improve throughout it's life too. The difference it can do things today, that all these various pretenders will NEVER do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. minimal drag in comparison to drop tanks. it really is an elegant solution.

      Delete
    2. "The difference it can do things today, that all these various pretenders will NEVER do."

      Really! like what? If you could keep one working long enough it might be able to make it to a target. Couldnt do anything when it got there mind you.

      Ultimatly this isnt about bells and whistles trumping over old school (especially as most of the bells and whistles dont work yet) this argument is about the low cost solution being "good enough" for x number of years (10, 15, 20 who knows) untill a better implemented solution is available, vs the gold pated solution that if and when it works will be brilliant, but has the potential to break the bank and cripple the USN,USMC,USAF in the process.

      Delete
    3. Minimal drag compared to external drop tanks, not to mention the flying brick aerodynamics of the F-35. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the testing, but the JSF's (especially the F-35C) transonic performance is TERRIBLE.

      Stealth design, internal weapon storage, and STOVL compromises make for a bulky design with a big frontal cross section. The F-22 gets away with it thanks to a slicker shape and simple brute force.

      The big advantage with CFTs is that they are removable. They can be left home if not required. Their disadvantage compared to external tanks is that they can't be dropped mid-flight.

      In the end, Boeing should be commended. They are studying these upgrades with minimal taxpayer funding, as well as keeping the Super Hornet viable in the event of further F-35 delays or possible cancellation.

      Delete
  5. Super Hornets, Growlers and X-47B are the way of the future.
    They will communicate securely via Sat-Com.
    www.naval-technology.com/news/newsboeing-us-navy-demonstrate-fa-18ef-satcom-capability

    The co-pilots will control several semi-autonomous X-47B or similar over the enemy air defenses or if they prefer they can use stand-off weapons or to do very close air support with out the fear to explode like a firework if a single 9mm bullet hit their non existing fuel-refrigerating skin system like the Fck-35.

    I made some video who shows how the Super Hornets are real war machines ready for high tech or rude combat today at 1/3 of the price of acquisition and maintenance in the seven seas or the wild north of Canada.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGM-aB1Luc&feature=plcp

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.