Australia requests authority to purchase 24 more Super Hornets

[Jim123]

I'm not convinced that you CAN'T build one airframe to work for all three services, but there will of course be compromises made...

It's a pretty short list of really great historic examples out there, but plenty of OK (or worse). Everybody knows that the F-4 started out as a fleet interceptor, was soon adapted to other roles, and worked out great across three services. Aaaaaand...

... the short list of "great" pretty much ends there.


F-18 is actually another good example (it does good work in a lot of air forces around the world... disclaimer- just not our own air force, of course because of the history and politics of how the entire program came to be)
Harrier... this is another good example (never used by our AF though) *
F-14... maybe an OK example (again, just never used by our own AF and, as I recall, high cost made for very very few customers in the end)
A-7... did OK as multi-service, but then it was never a multirole platform
Lots of great helicopter examples (H-1, H-3, H-53, H-46, H-60), but these are utility platforms by nature. Apples and different animals and all that.

The only thing I can think of that these all have in common is that they weren't originally intended to be multi-service

??


edit:

Let me clarify for Fog. There has never been a successful transition of a fixed wing aircraft to sea service from a shore based service.

* Harrier if we include international examples. I know, not fair , but I think it's worthwhile to include it in the analysis. (And I forgot the A-1 that you mentioned.)

 

[C420sailor]

I mean hypothetically just how influential the "bad" pulling are. Inboard ones right? Support you had all the pylons except those...would that be substantially different than all six on?

All six pylons are canted.

 

[Python]

All six pylons are canted.

Mother of god

 

[jmcquate]

It's a pretty short list of really great historic examples out there, but plenty of OK (or worse). Everybody knows that the F-4 started out as a fleet interceptor, was soon adapted to other roles, and worked out great across three services. Aaaaaand...

... the short list of "great" pretty much ends there.


F-18 is actually another good example (it does good work in a lot of air forces around the world... disclaimer- just not our own air force, of course because of the history and politics of how the entire program came to be)
Harrier... this is another good example (never used by our AF though) *
F-14... maybe an OK example (again, just never used by our own AF and, as I recall, high cost made for very very few customers in the end)
A-7... did OK as multi-service, but then it was never a multirole platform
Lots of great helicopter examples (H-1, H-3, H-53, H-46, H-60), but these are utility platforms by nature. Apples and different animals and all that.

The only thing I can think of that these all have in common is that they weren't originally intended to be multi-service

??


edit:



* Harrier if we include international examples. I know, not fair , but I think it's worthwhile to include it in the analysis. (And I forgot the A-1 that you mentioned.)

There's a few RAF to RN. The Brits just put the word "Sea" in front of the name and wellah.

 

[Brett327]

I can't offer any numbers, but I will say that the difference in performance between a slick Rhino and one with six pylons and a single centerline is staggering. Acceleration, top speed, sustained turn rate, etc.

But that's true of any slick configuration on any aircraft - canted or otherwise. In other words, that's not saying much.

 

[pilot_man]

Hang a couple of 13' "wings" out there at a 4 degree cant and the affects are greatly increased.

 

[armada1651]

But that's true of any slick configuration on any aircraft - canted or otherwise. In other words, that's not saying much.

True. But, although I don't have experience in another jet to compare and I can't give specific numbers, the Rhino's thust-to-weight really isn't terrible, especially after it's burned down somewhat and/or is down low, but its energy addition is fairly abysmal. And reducing it's absurd amount of unnecessary drag would be a big step towards improving that.

 

[BusyBee604]

It's a pretty short list of really great historic examples out there, but plenty of OK (or worse). Everybody knows that the F-4 started out as a fleet interceptor, was soon adapted to other roles, and worked out great across three services. Aaaaaand...

... the short list of "great" pretty much ends there.mentioned.)

Don't know that it rates the "great" tag, but the A-7 was multi-service USN/USAF. For the Navy, it carried the Light Attack load (VA), from 1968-87 (A-6s should have been designated VAM or VAH). The A-7 had a commendable combat record from introduction, until the air-war windup in '73. OK, so it looked like the bastard "Son of 'Sader", and wasn't nimble like the A-4, but it was a veritable bomb truck (and more accurate) in comparison.

BzB

 

[Fog]

FWIW, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), an arm of the DOD I assume, has informed the U.S. Congress of Australia' s purchase of [up to] 24 more Super Hornets. It seems the sale will be made up of 12 F/A-18E/Fs and 12 EA-18Gs. Australia is doing this because they don't expect F-35s anytime soon. This guarantees the Hornet line will remain open for another 2 years beyond current commitments. Since it is my belief that the F-35C will never get to the fleet, I remain hopeful that Boeing will be authorized to build the Super Hornet+. That's a regular Super Hornet w/ conformal fuel tanks (3000lbs of gas), F-414+ engines (26000lbs/side) & the IST device mounted under the nose.

 

[wlawr005]

Would that be a SuperDuper Hornet?

 

[zab1001]

FWIW, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), an arm of the DOD I assume, has informed the U.S. Congress of Australia' s purchase of [up to] 24 more Super Hornets.

Source? I ask because 36B Congressional Notification occurred 28 February. I'm curious if a Letter of Offer and Acceptance has already been signed by both parties.

 

[Fog]

Source? I ask because 36B Congressional Notification occurred 28 February. I'm curious if a Letter of Offer and Acceptance has already been signed by both parties.

I don't think so, as the news item I used as a source was a "Motley Fool" article dated Sunday, March 3. If I could link, I would. Being techno-retarded is difficult.

 

[zab1001]

I think Motley Fool has confused Congressional Notification of Possible Sale (36B) with actual purchase. Plenty of CNs get approved and nothing comes of the project for whatever reason (funding, priority shifts, political issues in buyer's country, tech transfer issues). Given that it's Australia, I'd say this has way better odds of eventual purchase, but we aren't there just yet.

 

[Corsair2002]

I'd take an EPE Charlie any day over a rhino, unless it was slick. And I'd definitely take a rhino over a single engine F-35.....yeah the Aussies are smart to take rhinos over that hunk of junk. Shoulda just built more rhinos...

 

[Brett327]

Says the guy who has zero time in the airframe he's talking shit about.