Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)

[jarhead]

(I don't really want you to answer this here--->) What is your unrefueled combat radius with that load? What if you have to turn to honor a threat? What if the mission is scrubbed, can you bring any of it back?

BTW, 4 jets (of any flavor - still trying to show that I'm not a hater) 16DMPIs is great on paper. Ever seen it really done, 100%? Between potential finger fires, buttonology issues, hangs, etc, I'm thinking you are being pretty optimistic. I'm certainly not trying to bad-mouth anyone - but I'd be willing to bet a friendly beer against good BHA/BDA on all 16 DMPIs.

hornet - jack of all trades, master of none. I'm on the side that thinks the Navy should have a dedicated A-G platform and a dedicated A-A platform. I'm in the Corps though, and we have our own platform issues. I personally think the F-35B will be a great replacement for the harrier but not for the hornet - the Corps should replace it's hornets with block II F-18F's - it keeps us at the real boat and it allows us to continue to be the SME on FAC(A). The super hornet is what the legacy hornet should have been, yet the SH still has it's drawbacks ... every aircraft has it's drawbacks (except for the F-22 I suppose).

I've been apart of the first scenario I gave ... 8 good hits. As for the 16 GBU-38's on 16 different DMPI's, no personal experience but it does look good on paper - I'd imagine a F-15E, B1, or B2 dropping GBU-38's would look even better.

 

[HeyJoe]

rgr, I see what your getting at.

No worries....it was a response to Raptor10's insinuation that Deep Strike wasn't needed because Tomahawk could do the job and hypersonic missiles would be even better.

I'm of the opinion that a loitering manned aircraft with a mixed load and a gun is optimum for OIF and OEF. Change scenarios and maybe a stealthy deep strike aircraft or Tomahawk start topping out the list or a B-52 with max loadout and on station time, but it can't come down in close when needed.

 

[Flash]

Maybe we should talk to the Russians about a low-cost option.

From what I have seen and read, it doesn't seem that putting thrust vectoring on existing aircraft is extremely complex or costly (I'm looking at the Russians here, not VISTA - The SU-33 didn't have vectored thrust). Again, this is coming from someone with 0 experience, but I can at least agree with raptor that it would be less costly than an F-22-type airframe.

Get back to me in 10 years to see if those things are still flying, even after flying just 50 hours a year.

Believe me when I say that smarter people than you and I in the US Navy have looked at this and decided not to do it. Call me crazy but I will trust the experts.

 

[invertedflyer]

Flash, fair enough. +1 for responding to my post

@jarhead, I've actually voiced that same opionion about the F/A-18F. It also keeps Marine NFOs in the air, other than the handfull that would stay with the prowler. I also have thought about the carrier version of the F-35 to replace the C-models ... again it keeps the jets at the "real boat". Well, at least it makes sense to us.

 

[MPH]

... every aircraft has it's drawbacks (except for the F-22 I suppose).

I'd consider a $150 million price per copy on top of the program costs a "drawback".

 

[HeyJoe]

I agree


You ever see the HUD footage from both shootdowns? Proved #1 - the AIM-9 had pretty good range, #2 - the AIM-7 was pretty good at the merge, and #3 - it's better to be lucky than good ...

Get rid of the Rollerons and reduce the surface area of the control surfaces a la AIM-9X and that same Mk36 rocket motor yields near BVR ranges.

 

[Nose]

hornet - jack of all trades, master of none. I'm on the side that thinks the Navy should have a dedicated A-G platform and a dedicated A-A platform. I'm in the Corps though, and we have our own platform issues. I personally think the F-35B will be a great replacement for the harrier but not for the hornet - the Corps should replace it's hornets with block II F-18F's - it keeps us at the real boat and it allows us to continue to be the SME on FAC(A). The super hornet is what the legacy hornet should have been, yet the SH still has it's drawbacks ... every aircraft has it's drawbacks (except for the F-22 I suppose).

I've been apart of the first scenario I gave ... 8 good hits. As for the 16 GBU-38's on 16 different DMPI's, no personal experience but it does look good on paper - I'd imagine a F-15E, B1, or B2 dropping GBU-38's would look even better.

Like I said, I'm not a hater, just get tired of some who will not admit that it has limitations. Honestly, I think that the guys in the fleet took what was a bad purchase and did things with it that were amazing (ie skip weapons under bridges).

I'm honestly impressed by 8/8 hits. Seen waaaay too many debriefs where even solid tactical guys forget stupid shit. (Saw a CO miss a drop because he had SIM boxed - beers for everyone and he was truly embarrassed.)

We all know that F-22 is a death ray with a 500mile kill range. No arguments from anyone there!

 

[bert]

The original question was whether or not it would be more costly to adapt thrust vectoring technology into a future F/A-18 variant, than it would be to design an aircraft from the ground up that would have thrust vectoring capabilities. I haven't seen any arguments that would show how if I was a purchaser of aircraft (which I am not and as you have pointed out have no experience in) that it would be cheaper to reinvent the wheel, than to retread it...

The problem is that the "original question" you refer to is flawed. How many traps is an A/C model hornet good for? What happens after that last trap? What is the $$ cost per increase in capability? How would you measure that? What about the increase in performance? Is that worth anything by itself? The contraption you reference in the report is bolted on the outside; would it be really expensive to actually integrate it with the airframe? (Hint: yes). How long would this process take; is it fast and easy? (Hint: no). Those happen to be the first questions to spring to mind, but there are easily a hundred questions after that. "Cost effective" is a better question than costly.

It wasn't my intent to be condescending, my apologies, my only point was that nine times out of ten, if you want some fancy new piece of technology it'll probably be cheaper to build off an existing airframe than to contract, design, and produce a new aircraft to incorporate that into; that goes for AESA, ICAP III, TNTT, MUOS etc, etc...

And how exactly did you come by that statistic? Do you really think all "upgrades" are created equal?

Also "actual procurement professionals" came up with this genius idea

You seem to have strong google-fu: how many major aircraft programs do not have a negative GAO/Congressional/respected think-tank report in their background?

And finally, a little light reading: https://akss.dau.mil/dag/DoD5000.asp?view=document

If you are truly interested in the acquisition process you ought to start at the beginning. I think after digesting that you might have a better understanding why we do what we do.

 

[SemperGumbi]

ty fixed it.

Has thrust vectoring ever been considering for existing legacy aircraft, as well as the Rhino?

Not seriously. It just isn't that useful in the real world. It is awesome for propaganda and airshows, however...

Yeah, now I see there are a few more pages to read. But that answer still is beautiful in its simplicity. And accurate.

 

[Single Seat]

Not seriously. It just isn't that useful in the real world. It is awesome for propaganda and airshows, however...

Yeah, now I see there are a few more pages to read. But that answer still is beautiful in its simplicity. And accurate.

Like Gumbi said, Thrust Vec. is cool for airshows. That money is better spent on Helmet, an IRST, TCS, AESA, Aim-120D, etc. Flanker video's are cool with their thrust vectoring, but notice they are completely out of energy after that cool maneuver? Not a great place to be in a fight. Usually demonstrated right before their airshow ejection seat demo.

 

[Mumbles]

I believe the Tomcat-21 (ASF-14!!) concept explored the possibility of thrust vectoring f-110s.
http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm

 

[Single Seat]

I believe the Tomcat-21 (ASF-14!!) concept explored the possibility of thrust vectoring f-110s.
http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm

 

[Mumbles]

just sayin.... I'm sure as shit not a VF guy, ( Dad was ) what coulda been.

 

[HeyJoe]

Like Gumbi said, Thrust Vec. is cool for airshows. That money is better spent on Helmet, an IRST, TCS, AESA, Aim-120D, etc. Flanker video's are cool with their thrust vectoring, but notice they are completely out of energy after that cool maneuver? Not a great place to be in a fight. Usually demonstrated right before their airshow ejection seat demo.

Like the early British sales pitches for the Harrier that said VIFFing was their magic move, it's more likely to make you a grape ripe for plucking.

 

[invertedflyer]

Thanks for your opinions fellas. It seems that thrust vectoring is more of a "ghee whiz" gizmo that isn't practical or useful in the BVR world. You know what? I'm gonna take your word for it!