|
|
Post by griffin on Dec 6, 2012 21:30:32 GMT -5
This afternoon the Canadian government announced the cancelling of the F-35 program due to skyrocketing costs. It will be interesting to see what the replacement aircraft for the F-18A Hornets will be. I'd say the F-18 E or F Super Hornet would be a good bet. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Dec 6, 2012 21:36:25 GMT -5
AGREE!
We have gone part way to this solution, but are yet to accept the obvious. The only problem is that the F18 Super hornet is grossly overpriced, almost as dear as the F35 I believe.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Dec 6, 2012 23:33:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 6, 2012 23:38:11 GMT -5
I would suggest a drone with a gatling gun type of device to project missiles. I believe they could decrease stealth costs were the gun mounted in the nose rather than the under belly position utalized with the F-35. Also we could get away from that tri-service requirements with each service dictating design criteria. No more need for hover capabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 7, 2012 2:18:56 GMT -5
This will affect buyers all over the world, because of the economies of scale - the fewer F-35's made, the more expensive they will be. And Canada will have to find a new fighter - but which one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 7, 2012 11:21:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Dec 7, 2012 12:46:10 GMT -5
The Saab Gripen ("Gryphon") has suffered from various problems, I would not recommend it. How would the Super Hornet be? I would not recommend for them to be militarily dependent on the European Eurofighter. -- I know next to nothing essential about the Dassault Rafale (in addition to OSINT such as the media.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 13:49:08 GMT -5
Sir John I understand that Australia's Super Hornet F/A-18s cost included many extras including growler capability when installed and other items. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Dec 10, 2012 0:11:28 GMT -5
For those interested in the Super Hornet see the below link. www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htmThe Super Hornet while having taken a similar name to the original Hornet, are a very different jet. They are about 1/3 larger than the earlier Hornets; having far greater fuel capacity that translates into greater range, they have greater armament loads it can carry, and good fire control and other electronic enhancements. The Super Hornets replaced the F-14 Tomcat on US carriers several years ago and have been active in the US military actions since the replacement of the F-14. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2012 2:31:45 GMT -5
Griffen they can also act as a tanker to escort other Super Hornets long distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 10, 2012 3:28:21 GMT -5
I think air tankers would be boeings - a fighter-bomber just wouldn't be big enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2012 4:32:51 GMT -5
Wikipedia
Overview
An F/A-18F refueling an F/A-18E over the Bay of Bengal, 2007
The Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft. It is about 20 percent larger, 7,000 lb (3,200 kg) heavier at empty weight, and 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) heavier at maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33 percent more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41 percent and endurance by 50 percent over the "Legacy" Hornet. The empty weight of the Super Hornet is about 11,000 lb (5,000 kg) less than that of the F-14 Tomcat which it replaced, while approaching, but not matching, the F-14's payload and range.[36][N 2]
The Super Hornet, unlike the previous Hornet, is designed so it can be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft,[37] filling the tactical airborne tanker role the Navy had lost with the retirement of the KA-6D and Lockheed S-3B Viking tankers. The ARS includes an external 330 US gallons (1,200 L) tank with hose reel on the centerline along with four external 480 US gallons (1,800 L) tanks and internal tanks for a total of 29,000 pounds (13,000 kg) of fuel on the aircraft.[37][38]
[edit]Airframe changes
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 10, 2012 10:56:21 GMT -5
I didn't know that - thanks, Prem and Griffin.  |
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Dec 21, 2012 18:23:18 GMT -5
The initial news reports have proven to be incorrect - what a surprise not!
The F-35 program is now under review and for a host of reasons ranging from lack of fighters numbers, (only 65), and cost escalation being significant road blocks.
I would not take a bet that this acquisition will go forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 2:45:32 GMT -5
I suspect that behind the news the decision makers are being advised about a quantam leap beyond F-35 to drone defence aircraft and in between time to use the Super Hornet and its various configerations using "growler" electronic technology to knock out other aircraft in combat, after all climbing faster, travelling faster comes at fuel load and burn cost.
Some time ago relatively small in area New Zealand purchased Australian retired Hawk jet fighters and rebuilt them adding up to date electronics, and they did the same to aircraft they already had. The reasoning was that they were slower than F/A-18 jets they had ordered and cancelled order but were capable of doing as much damage once on target, and at a much lower cost to NZ.
|
|
