F/A 18 Super Hornet?

[Brett327]

The Navy is getting the EA-18. Supposedly, and I'm not holding my breath, even though they are starting to atleast train FRS instructors, that the Navy will be getting their first Growlers in 2007 with an operational squadron by 2009. I've only heard this through heresay, but out in Pax River, they're hanging the pods on F models to get the software up and working so that the transition can be as quick as possible.

The Marines on the other hand will be getting the Prowlers the Navy no longer wants. That seems to be how it always works. The same thing happened the Hornet. Unfortunately, the Legacy Hornets are really showing their age. The Marines have been getting the trapped-out Navy Hornets, and their pretty beat. There's even rumors floating around that the Marine D-models might be heading to the boat in place of the C's.

Alot of this is rumor and speculation, but the next 10 years are going to be a really interesting transition period for both services.

Punk has been doing his homework. I'll add my concurrence and seal of approval For Richtofen, the EA-18G is not a matter of if, but when. They've got a couple flying prototypes and Boeing's production line is bending metal on the first batch. One Prowler squadron is getting (or may already have) a few ICAP III Prowlers which essentially have the receiver and jamming suite found in the G model. I would say that the stated IOC of 2009 is probably doable.

Good times,

Brett

 

[jarhead]

Dare I say...good riddance? Seriously though, i know we debated this issue several months ago, but the Marine's insistence on the SVTOL requirement seems a little out to lunch. I'll hear cogent arguments, but that is a heretofore unused capability in the big operational world, no?

true true

the Corps is banking on the E-JSF to replace the Prowler, sometime around 2015+ ... the JSF should start replacing Harriers & Hornets around 2012, with the last Hornets staying around until around 2020

no internal gun, less ordnance than the Hornet, less range & performance than the Hornet (unless you strap externals on) ... i'm all for new but at least be better, great avionics doesn't make a better strike/fighter

a lot of kool-aid drinking going on

S/F

 

[TurnandBurn55]

no internal gun, less ordnance than the Hornet, less range & performance than the Hornet (unless you strap externals on) ... i'm all for new but at least be better, great avionics doesn't make a better strike/fighter

Don't forget no WSO The USMC has made good use of the -18D in the past...

I'm also of mixed opinion about the USAF replacing the Strike Eagle wholesale with the JSF. There is a "strike" in strike/fighter, is there not? Seems as though the air-to-air gurus are running the circus around here...

 

[Grant]

no internal gun, less ordnance than the Hornet

The F-35 doesnt have an internal gun? Didnt the DoD learn their lesson with the F-4, in that regard?

Here's something I've been wondering... Are any 2-seat JSF's going to be built, as trainers? If not, are they going to just throw guys into the JSF and learn-as-they-go like the USAF does with the A-10?

 

[Punk]

The F-35 doesnt have an internal gun? Didnt the DoD learn their lesson with the F-4, in that regard?

Here's something I've been wondering... Are any 2-seat JSF's going to be built, as trainers? If not, are they going to just throw guys into the JSF and learn-as-they-go like the USAF does with the A-10?

The A model, the AF version, will have an internal air-to-air gun. The B and the C, Marine and Navy version respectively, will have a centerline gun pod which will be suited for air-to-ground work. Of course, we asked the question on how well will the gun pod stay boresighted after a carrier landing. Boeing said it will be self-boresighting, ha. That'll last a week.

 

[squeeze]

The F-35 doesnt have an internal gun? Didnt the DoD learn their lesson with the F-4, in that regard?

Here's something I've been wondering... Are any 2-seat JSF's going to be built, as trainers? If not, are they going to just throw guys into the JSF and learn-as-they-go like the USAF does with the A-10?

-neither does the Harrier, but it works fine as a CAS platform
-No
-Not really -- very sim intensive

/got to fly the JSF sim and talk to the program guys... learned a lot.

 

[SemperGumbi]

true true

the Corps is banking on the E-JSF to replace the Prowler, sometime around 2015+ ... the JSF should start replacing Harriers & Hornets around 2012, with the last Hornets staying around until around 2020

Then again, we were gettin gthe MV-22 in the 1980s...

I would bank on the JSF, particularly the STOVL, being later than expected.

 

[jarhead]

... Boeing said it will be self-boresighting, ha. That'll last a week.

i thought the JSF was being developed by Lockheed Martin

neither does the Harrier, but it works fine as a CAS platform

strap the external gun on the JSF & out the window goes stealth, not to mention even less performance & range due to the extra drag. why not an internal gun? because it's already overweight

/got to fly the JSF sim and talk to the program guys... learned a lot.

yea they were here also though i didn't fly the sim. those program guys are like cars sellsmen, i took what they said with a grain of salt ... the proof will show when it starts flying. not digging on Harrier guys but no doubt you guys are more likely to have the most positive things to say about it as the JSF will be a lot more capable than the Harrier

------
with the tight budget & cutbacks, the Corps has to justify it's need for fixed wing strike/fighters and to do that it has to offer something different than the Navy & Air Farce capabilites, and STOVL is it, even if the aircraft is less capable & the capability hasn't really ever been required in combat (sure, Harriers are flying off of the boats into Iraq, but at the same time there are perfectly good 12000' rwys in Kuwait & Iraq that are being used by F-15E's & F/A-18's and in Afghan the Harriers were taking off of the same rwys as A-10's & F-16s ... both war zones the larger rwys allow carrying a lot more ordnance than what STOVL allows). we'll see i suppose ... it'll probably be the last manned strike/fighter anyways

edit: i forgot, one of the huge +'s will be the fact there will be a sh!tload of JSF bases across the US to fly into with JSF support!

S/F

 

[Punk]

i thought the JSF was being developed by Lockheed Martin


S/F

you're right, Lockheed was talking about the JSF while Boeing was giving their pipedream of what the Goshawk will be in 10 years

 

[SteveG75]

I am convinced that the real reason USAF chose the X-35 over the X-32 is that no self-respecting AF guy would want to take one to an air show. No nice way to say it, the X-32 was ugly. Hell, X-32 pilots would be losing their chicks to Prowler guys left and right.

 

[mmx1]

i thought the JSF was being developed by Lockheed Martin

Primarily, yes, but Boeing got a deal to subcontract part of the job as a consolation prize (and to keep them in the military jet biz). Apparently Boeing was responsible for the gun.

With the three major US aerospace companies buying/merging everyone, they all have a piece of pretty much every major contract by making some subcomponent.

 

[Flash]

I am convinced that the real reason USAF chose the X-35 over the X-32 is that no self-respecting AF guy would want to take one to an air show. No nice way to say it, the X-32 was ugly. Hell, X-32 pilots would be losing their chicks to Prowler guys left and right.

I believe that the X-32 was called Monica by the Lockheed folks.....IF you cannot guess why, just look at the intake. I agree with Meat, the X-35 won because the AF thought it looked cool (if you have ever worked with the AF you would realize I am only half-joking).

 

[Blutonski816]

I believe that the X-32 was called Monica by the Lockheed folks.....IF you cannot guess why, just look at the intake.

looks prettty plump too, lol...

 

[Carno]

Are the JSF's supposed to be a lot more fuel efficient than the Harriers or what? Because I thought that Harrier pilots usually do normal T/O's and LD's as opposed to vertical T/O's and LD's, to save fuel..

And dear God, the X-32 is ugly as all hell.

 

[Grant]

And dear God, the X-32 is ugly as all hell.

I wouldnt say that. With the huge "mouth" on it, its kinda A-7/F-8ish. Not the usual, but its still kinda neat looking.