New Aircraft

[Brett327]

I have a question regarding future flying. Am I correct in thinking that the EA-18's will be flying quite a bit as the Marines aren't taking any and, from what I hear, the Air Force doesn't have a comparable machine?

As the G model is rolled out, they will only be deployed with an Airwing, so it won't be any different than it is today. The remaining Prowlers will continue in service for a bit, but the expeditionary role (read Air Force support) and Marine side will likely dissappear. The Marines were counting on getting the ICAP III Prowlers that are just now coming out, but it looks like that may not work out for them. The good news is that the superior FMC rate of the newer 18s should make 5 G model hornets do the work of 6 Prowlers compared to the four they normally deploy with. More trons down-range for the buck.

Brett

 

[jai5w4]

Talked with Boeing's guy in charge of the P-8A when we were at the Super Hornet plant on Friday (got to see EA-1 and EA-2 (EA-18G's) coming down the line). He said the P-8A will not replace the EP-3E's, the Navy will be going with a smaller bird, like what Brazil uses. I think it's somewhere along the lines of a Gulfstream or a stretched version of it. Anyhoo, he also said the P-8A will have refueling capabilities in the form of the Air Force's hard boom and opening just aft of the cockpit. He said tests with hose/drogue and boom were insufficient for rate of flow for the big bird.

John

 

[Blutonski816]

He said tests with hose/drogue and boom were insufficient for rate of flow for the big bird.

Too bad they can't do like the P-3 guys and just kill a few engines. Then again, I guess It'd be a lot easier to nudge in under the boom as opposed to chasing the drouge in something the size of the P-8.

 

[zab1001]

Embraer is the name of the Brazilian company proposing the electronic warfare replacement. I've seen a few snapshots down here of their planes, very nice equipment.

 

[SteveG75]

Too bad they can't do like the P-3 guys and just kill a few engines. Then again, I guess It'd be a lot easier to nudge in under the boom as opposed to chasing the drouge in something the size of the P-8.

USAF propaganda. Big jets can refuel using probe and drogue:

Brits:

Russians:

The reason the USAF went to booms is because of the poor throttle response of the early jet engines. The early jet bombers (B-47) needed to be refueled to have a useful range but the poor throttle response prevented them from flying effective refueling form. With the boom technique, they just have to stay close and the boom operator does the work.

Edit: Did a little research and you can get more flow with the boom. However, the main disadvantage is that you can only refuel one aircraft at a time since the boom has to be located on the centerline. The USAF did some research with probe and drogue with the B-47 but decided that it did not work for the early jet bombers.

 

[bunk22]

Still looks like the C-2B might happen. It supposedly will have drop tanks, state-of-the art electronics, 8 blad prop, new engine??, air-to-air refueling capability and better suited to perform the spec ops mission (ie paradroops in theatre, crrc drops, etc with associated passive defenses).

 

[hendogg311]

Usmc Jsf

Dude JSF isn't supposd to be out until like 2012. Plus last I heard they are still having weight problems.

 

[jai5w4]

Dude JSF isn't supposd to be out until like 2012. Plus last I heard they are still having weight problems.

Among other things.

The Boeing guys said they are standing by to build more Rhinos if the JSF gets cut in the next several years. They did say, however, that it will be harder to kill than the Comanche or like programs because there is a significant investment and interest from foreign countries into the JSF program. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

~John