Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st April 2017 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-18 isnt even competitive with american 4th gen fighters, let alone anything more current,
i think its a waste of time and money trying to change a turd into anything else,
just add a few ****ty ole f-18 until USN can get their hand on a new fighter,
not f-35C but something new with actual performance
By: - 1st April 2017 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The ASH is supposed to do its first strikes with its centerline pod and nothing else on those crappy canted pylons, so it wouldn't be that bad. It would be nice if the pod could carry more but there's not enough space for something larger. The CFTs have no impact on subsonic drag vs clean.
The rafale and typhoon airframe is hotrods in comparison.
By: - 1st April 2017 at 12:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USN have unlimited numbers of cruise missiles for a first strike,
and the launchers can quickly adapt to any new vehicle that fit inside.
the mighty USN doesnt need a new fighter protection just yet,
but its time to conceptualize next generation and get started
By: - 1st April 2017 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was thinking more of the rafale, since France has no stealth fighter in the pipeline. The USN has the F-35C, so no reason to buy the proposed ASH, or spend several billions in R&D for a stealthed up ASH. Dev money should go to the next gen indeed.
By: - 1st April 2017 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My feeling is that the French will rework the Rafale to keep it going for the next 20+ years. It may not be as drastic as you suggest though- they seem to like electronic means of discretion rather than copying the LM stealth play-book.
By: - 1st April 2017 at 15:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-18 isnt even competitive with american 4th gen fighters, let alone anything more current,
i think its a waste of time and money trying to change a turd into anything else,
just add a few ****ty ole f-18 until USN can get their hand on a new fighter,
not f-35C but something new with actual performance
If new planes are going to be produced anyway, why not stealth them up a bit ? I think he's talking about new models.
By: - 1st April 2017 at 16:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If new planes are going to be produced anyway, why not stealth them up a bit ? I think he's talking about new models.
The USN is unusual in that will purchase a significant number of new airframes. So stealthing up the Super Hornet can be a big project (I'd want them to sort out those ridiculously canted pylons and do way with clerical tails but might be in a minority)
Any next-gen Raf will be a much smaller buy so the mods will perforce be more modest. Especially so since the French have a very sensible policy of wearing airframes out before scrapping them.
By: - 1st April 2017 at 20:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASH price isn't even competitive
By: - 1st April 2017 at 23:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASH price isn't even competitive
I doubt if a normal F/A-18E is any cheaper than the F-35C to buy or to keep flying.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 01:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt if a normal F/A-18E is any cheaper than the F-35C to buy or to keep flying.
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/17pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
2017 Fly Away Unit Cost F/A-18E/F - 77,791 million US$
2017 Fly Away Unit Cost F-35C - 166,829.500 million US$
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 09:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe the SH would be cost effective vs the F-35C if it carried a lot of missiles in stealth pods. 4 AMRAAMs in not enough. Try to fit 10 AMRAAMs in 2 wing stealth pods pods while keeing it capable of supersonic speed, like M1.2 with the EPE engines. The pylon that carries the pod has to be designed to be stealthy. 4 pods in subsonic a2g config. That would be the minimum otherwise the F-35 is a better investment.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/17pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf2017 Fly Away Unit Cost F/A-18E/F - 77,791 million US$
2017 Fly Away Unit Cost F-35C - 166,829.500 million US$
And yet from the same document:
2017: $166,829.500 each for 4 total planes
2018: $134,769.000 each for 6 total planes
2019: $124,382.000 each for 12 total planes
2020: $116,522.833 each for 18 total planes
So the cost for FY2017 is artificially high only because of the low number of planes being ordered that year. In fact for FY2016 it was at $132,829,500 each for 6 total planes. As opposed to the Super Hornets and Growlers, where Boeing is building 2 or more per month (i.e. 24 or more per year) since they've said that's the minimum for it to be economically viable.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe the SH would be cost effective vs the F-35C if it carried a lot of missiles in stealth pods. 4 AMRAAMs in not enough. Try to fit 10 AMRAAMs in 2 wing stealth pods pods while keeing it capable of supersonic speed, like M1.2 with the EPE engines. The pylon that carries the pod has to be designed to be stealthy. 4 pods in subsonic a2g config. That would be the minimum otherwise the F-35 is a better investment.
Seems like something that will gobble up a significant amount of RDT&E funding (new pods, certification, new engine variant and the associated flight test and certification program). None of what you mention exists so it isn't a fair competition particularly when the F-35 program is already funded to SDD completion.
And yet from the same document:2017: $166,829.500 each for 4 total planes
2018: $134,769.000 each for 6 total planes
2019: $124,382.000 each for 12 total planes
2020: $116,522.833 each for 18 total planesSo the cost for FY2017 is artificially high only because of the low number of planes being ordered that year. In fact for FY2016 it was at $132,829,500 each for 6 total planes. As opposed to the Super Hornets and Growlers, where Boeing is building 2 or more per month (i.e. 24 or more per year) since they've said that's the minimum for it to be economically viable.
In the short term there is extra cost associated with buying smaller amounts of F-35Cs and creating the infrastructure within the Navy to support them over the long term. There is no way around that. This is where the SH as is would be cost competitive since it would leverage investments already made into Navy depots, training etc. The Navy does not intend on buying the F-35C in volume until the 2020s so unless there is a major U turn (which would be strange given what the CNO has publicly stated just a few months ago) I don't see the F-35C vs F-18E/F trade being anything more than a couple of lots between now and when the Navy is ready to begin buying the F-35C in quantity. If the goal is to recover readiness the easiest (may not be the best long term strategy) way may just be to buy a few dozen additional Super Hornets for deliveries over the next few years.
Naturally given budget constraints there will be proportional pressure on the F-35 buy over that period. The Navy is putting itself into a bad position by not addressing depot throughput (not entirely their fault) which is forcing them to use the Super Hornet at much higher rates on account of their higher availability. This will just lead to another depot capacity bow wave late next decade which would then require higher F-35C purchases to offset (unless ops tempo declines). Additional Super Hornets now allows them to push this out by a few years perhaps in the early 2030s when they are likely to have two hot production lines.
,
but its time to conceptualize next generation and get started
The USN has been conducting an Analysis of Alternatives for their Next Generation fighter since last summer. It is expected to conclude by Q2 of FY18. They plan to begin Technology Maturation and risk reduction activity by FY21 (Late Calendar year 2020).
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seems like something that will gobble up a significant amount of RDT&E funding (new pods, certification, new engine variant and the associated flight test and certification program). None of what you mention exists so it isn't a fair competition particularly when the F-35 program is already funded to SDD completion.
Well Boeing has to fund some R&D if they want to convince the USN to buy a significant number of planes for a different mix. Maybe they should try harder with their stealth pods concepts. If they could get the plane to carry a lot of missiles while retaining the clean config RCS maybe that could be worth it. Even at that I think going with only F-35Cs ( when the problems have been ironed out ) is still the best.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Boeing has to fund some R&D if they want to convince the USN to buy a significant number of planes for a different mix.
Boeing is not going to fund a major engine development, test and certification program. It is a major financial undertaking that will take 3-5 years at the minimum. The USN has a propulsion program in place and given that the F414 is their most important propulsion program, they will be moving on an upgrade program fairly soon. With some of the technologies GE has been proposing for the F414 (beyond the EPE changes) I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy looks to put it on the FA-XX.
Maybe they should try harder with their stealth pods concepts.
From what I have heard, they have dropped the stealth pods from their proposal to the USN going forward. Retained are the upgraded engines, CFT's, extended life, and the software and radar upgrades.
Even at that I think going with only F-35Cs ( when the problems have been ironed out ) is still the best.
F-35 SDD is paid up so it will be completed by late this year or early next year. OT&E is also paid for so you can't take money away from it. Sequestration is the only reason the Navy is even considering pitting the Super Hornet against the F-35C. Despite their modest sequestration time-frame F-35C procurement the Navy still has to lay the groundwork for fielding the aircraft, training pilots and developing logistical capacity. Since they have moved their procurement ramp up to post the BCA caps they could possibly look to avoid some of these investments buy buying a few years worth of F-18E/Fs more. Other than that there is really only one additional reason to buy more Super Hornets and that is to preserve the USN supplier base for strike fighters as they slowly roll towards their next aviation project (MQ-25).
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 18:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not sure the Navy would bother with stealth pod. I think the centerline pod has to be unmounted to be loaded, they may not like that.
Other than that it's the engineers's job to try to find original cost effective ideas that would convince the Navy. I am not saying it's easy.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-35 SDD is paid up so it will be completed by late this year or early next year. OT&E is also paid for so you can't take money away from it. Sequestration is the only reason the Navy is even considering pitting the Super Hornet against the F-35C. Despite their modest sequestration time-frame F-35C procurement the Navy still has to lay the groundwork for fielding the aircraft, training pilots and developing logistical capacity. Since they have moved their procurement ramp up to post the BCA caps they could possibly look to avoid some of these investments buy buying a few years worth of F-18E/Fs more. Other than that there is really only one additional reason to buy more Super Hornets and that is to preserve the USN supplier base for strike fighters as they slowly roll towards their next aviation project (MQ-25).
What about the fact that the F-35C is not actually ready? Issues like the nose gear and required new outer wings, let alone the few weapons that are integrated. The Navy has to buy Super Hornets to replace worn out legacy Hornets. Other options would be to have less fighters on deck, or field carrier air wings with F-35C prototypes. They probably don't want that.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 22:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about the fact that the F-35C is not actually ready? Issues like the nose gear and required new outer wings, let alone the few weapons that are integrated. The Navy has to buy Super Hornets to replace worn out legacy Hornets. Other options would be to have less fighters on deck, or field carrier air wings with F-35C prototypes. They probably don't want that.
The current review to have another look at the SH:F35C is going to inform the FY18 and the upcoming FYDP. The Super Hornet's currently residing in Trump's Supplemental budget request originated from the Committees unfunded priorities (probably fed a services unfunded request). So assuming these are FY18 and beyond orders which would require the OSD to move on this in the next month or so do not expect the 18 NDAA to pass any time before late 17 or early 2018 (if not longer) given the current gridlock. Given that you are talking about deliveries into the 2020+ time-frame. As a reference to the F-35 program you are essentially looking at tweaking LRIP 12 and beyond C orders.
So you are talking about post F-35C IOC with the Navy and probably even after the Navy has deployed its first operational squadron on a carrier.
Issues like the nose gear and required new outer wings let alone the few weapons that are integrated.
The redesigned outer wings have been in flight testing since Jan-Feb. this year and the program expects to begin replacing the 32 sets starting this summer. The threshold Navy IOC is February of 2019 for the first squadron so that is not going to be an issue. The current lot of fixes for the nose gear are in testing and will be out at sea in the summer-fall time frame so we'll know more then. Regardless any FY18 and beyond decision taken by Secretary Mattis would apply to jets not yet currently in production (future acquisitions of either F-35 or F-18E/F) so retrofitting does not even come in the calculus.
As far as weapon integration is concerned all SDD weapons demanded by the US Navy will be integrated in the SDD phase itself which leaves quite a bit of margin when it comes to the Navy IOC window. Currently they are looking at a February 2018 for full F-35C SDD capability which leaves between 10-12 months of margin between completing all the 3F work and the Navy threshold IOC.
The current set of weapons and capability residing in IOC configuration of the F-35C is what the Navy signed up on in its August/18 - Feb./19 IOC window and that is what they'll get. Additional weapons would come in through the Follow on Development program which the Navy will no doubt seek to add additional capability. Since the Navy will get what they asked for when they re-baselined using weapons integration as an excuse to procure an airframe for the next 20-25 years is really not a convincing enough argument especially since the Navy has got both its weapon requests for block 4 accommodated upfront in block 4.1 which the program expects to begin working on starting late next year.
I am not sure the Navy would bother with stealth pod. I think the centerline pod has to be unmounted to be loaded, they may not like that.Other than that it's the engineers's job to try to find original cost effective ideas that would convince the Navy. I am not saying it's easy.
The cost argument would likely favor just buying additional latest block Super Hornets, along with program investment in CFTs and upgrading the engines, given that it is a readiness and economic argument in the short term. Boeing tried to compete with what they claim was a stealthy Super Hornet. They found no takers in either the USN or the export market.
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 22:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt if a normal F/A-18E is any cheaper than the F-35C to buy or to keep flying.
F-35A (no figures for C available, but it's gonna be more)
Other DoD component user rates: $28,455 per hour
All other user rates: $29,685 per hour
F/A-18F
Other DoD component user rates: $10,507 per hour
All other user rates: $11,140 per hour
http://www.businessinsider.sg/price-military-aircraft-per-flight-hour-2016-8/9/#vPUTBHK4s6VGk54t.99
By: - 2nd April 2017 at 23:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cost argument would likely favor just buying additional latest block Super Hornets, along with program investment in CFTs and upgrading the engines, given that it is a readiness and economic argument in the short term. Boeing tried to compete with what they claim was a stealthy Super Hornet. They found no takers in either the USN or the export market.
The other thing to note is that USN interest in upgrades to the F414 have almost exclusively centered on longer time between overhaul and not a thrust increase. The GE suggested modifications are either more time on the airframe or increased thrust, not both at the same time.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 1st April 2017 at 09:39
Boeing's ideas for the ASH are pretty good. They have done it with internal funding, but so what would be possible if say about 3 billion was spent to upgrade the stealth of a 4.5 gen plane?
I think the centerline weapon pod can probably have an RCS much smaller than the aircraft itself, so that could make the idea of modifying the plane worthwhile.
On the rafale there is a lot of space between the landing gear doors, so that would allow for a wide pod. Also the rafale has a lot of ground clearance, that would allow for a pod that's wide vertically.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/dassault_rafale_l1.jpg[ATTACH=CONFIG]252192[/ATTACH]
I think it would be large enough for 4 meteors with reduced control surfaces.
What would be needed to reduce the airframe's RCS by a matter of say 5-10? I'd say maybe:
- internal refueling probe
- V shape tails
- sharp edge along the fuselage in front of the canard leading to the radome ( F-35 style )
- redesigned radome (F-35 style )
- redesigned upper fuselage for more fuel ( mig-35 like ). I don't trust the RCS of the CFTs much.
- change the vertical angle of the intakes to reduce reflection from the front
- better RAM.
- radar antenna oriented 10 degrees up.
I think the shape of the pod would have to be designed according to the shape of the plane, to have plane alignement between the 2 if possible.
The typhoon wouldn't lend itself well for a large centerline pod, due to the positions of the landing gears, so I think it would require too much modifications to be worth it.
Directional datalinks would also be needed.
It wouldn't be as stealthy as an F-35 but at least France could afford it. Combined with UCAVs it could work quite well. And it would be more competitive with the F-35 so it might be possible to sell it if it is touted as an almost stealth plane with the ability to control UCAVs.