https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/
When?
>>29951802
For fucks sake
Give up Boeing
>advanced super hornet
fucking retards
Why would they buy super hornets instead of more F-35C's/B's?
>radar blockers
lol
>>29951823
>Why would they buy super hornets instead of more F-35C's/B's?
For whatever reason, the US Navy doesn't seem to want the F-35C very much.
>>29951802
Boeing is on the road to becoming the Jeb Bush of fighter aircraft
>>29952011
Probably for the export market to developing countries? They're relatively cheap and proven lineage.
>>29952002
Of course they do.
The SH aquisitions are to cover the capability gap between retirement of F/A-18C/Ds and actual delivery of F-35Cs.
>>29952047
>Of course they do.
Not necessarily. One of the best potential reasons for the Navy to be against it is that the 35C likely can't replace the Hornet in all respects, while adding its own logistics chain to the confines of the carrier.
>>29952057
This. Logistics Specialist here and you can have one or the other, but not both. There's just not enough space onboard for ALL of the parts that would be required to keep them running efficiently.
>>29952086
So why on earth are they talking about that like a viable option in ze OP?
>>29951802
Super Duper Hornet here we come!
>>29952086
the lack of commonality between the legacy and the rhino mean that the logistics train is already in place for a two-type fighter carrier air wing. not sure how the Fords will handle it, but the Nimitz classes, the Enterprise, and even the last few conventional had F-4's, F-14's, E-2's, C-2's, F/A-18A/B's, EA-6B's, A-6's and A-7's operating at the same time. and that's not to mention the helos!
>>29952057
What can't the F-35C cover?
>>29952491
takeoff
>>29951802
They'd be better off pushing funding into their NGAD development instead to better compete with Lockheed and Northrup, it's highly unlikely the USN is going to be purchasing an interim fighter to replace the Superbug for air interdiction that'll serve for a short while before NGAD takes over the role.
>>29952478
I does not mean we want it, or that it is the best option. Right now there is a lot of experimentation with 3d printing for plastics and metals. We could potentially eliminate the supply chain for cured and ready to go gaskets, seals, and other XB3 items.
>>29952693
AFAIK they're not talking about buying new aircraft, but primarily looking at taking Super Hornets into depots and upgrading them, which makes sense (if the Super Hornet is meant to still take up ~1/2 the USN fleet 15 years from now).
>>29952679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32T_YH2CQWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPRSh4v4gVM
navy has 0 confidence in the F-35
>>29953007
[citation needed]
>>29951802
Honestly they should just cancel the F-35 and replace all the orders with ASH orders.
Screen shot this thread for all the epic Boeing butthurt.
>>29953276
Yeah, because that would be possible...
>>29952002
>For whatever reason, the US Navy doesn't seem to want the F-35C very much.
>I am a fucking retard who is not paying attention to procurement
>>29952002
They do in the same way that the Marines really wanted the Osprey.
That being said, they probably are waiting until everything's worked out
>>29951823
For the same reason DoD is considering to relaunch F-22 production. All these alternative fighter procurement news are making me question the F-35 project altogether.
Even if F-35 would be the best fighter ever the fact that they are considering alternatives is a sign that there is something wrong with. Maybe it's the price or inability to produce sufficient numbers I don't know but something is definitely up and it ain't good.
>>29953881
>For the same reason DoD is considering to relaunch F-22 production.
They're really not though.
>>29953891
I remember reading something like that a month or two ago. Could be wrong though. However if I remember correctly then combined with this news about the navy would be a real red flag for me.
>>29953881
>For the same reason DoD is considering to relaunch F-22 production.
You left out the part where a Congressman up for re-election is the one pushing it.
>>29953908
a clueless politicans ordered a study into the restart of the production line.
Nothing to do with the DoD pushing it. Because they're not actually full blown retarded
>>29953881
Congress asked them to do a study on restart costs (again). It's probably not going to happen because actually getting the full desired count of F-35s will be better long-term.
>>29953881
>>29953908
You know the F-35 is the correct choice, but are so cemented to your worldview that you will grasp at any straw.
>>29953912
>>29953917
>>29953920
Oh well that clarifies it. Politicians being politicians. Nothing new on the western front.
>>29951802
And there it is, Canada's probable next fighters.
>>29953969
I think you linked the wrong post, let me help you.
>>29952025
Well, the Kangaroos recently ordered a batch of Super Bugs and took delivery on some of them.
Maybe they want the Super Duper Bug instead of a 35' ?
>>29953881
>All these alternative fighter procurement news are making me question the F-35 project altogether.
>Even if F-35 would be the best fighter ever the fact that they are considering alternatives is a sign that there is something wrong with
To be fair, new projects have backup plans all the time. For example, the YB-60 was designed in case the B-52 turned out to be a turkey. While the -60 would have been outclassed by the -52, it was still a viable option in case the Stratofortress turned out to be a failure.
>>29953969
>And there it is, Canada's probable next fighters.
THIS.
I remember shilling the newer F-18 for Canada's next fighter for my politics class news project back in HS like a decade ago.
I think my prediction will come true.
>>29956027
I think it is far more likely that Trudeau just won't buy any new jets at all.
>>29956027
Will that faggot Trudeau allow it though?
>>29955670
Australia is only buying Super Hornets to hold them over until F-35's are ready.
>>29956027
Realistically speaking, the F-35's the only good choice they have. Massive range and payload advantage over the Hornets, not that much more than what Super Hornets were listed as worth recently, and will let them link into joint ops with NATO, and especially the US, far more easily.
>>29956027
ASHs are more expensive. Really no point in them existing unless you're buying kits to upgrade existing SHs
mega super hornet?
queen super hornet?
amazing super hornet?
>>29957080
The point of the ASH is that it works, whereas the F-35C cannot despite years of development and billions of dollars down the drain.
>>29957594
>>29957594
>The point of the ASH is that it works
The development of the ASH is done and it is ready for production?
>>29951823
Because the Super Hornet actually works?
>>29951802
>Advance Super Hornet
What will be its replacement?
Mega Ultra Advance Super Hornet?
>>29951802
They removed some of the most appealing features. That's retarded.
>>29957892
Crazy Rapid Advanced Super Hornet
Or CRASH
>>29957807
Which is why Australia has bought a handful to hold them over.
>>29957892
Drones and/or next gen fighters.
What happened to Boeing?
After the KC46 bullshit it seems like they went into a death spiral.
They haven't designed anything ground breaking.
>>29958184
Don't ask what happened to Boeing, ask how bad Northrop Grumman and McDonnell Douglass' designs were that the X-32 beat them out.
>>29951802
CFT's please god no. Just make the internals bigger.
>>29953881
Had a buddy that worked weapons on the test squadron at Edwards. He liked it. Said it was easy to load and IMIS worked better than it did for the 22 at that time. Don't know what it's like for the booger hookers and pointy heads though.
>>29953969
Well we really don't want the future caliphate to have stealth suicide bombers so that might not be such a bad thing.
>>29958810
>CFT's please god no. Just make the internals bigger.
How would that work?
>>29958810
>CFT's please god no. Just make the internals bigger.
They can't, that's why they have CFTs to begin with.
i dont see how this is bad. f18 is the most succesful aircraft to date. never been shot down and is much cheaper and better to handle then the f35.
>>29959064
>never been shot down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher#Loss_incident
>>29951802
>>29957892
>>29957937
Why not just call it Ultra Hornet
Ultra>Super thus Ultra hornet.
>>29958962
>>29959031
Don't the CFT's block access to service panels?
>>29958285
MD-D is Boeing. They kept the name Boeing but a lot of the MD-D corporate culture and infrastructure is intact.
>>29959103
>Speicher was at 28,000 feet and travelling at 0.92 Mach
yeah still f22>f15>f18>f16>f35
>>29959113
Super Hornet Arcade Edition comes first.
>>29959120
Yep, hence why CFTs are removable. That said, there isn't much important under the CFTs, mainly just the intakes.
>>29959298
>yeah still f22>f35>f15>f16>f18
FTFY
>>29959733
>f35>f15
>>29960227
Actually its
f35>f22>f18e/f>f15>f16>f18
>>29960227
It doesn't matter how mad you get, 5th Gen vs 4th Gen is as much a curb stomp as 4th Gen was to 3rd.
>>29960607
4th gen f15 yes but 4++ f15 would rape a f35
>>29961051
Why's that?
>>29961062
F15 Silent Eagle has the best proven avionics, armaments, stealth and radar. Costing 100 million about the same as the F35B and over 15 million more then F35A.
>>29961062
F35 max speed 1.6 Mach
F15 SE 2.5 Mach
Also has over twice the range of F35 with external fuel tanks and overall better clib rate.
>>29961051
They aren't even meant for the same role you fucking dipshit.
>>29961113
>>29961162
And the F-35 will still see the F-15 long before the F-15 is aware of the F-35.
>>29961230
implying they fixed the "software bug" that's crashing the whole system during heavy data load
![yJOy5BD[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Rt1kNJb.jpg "yJOy5BD[1].jpg")
>>29961113
>best proven avionics
Its avionics have had less testing than the F-35's
>armaments
Externally yes, but it can't carry as much internally
>stealth
It has far worse stealth than the F-35; it's closer to the Super Hornet.
>radar
It's radar appears to have fewer T/R modules than the F-35's due to it being perpendicular rather than inclined
>>29961162
>top speed
Fighters rarely / never reach their top speed, even if they're flying clean. Vietnam was an excellent example; jets could do Mach 2.5+ but over the entire war, only 1 jet went past Mach 1.6, and only for a couple of seconds, after which he ran out of fuel and started gliding.
>range
Only just; it has a 720NM combat radius with 4x internal AMRAAMs only, while the F-35A has a 620NM radius for air-to-ground missions or >728NM if it doesn't go in close for a dogfight.
Climb rate is going to be in favour of the F-15SE though.
>>29961604
They did, although it didn't crash the whole system, nor was it due to heavy data load; individual sensors would sometimes have a glitch or require a reboot due to a sensor-to-main-computer timing error. That was fixed and made better than ever with Block 3iR6.21:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/09/f-35-program-office-signs-off-air-force-3i-software/84138390/
>>29961604
i mean, they fixed all the other "unfixable" bugs it's had during it's development
SUPER
DUPER
BUG
>>29963409
>>29963421
>>29963434
Nobody wants it, Boeing.
COME TO PAPA :3
>>29956283
The Super bugs are eventually going to be converted into extra Growlers around the same time the f-35 will come into service.
>>29952491
Supposedly the HARM is too big for the F-35's weapons bay and it will be several years before the F-35 compatible, cut down antirad missile is ready to go.
>>29963537
Not only is the HARM pretty old now, thats not a reason.
HARMs mounted externally on an F-35 would still leave the airframe far less detectable than an ASH with them mounted externally.
'Stealth' isn't an on/off switch.
>>29959113
>mega hornet
>hyper hornet
>giga hornet
>quantum hornet
>>29963640
I was lazy and didn't feel like type out that i ment both the AGM-88 HARM and the AGM-88E AARGM, since they fit in the exact same space, and I figured that just saying HARM would be clear enough. Sorry senpai.
Anyway, because of the clearance issue, the software to use anti radiation missiles hasn't been written yet, since the DoD hasn't payed for it yet. I assume the plan is to have it made closer to the project to modified the AGM-88E for the F-35 being finished.
I think the F-35 will be a fine airplane, I simply was pointing out the one thing it cant do yet and wont do particularly soon.
>>29963875
AARGM is getting integrated onto the F-35 just like it is the F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, and Tornado ECR.
>>29963640
The F-35 may be stealthier but the penalty for external stores is so significant that the difference is operationally negligible.
>>29964075
Not really.
But even if it were, its not a reason to keep Hornets around.
>>29964097
No you don't get it. There are public figures for what a missile can do to a planes RCS.
>>29964251
Feel free to actually post them, then
>>29964097
Aren't bugs significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than turkeys?
By all means, im not at all against stealth fighters for the navy's arsenal, but considering all they are doing is bombing kebab I vote for more Hornets.
>>29964403
"Cheaper" isn't what you should be looking for in Naval aviation. Space is always top tog.
Adding a whole other airframe and its logistical chain is not a great idea. Nor is choosing aircraft to bomb kebab. If thats all you're doing you don't need a carrier for it.
>>29964427
A whole new airframe? It is some extra parts, but it also is a Super Hornet structurally. And they mailny operate Super Hornets already.
>>29964468
Which are themselves getting replaced.
>>29964427
What about the targets outside your air bases range? What about establishing a beach head?
What a surprise all this anti hornet posting is happening in a thread with one of those "super carriers are pointless" idiots.
>>29964403
>Aren't bugs significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than turkeys?
Spreyfag spotted.
According to actual maintainers, Hornets are a bitch to work on, they basically have to be completely dismantled to do anything. While F-35s are a dream design from maintainer perspective. Everything in it's designed to ease maintenance hours and prevent mistakes.
>>29964505
>All Hornet combat radii in the 400nmi zone
>F-35C on just internal fuel gets 612nmi.
Hornets are outdated, get over it.
>>29964479
Don't forget the part where they're extending the Rhinos service life.
>>29964506
HAHA. Lockmart pls go.
>>29964512
Well at least you're honest.
>>29964513
Rated hours, which isn't exactly the same thing.
>>29964505
Why the fuck would you need to establish a beach head against kebabs? Why is a FOB indefensible against kebab?
>>29964512
This is one of the things Advanced Bug fixes tho.
The CFTs can be retrofitted on existing SH aswell.
>>29964530
>flight hours and service life are not the same
If you could illustrate a significant difference I would be seriously impressed.
>why beach heads against kebab
I DON'T KNOW MAYBE LOCATION CARRIES STRATEGIC VALUE OR SOMETHING
>>29964563
>I DON'T KNOW MAYBE LOCATION CARRIES STRATEGIC VALUE OR SOMETHING
Against kebab, not in general you mouthbreather.
If you're doing COIN operations, they're hardly going to be holding a beachhead, and even if they were, using higher perfromance aircraft like the F-35 wouldn't be a problem anyway.
>>29964479
Not until the 2030s
>>29951802
>Not calling them Super Duper Hornets
>>29965274
SUPER DUPER SUPER HORNETS
>>29964479
There is still quite a bit of life in the super hornet, its the regular (C/D) hornets that are being replaced posthaste.
>>29964524
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177
>“Next-generation is an understatement when applied to F-35. Keep in mind that this is the perspective of a maintainer, because they never would let me fly the darn thing. There was not a moment when I wasn’t infatuated with some detail of its construction, mission, or engineering. The maintainability factor is absolutely huge in comparison to platforms such as the F/A-18 or the AV-8B. In many cases, the aircraft seems as though it was designed with end-user practicality in mind, as opposed to the Hornet’s “need to replace a hydraulic pump? Great, remove all other things first” and the Harrier’s “engine replacement? That’s two wings coming off, baby!” Gone are the days of awful hi-torque fasteners that strip themselves out every time you look at them wrong. Behold, hex tips!
Get bent, Boeingshill.
>>29964543
Conformal tanks still cut into a Hornets payload.
>>29956177
desu hope he goes through with cancelling the f-35.
if greenland invades canada, f-18s are enough.
if russia invades canada, it's serious enough that the USA will have to rescue them anyway.
canada has no need for a serious military in national-defence terms. it's an also-ran, existing only to operate cool but useless hardware.
>>29965925
Not at sixty six thousand pounds max take off weight.
>>29966922
>>29965925
If the empty weight is 32,000lb, internal fuel volume is 14,400lb, CFTs are 3,500 lb in fuel and ~1000lb tanks themselves, plus induced wave drag.
~51,000lb before weapons, and still considerably over what would be considered loaded fighter configuration weight. Reduces maximum weapons stores capacity to ~15,000lb from a possible ~18,000lb.
and thats really pushing it, by the way. I'm not sure that you would really want to be launching that.
>>29967491
ASH proponents don't want to think about that stuff, just how cool a stealth hornet would be.
>>29959298
> yeah still f22>f15>f18>f16>f35
Bruh
Yf-23>f22>f15>f18>f16>f35
>>29967979
You lost, get the fuck over it.
>>29968026
We didn't lose, Lockheed-Martin just had more lobbyists and hotter hookers as opposed to an actually better jet
>>29963719
>>29959304
>>29959113
>>29957937
>>29957892
GIGA HYPER SONIC DRILL GURREN HORNETOO MK XV
FIGHT DA POWA
>>29957080
>https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-resumes-advanced-super-hornet-push-as-us-navy-425221/
ASH?
>>29968046
No, they had a jet they could actually build and mass produce.
>>29968280
Amazing what you can do with -3% taxes and unlimited funds.
>>29959182
Shame they killed the MD-90/95/Boeing 717
YOU FUCKING CUNTS
I mean, it's no big deal, these things happen, it's understandable they'd want to standardize their range and while the 737-600 is inferior in general fleet commonality more than
YOU
FUCKING
BASTARDS
It would be entirely irrational to love a simple mechanical design lineage for anything other than the functionality provided, and the DC-9 series was already at the limits of what it could
I HOPE YOUR HOMES ARE INFESTED WITH GIANT SCORPIONS I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU KILLED IT YOU KILLED IT I HATE YOU.
>>29963441
I actually don't think the CFTs look half bad on it. Not like the F-15E's muffintop and the god-awful F-16E/F
>>29965739
>youngest marine
They operate Hornets from the early fucking 80s dumbass, not Super Hornets.
Im pretty stiff, just like the Lockdick in your mouth.
>>29970926
You seem drunk.
>>29967491
>>29967514
>what is aerial refueling
>>29968762
DC9 has to have been the most unsafe deathtrap contraption of a passenger plane ever built.
>>29970974
Extremely expensive, negating any and all benefits of a cheaper airframe? Especially in naval aviation?
You're like 40 and a Rhino fanboy, I get it.
But try not to be clinically retarded on the internet.
>>29971125
>he thinks the F-35 won't be refueled en route
whoa nelly
>>29951823
>Why would they buy super hornets instead of more F-35C's/B's?
Cheaper
More reliable
Stealth weapons pod
More capable
You can buy them NOW
They're not utter shit
>>29953881
>For the same reason DoD is considering to relaunch F-22 production.
The F-22 has nearly as many problems as the F-35. Remember its made by the same manufacturer.
>>29971544
>Cheaper
Not by much.
>More reliable
Questionable at best, doubly so because the F-35 is still in development. But the F-35 hasn't had any crashes.
>Stealth weapons pod
Cool, but not really being built for the Super Hornet, and could totally be used for F-35s.
>More capable
Pure. Fucking. Bullshit.
>You can buy them NOW
So? That's like saying it's better to use a portashitter now when you don't really need to go instead of waiting 5 minutes to use the hotel room shitter.
>They're not utter shit
They're not the best option, either.
>>29964403
>Aren't bugs significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than turkeys?
Don't post that! F-35 shills don't know how to respond and it shorts their circuits!
>>29970998
Safety record is comparable to similar types and a large minority (if not majority, it's probably a majority, i'm just hedging my bets) of accidents are down to outside factors instead of aircraft issues. It's arguably safer than the 737-100/200 in terms of accidents-per-million-flying-hours.
I'm not sure if you're thinking of the DC-10, or comparing a jet designed in the 60s to one upgraded with modern safety features, or what.
How big of a disgusting, smoky horde of F-4 Phantoms could've been had on the amount of resources and finance spent on the F-35 program?
Why not just go full zerg mode, new prospective pilots and ground staff could win their roles out of cereal boxes.
>>29974726
Yeah but once your daddy gets blown out of the sky into fine chunks, who will pick you up from junior football, champ?
>>29974750
Probably Steve, moms new boyfriend. He's a dick though.
>>29974358
>operating costs are higher during the extensive testing phase? holy shit batman!
>>29971125
Are you kidding me? Do you not know almost every takeoff for any mission is with a low fuel state for safety (all services) then they get refueled airborne.
>You're like 40 and a Rhino fanboy, I get it.
Well im not 14 with a sore ass like you.
>>29975210
Whoa! Are you saying someone's posterior might be rumpus rumpled?
Different anon, but the Navy's buddy refueling through a tiny drogue does not realm matter, besides the fact that its slow and stupid, because the F-35 can do it too and still have more range.
I WANT THE SUPER TOMCAT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29971738
>cheaper
It is a lot when you consider the operational costs. We have American numbers too so don't bother trying to compare its export costs to Denmark.
>more reliable
The fatal error count in the latest Gillmore report begs to differ. Super Hornets have pop out components and an exterior maintenance support platform too.
>stealth weapons pod
Boeing is further along on the pods than anyone else, with the Super Hornet being the only known development platform.
>more capable
I would say it is if you consider the Growler in addition.
>can buy now
This is important because our planes are falling apart and the F-35 is still late.
>>29974931
We have the planned programs maintenance costs to go off of. Sure hope ALIS doesn't fuck up in the field too much eh?
>>29977111
>sssuperr fast hornit whooooosh laanding veery fast
>reminder that pic related is what nimbys actually believe
>>29959113
SEXY AS FUCK
>>29977386
>muh killing machine
FUCK HIPPIES, BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
Trump>anything
Trump+Hornet
Trumpet
>>29977111
>The fatal error count in the latest Gillmore report begs to differ.
You mean the outdated report that doesn't reflect the current software.
>>29977386
Being fair, without believing the FUD the idea of shoving all the money into NASA is very appealing.
But that money's already spent.
>>29959113
Damn gotta admit that looks nice. But is it real or just a demonstrator? Do the bays open?
>>29977386
>WE COULD TOTALLY POWER EVERYTHING WITH SOLAR PANELS!!!!!
t. "Solar Power Rocks"
Nope, don't see a conflict of interest there!
>>29978044
CGI.
>>29977111
Checked.
And here a Legacy Hornet bolter for good measure.
:3
>>29952086
Just build a bigger carrier
>>29978329
On the Ford series there'll be more internal space because there's no steam plumbing to run the CATOBAR systems.
