Super Duper Hornet Walkaround

[SynixMan]

Neat stuff that Boeing is putting on the international market. Maybe it will come to the Navy?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Interesting stuff, I wonder how much is already functional? I feel like a lot is just setup to demo like the SE, especially considering they only announced those mods a few months ago. It's undoubtedly classified, but I'd love to see how much the CFT's and internal weapons bay actually cut down on the radar signature.

 

[Fog]

Also think basic-engine cat launches w/ a combat load & 25% greater combat radius for AA & Air-to-Mud missions

 

[EODDave]

OK with all these additions combined with what we already have (APG-79, 9X, etc...) Tell me why we need the F-35?

 

[SynixMan]

Not gonna lie, the IRST stuff looked pretty gucci.

 

[extraordinaire]

OK with all these additions combined with what we already have (APG-79, 9X, etc...) Tell me why we need the F-35?

We don't

 

[flaps]

with all the foreign military sales of the hornet...

...i've always wondered if it would be cost effective to have a non carrier-suitable version.
weight savings might (or might not) be significant.

 

[nittany03]

I read somewhere that Northrop tried that with the F-18L back in the 80s. No wingfold, lighter gear, etc. I guess they told customers they'd build when they bid. The customers told Northrop they'd bid when they built. Round and round and round they went, and the project died.

 

[Jim123]

I read somewhere that Northrop tried that with the F-18L back in the 80s. No wingfold, lighter gear, etc. I guess they told customers they'd build when they bid. The customers told Northrop they'd bid when they built. Round and round and round they went, and the project died.

Politics and timing--go figure--because the F-18L was a hefty chunk lighter than the A and certainly looked like a good airplane on paper.

Did any of our resident AW elders work in that program?

 

[Flying Toaster]

...i've always wondered if it would be cost effective to have a non carrier-suitable version.
weight savings might (or might not) be significant.

Interesting question. Theoretically-

 

[jmcquate]

Interesting question. Theoretically-

Isn't that a YF-17 with NAVY painted on the sides?

 

[jmcquate]

...i've always wondered if it would be cost effective to have a non carrier-suitable version.
weight savings might (or might not) be significant.

Did AF F-4s, A-7s have the same gears, wingfolds, arresting hooks, launch bars (A-7) as thier Navy counterparts?

 

[bunk22]

We don't

Excellent, well thought out answer....good explanation as to why we don't as well. Almost as good as the answer to this question....So why don't we need the F-35?....."because".

 

[badger16]

Two engines and two seats... I'm sold!!

 

[AllAmerican75]

Did AF F-4s, A-7s have the same gears, wingfolds, arresting hooks, launch bars (A-7) as thier Navy counterparts?

My uncle flew F-4s and said that everything was pretty much the same. I believe that they either welded or bolted the arresting hook to the airframe.