Super Hornet strikes again ...

Continued from : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1638103#post1638103

Marcos, Mig 1.44 is just another failed, unfunded has-been project, Mig-35 fails to attract customers. The somewhat underestimated Super Hornet has flown > 166.000 *combat hours*, there have been > 500 delivered on-time and on-budget in the small timeframe since 2000. This way the US Navy has an on average much younger fleet than USAF, let alone the RuAF.

The real revolution has been the sortie rate the Super Hornet is capable of, effectively rendering the sorties generated by all other navies combined to sheer irrelevance.

So the brochure said.

And the "airshow numbers" you listed weren't brochure bilk? :P

Well the F-18E is just an upgraded C. That's why it's still an 'F-18'. Their last attempt at an all-new aircraft looked like that below. Now some people argue that the F-35 is ugly, but this looks like a primary school lego build.

This actually appears to have been built by people who weren't protesting about their pay scale at the time.

It still looks better than the X-32 even in actual lego.

Well the F-18E is just an upgraded C.

Who told you that?!!

Who told you that?!!

God.

God must be wrong...

It is certainly true that the Super Hornet was meant as a reduced-risk intermediary fighter pending development of F-35.

It turns out that it will become much more than "intermediary" due to the substantial delays in F-35 development and programme restructuring, which means several hundred planned F-35's wil come many years later, if they ever come. See: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/28/business/The-Price-of-Delay-for-the-Militarys-Biggest-Program.html

I guess the US Navy is more than happy to have the Super Hornet, since in the mean time some 3 wars went by.

You can call it an upgraded F/A-18C if you want, that isn't a bad plane either.

I would agree though that Mig 1.44 has the looks!

marcos, if you want to talk about history, go ahead. The point is that you've claimed mikoyan is more capable of turning out proficient, useful fighter aircraft, but the scoreboard denies your claim.

marcos, if you want to talk about history, go ahead. The point is that you've claimed mikoyan is more capable of turning out proficient, useful fighter aircraft, but the scoreboard denies your claim.

Not looking at the X-32.

Every good fighter Boeing is now involved with was designed by McDonnell Douglas pre-merger.

I won't dispute that (I miss McDD), but their work still has better showing than Mikoyan in the last decade. (Wouldn't call that history... Yet.)

I won't dispute that (I miss McDD), but their work still has better showing than Mikoyan in the last decade. (Wouldn't call that history... Yet.)

I wouldn't have said that. The MiG-29 has been continuously upgraded and the MiG-35 is a decent step forward. What 'failed' projects they have had didn't fail as hard as Boeing's X-32. Boeing is very much a large aircraft company not a fighter manufacturer, all they have is McDonnell Douglas legacy work wrt fighters.

Correct if Im wrong but hanst boeing worked on fighters BEFORE the merger?

Correct if Im wrong but hanst boeing worked on fighters BEFORE the merger?

Here is how I see it:

McDonnell Douglas gone (f-15, f-18, f4)

General Dynamics (f-16)

Grumman (f-14 and older navy fighters)

What do they have in common?

THe no longer design fighters and most got acquired by

Boeing( mostly civilian aircrafts and bombers)

Lockmart (specialized low production number aircrafts)

About the hate for Lockmart, I don't understand why they have so many projects allocated to them even it is like military contracting monopoly. One of the reasons why the yf-23 was not chosen was because Mcdonnell was too busy with the b-2; but what about Lockmart now!

Didn't Northrop Grumman build the B-2?

The YF-23 rejection was certainly strange. On paper it was the better fighter.

^^^^

Perhaps YF-23 development, production and maintenance seemed more expensive?!

not only that the blackwidow had less internal carriage capability, higher development risks etc.

^^^^

Perhaps YF-23 development, production and maintenance seemed more expensive?!

It couldn't have cost anymore than the F-22. The internal bay had the same A-A carry capacity as the F-22's but it had no side bays for sidewinders in the prototype. The main bay was actually deeper though, so it may have been able to fit larger bombs.

Funny thing is, the frontal cross-section looks similar to the Su-50.

Actually I think that the Russians were confused by the selection too, they also believed that the yf-23 was the best.

The f-23 was going to be longer, more curvy and with different intakes. At least the t-50 has some yd-23 on its blood.

Didn't Northrop Grumman build the B-2?

 

The YF-23 rejection was certainly strange. On paper it was the better fighter.

I've seen month ago a documentary on youtube called 'Web of Secrecy: Black Widow II Declassified' Can't find it anymore on YT, anyway, it's downloadable (payware) on amazon (1.99$ for 1 day rental or 9.95$ to buy - it largely worth it in my opinion)

Whatever. In this doc, it was stated that the yf-23 was much faster than the yf-22 but the yf-23 project had problem at crucial point. The yf-22 project took the lead.

The eval commission chose the yf-22 because of two things:

- The project was much (slightly) advanced in schedule than the yf-23

- Yf-22 has thrust vectoring and generally better handling capabilities and is more maneuverable.

- Yf-22 has thrust vectoring and generally better handling capabilities and is more maneuverable.

That doesn't seem likely given the wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio difference.

I'm not engineer. I can't tell about that. I just took this info from the documentary, in which engineers who actually worked on the project and leads are interviewed.

You have to be careful about which side is saying what. Off-hand the YF-23 had a TWR of 1.36:1 vs 1.09:1 for the YF-22, even with 1500lbs more fuel. It also had a wing-loading of 54lb/ft^2 vs about 78lb/ft^2 for the YF-22. In all likely the YF-23 would have out-flew the YF-22 even without TV.

I worked for a MSgt when I was stationed at Osan that was a part of the testing for both the 22 and 23....he told me the primary reasons they choose the 22 over the 23 were one, the 23 had a lot of "promised" avionics upgrades, the 22 had most implemented. Also, the 23, every time it turned, had a vapor trail come off one of the wing tips (sorry, this was back in 98 so can't remember which wing).

Take it for what it is...hearsay from my flight chief back them, but I do know wh PCSed to Osan straight from Edwards...

^^^^

Interesting.