my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » US Navy wants Super Hornet over JSF?

   
Author Topic: US Navy wants Super Hornet over JSF?
Johnny_Stew
Member
Member # 4599

posted 06-16-2000 06:20 PM     Profile for Johnny_Stew   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Found this article over at Strategypage.com 'Battle for the Joint Strike Fighter' http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htproc.htm

One of the things mentioned in this article is that due to tight defense budgets, the USAF and USN can't afford the number of JSF aircraft they're supposed to buy, and that neither seems to particularly care for the plane. The Air Force wants its F-22s, and the Navy wants its F-18Es, and neither is willing to give up a single one of those aircraft to free up money for JSF. I can kind of see why the USAF would have this attitude, but my impression was that Super Hornet was supposed to be an interim naval air improvement until the Navy could get the JSF on its decks. Now they seem to be saying 'Screw JSF, we'd rather have Super Hornets?' With this line of thought, and ever more deadly SAM and new fighter threats being fielded, it looks like the USN is letting slip the great high-performance advantage it once enjoyed over potential enemies. We simply aren't dealing with Mig-21's, Mig-23s, and maybe the odd Mirage anymore - anyone who's going to fling fighters at USN air is going to do it with Flanker, Super Flanker, and possibly Rafale if the French go selling it to unsavory previous customers like Libya. Super Hornet is a decent design, but JSF would be far better.

Now having said that, I'm trying to get to what the rationale would be for favoring F18E over JSF. The only reason I can think of is that the Navy figures a bunch of Super Hornets in the near future is a better thing than a few Super Hornets now and some JSFs a lot farther down the road. I'd like to see other thoughts and comments about this.


Posts: 36 | From: Cleveland, Ohio USA | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 06-16-2000 07:00 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The services must maneuver in the political world they inhabit. Under the current administration the money is extremely tight. After the November election we'll know if it will stay that way (Gore) or if the budgets are likely to increase (Bush).

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nick Kula
Member
Member # 3239

posted 06-16-2000 09:45 PM     Profile for Nick Kula     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don't blame the Navy for wanting Super Hornets ove JSF. The Hornet is a known system to the Navy and has excellent reliability.

The JSF does not have much of an advantage over the F/A-18E/F. JSF will not have supercruise, will not be very stealthy, similar in maneuverability to the Super Hornet, carry a smaller load, and have shorter legs. Despite its name, the Joint Strike Fighter will have poor air to air capability


Posts: 33 | From: Frankfort, IL, US | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
werd
unregistered

posted 06-17-2000 02:17 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think the JSF will be much stealthier than the Super Hornet, seeing as from the start it was designed as a stealth aircraft. The Super Hornet is a normal fighter-bomber with some signature reduction added to it.

Anybody know the costs of both aircraft?

p.s. How does the M61A2 compare to other aircraft guns? Is 20mm too small?


IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 06-17-2000 04:09 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, as far as I know, most other countries mount 30mm guns on their fighters. Mauser Bk-27 for an example. The Russians also use 30mm.

I'd guess that the only thing that's really good with the Vulcan is the rate of fire. Isn't it around 6000 RPM?

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 06-17-2000 05:38 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
When you think about,what is the only A/C the Navy and USAF "shared"? I may be wrong but the F4 Phantom is the only one I can think of. The Navy has traditionally prefered to develop and use it "own" A/C for carrier duty.

As for the 20mm. gun on US planes...The volume of fire more than makes up for any "lack" of hitting power.IMHO.

------------------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason
Member
Member # 1545

posted 06-17-2000 07:11 PM     Profile for Jason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I believe the combined JSF-F/A-18E taskforce is the future. Only F/A-18s or Only JSF will be a mistake. The F/A-18E can make up for the lack of fighting(maybe??) and the JSF can conduct the deep, stealthy strike. Am I correct?

------------------
Name one place that you love, the enemy has, and you can never stop staring at on girls.....their six


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 06-17-2000 07:41 PM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The Corsair was operated by both USAF and USN as well...
Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 06-17-2000 07:54 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Since I have my doubts about both stealth technology and the JSF program, I can't really say the U.S. Navy is making a bad decision. The JSF program reminds me way too much of the F-111 debacle for my tastes.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
madfly
Member
Member # 1501

posted 06-17-2000 09:46 PM     Profile for madfly     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well here's some info I posted aways back in a post on the F/A-18E/F that I found and what I gather from it is that they are very committed to the Super Hornet,

The Navy has declared the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter "operationally effective" and "operationally suitable," a milestone that likely will clear the way for full-rate production and multiyear procurement.
The ratings, included in an Operational Test & Evaluation Force report on Super Hornet tests during the latter half of 1999, were announced by Rear Adm. John B. Nathman, director of air warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. The report recommended the Super Hornet's introduction into fleet service.

Three single-seat F/A-18E and four two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets were put through their Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) paces by Air Test & Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at the squadron's home base at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif., at Naval Air Station Key West, Fla., and at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The squadron flew 1,233 hours in more than 850 sorties and expended more than 400,000 pounds of ordnance during the six-month OPEVAL.

"This is the best news the Navy's carrier forces have received in a long time," said Rear Adm. Jeffrey A. Cook, the program executive officer for tactical aircraft programs. "It will ensure that throughout the next 20 years the fleet will be capable of countering the evolving threat."

"I am really excited about the results," said Capt. James B. Godwin III, F/A-18 program manager. "This report confirmed that the Super Hornet is a very mature product."

The Navy said that the OPEVAL report specifically cited the Super Hornet's "key enhancing features"--growth potential, weapons-bringback capability, survivability, range, and payload. No new deficiencies were found during the OPEVAL, Navy officials said.

Some pilots who have flown the Super Hornet have expressed concern that the new strike fighter is slower than some of its future potential adversaries. Godwin said that the Super Hornet's speed deficiency will be tactically compensated by the AIM-9X version of the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the new Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System.

Also adding to the aircraft's capabilities, Navy officials said, are several other systems slated for installation in the Super Hornet: (a) the Advanced Tactical Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) system (in 2002); (b) a new electronic countermeasures system; and (c) the Airborne Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), which will be built by Raytheon to replace the aircraft's APG-73 radar beginning in 2006.

The successful OPEVAL brings the Super Hornet a step closer to Department of Defense approval for full-rate production and multiyear procurement. The Navy plans to procure 548 Super Hornets, 222 of them under a multiyear contract that is expected to save more than $700 million in procurement costs.

The first operational deployment of the Super Hornet is scheduled for 2002 on board the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

In a related development, the National Aeronautics Association has announced that it has selected the Super Hornet Navy/industry team to receive the 1999 Collier Trophy, an award that recognizes the top aeronautical achievement in the United States. The Navy, Boeing, and other industry team members were cited for "designing, manufacturing, testing, and introducing into service the F/A-18E/F multimission strike fighter, the most capable and survivable carrier-based combat aircraft."

------------------
madfly

When all else fails ...read the manual!


Posts: 34 | From: Minnesota, USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Avatar
Member
Member # 4363

posted 06-19-2000 09:40 AM     Profile for Avatar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
<<The Navy has declared the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter "operationally effective" and "operationally suitable,"...>>

Remember, the F-18E/F, just as with the F-18C/D, had to have the "qualifications" modified by order of the DOD just to get them to pass. The poor Hornet has had such a hard time living up to its manufacturer's and supporter's claims.


Posts: 175 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
BarkingPigg
unregistered

posted 06-19-2000 10:54 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
When you think about,what is the only A/C the Navy and USAF "shared"? I may be wrong but the F4 Phantom is the only one I can think of.
=============
Off the top of my head...
A-1, A-3/RB-66, A-7, F-4 and I think the FJ Fury/F86 are related. The first four I named were USN developments to be later adopted by the USAF.

IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved