Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)

[2sr2worry]

I stand by what I said, and lets be honest, anyone who throws the A-7 into the mix is a retard.

OK...you crossed the line there...time to suck bulkhead for a second

The mighty Corsair, the "Harley of the Fleet"--single pilot, single engine, made tough by Vought--had legs, could bomb, strafe, tank, mine, shoot Sidewinder, Shrike, HARM, plus Zuni's, carry FLIR and ERDL, and in a fight could execute one pretty good bat-turn with AMF before it was out of airspeed. Order was placed for initial airplanes in March 1964 and they were delivered early in August 1965 by Vought on a fixed-price contract. The airplane had the most advanced weapons computer of its time with multiple weapons release modes and a HUD. And it was a 21K pound airplane rated to carry 18K pounds of ordnance on the pylons.

It was a USMC pilot along with a Navy guy who flew a pair of A-7's unrefueled from Pax to Orly in 1967 for the Paris Air Show. Wouldn't it be great for our carrier-based platforms to have legs like that now? We had guys who used to dare each other to take the tanker-configured jets on a x-country and see if they could one-leg it from Lemoore to Cecil. Doable if the winds were right.

Isn't it interesting that 40+ years later, the JSF losing platform by Boeing looked like a delta-winged A-7 and the winning F-35 has some of the same features.

Yep, you have great insights, the Corsair must be for retards.

This "No slack in light attack!" Public Service Announcement is concluded. You may return to your regular programming in this thread.

 

[raptor10]

Saying its possible isn't saying its practical...which was my point.

It seems pretty practical, all they did was slap some thrust vanes on and reprogram the flight computer and got outstanding subsonic high alpha performance at the expense of supersonic flight...

 

[Flash]

I'm not saying they intend to use thrust vectoring, or that thrust vectoring is neccessary, only that it's already been done and It probably wouldn't break the bank...

Don't know much about government procurement, do you?

It seems pretty practical, all they did was slap some thrust vanes on and reprogram the flight computer and got outstanding subsonic high alpha performance at the expense of supersonic flight...

Really?! That is all?! As if the Super Hornet already wasn't slow enough.......

 

[raptor10]

Don't know much about government procurement, do you?



Really?! That is all?! As if the Super Hornet already wasn't slow enough.......

Compared to a built from the ground up thrust vectored aircraft, like Oh, lets say the F-22? I would hope there would be some cost savings...

The weight specified above reflects a difference of 4119 lb between the unmodified and modified F-18 HARV. The weight of the thrust vectoring vane system installation was approximately 2200 lb. With the addition of the spin chute, emergency systems, and ballast an additional 1500 lb were added for a thrust vectoring vane system weight increase of approximately 3700 lb. The remaining 419 lb in the weight difference represents the inclusion of equipment and wiring not directly associated with the thrust vectoring vane system.

Maybe you could order this: Navy and the HARV: High Angle of Attack Tactical Utility Issues, and tell us what they thought

 

[Flash]

Compared to a built from the ground up thrust vectored aircraft, like Oh, lets say the F-22? I would hope there would be some cost savings...

Maybe you could order this: Navy and the HARV: High Angle of Attack Tactical Utility Issues, and tell us what they thought

Why do we need a thrust vectored aircraft anyways? You still haven't answered that question.......and don't say because the other guys have it. If it was that important, why is no one clamoring for it?

Just because it is the latest toy doesn't mean we need it. All those fancy manuvers ain't going to do crap for you if you get smacked in the face with an AA-12 at 20 miles.

 

[raptor10]

I'm not arguing for or against the system (just saying that other people have thought about this sort of stuff, and that it looks doable) and JHMCS + AIM-9X nearly makes it a moot point anyways...

 

[Single Seat]

I really liked this part of the article...

Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."


Who the f+ck have they been talking too???

 

[Fog]

Yes, I am "steam gauge" era & age. My (intended) point was that the early-model F-18's effectively replaced the A-6, A-7 & F-14 even though that wasn't the original plan. In so doing, they left a lot on the table.

Admittedly, though very expensive, the F-18E/F are entirely different animals but still leave the Navy without a true deep-strike capability. I think the Navy should watch closely what the Israelis have done (e.g., their 2-seat F-16I, which is a locally-created, longer-range/deep-strike a/c built by Israel Aircraft Industries from an F-16D airframe). They don't want the F-35 unless it has 2 seats, and I believe the US Navy version should include a 2-seater as well - to get us seriously back into the deep-strike business.

 

[raptor10]

Yes, I am "steam gauge" era & age. My (intended) point was that the early-model F-18's effectively replaced the A-6, A-7 & F-14 even though that wasn't the original plan. In so doing, they left a lot on the table.

Admittedly, though very expensive, the F-18E/F are entirely different animals but still leave the Navy without a true deep-strike capability. I think the Navy should watch closely what the Israelis have done (e.g., their 2-seat F-16I, which is a locally-created, longer-range/deep-strike a/c built by Israel Aircraft Industries from an F-16D airframe). They don't want the F-35 unless it has 2 seats, and I believe the US Navy version should include a 2-seater as well - to get us seriously back into the deep-strike business.

What does a deep strike aircraft give you that a tomahawk or (planned) hypersonic missile doesn't?

 

[invertedflyer]

Saying its possible isn't saying its practical...which was my point.

I have to acknowledge scoober and flash on this one raptor, although your enthusiasm is noted. R&D almost ALWAYS is more timely and more costly than everyone thinks it will be. IMO thrust vectoring isn't a "must" flash, it all depends on where you are willing to draw that line of deterent capability. The F-22 is a good example... it may not "need" some of those capabilities, but many agree that its worth being on the edge of technology. If there was a low-cost and feasible way to incorporate thrust-vectring into existing airframes (yet to be seen), I'd say its a good capability to have. Then again, funding may be spent better elsewhere... maybe more cruise missiles?

If the Russians can do it with the Mig-29 OVT, I think we can do it.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/253062/mig_29_ovt/

 

[Fog]

raptor10 - It gives you job security for 131X & 132X designator Naval Officers. If you're an Air Force pilot or Naval Aviator, it's not something to take lightly.

 

[A4sForever]

What does a deep strike aircraft give you that a tomahawk or (planned) hypersonic missile doesn't?

Two sets of real brains???

 

[AJB37]

Who needs real brains?

 

[A4sForever]

Who needs real brains?

Real winners ....

 

[bert]

It seems pretty practical, all they did was slap some thrust vanes on and reprogram the flight computer and got outstanding subsonic high alpha performance at the expense of supersonic flight...

Just out of curiousity - how much $ and manhours do you think that took to produce a one-off with no requirement for longevity and ease of maintenance or to still meet the KPP's of the original platform? To echo somebody else above you are doing great on enthusiasm (which actually does count for something) but you are missing a few fries out of this happy meal.