It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing close to $3B+ Hornet deal

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Reports are coming out that Kuwait is close to closing an order with Boeing for 28 F-18E/F Super Hornets. Kuwait currently flies earlier models of the Hornet. The deal would be worth around $3B total. Between this order, and the 12 additional aircraft added for the US Navy, this could mean the Hornet line could continue until 2019. Boeing is also trying to secure orders from Canada, Malaysia, and Belgium.

Not many details about the potential sale are being released yet, but it's expected that the sale will be discussed when President Obama meets with the Gulf Cooperation Council next week for a summit.


(Reuters) - Kuwait is expected to announce in coming weeks an order for 28 Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, a $3 billion-plus deal that will keep the jets' St. Louis production line running well into 2019, according to people familiar with the deal.

Kuwait, which operates a fleet of earlier F/A-18 models, has signed a formal letter stating its firm plans to buy newer-model Boeing jets, according to one of the people who is familiar with the deal but was not authorized to speak publicly.

A second source confirmed that the U.S. government was working with Kuwait to approve the sale of advanced Boeing fighter jets, but gave no further details.

One U.S. official said the proposed Kuwaiti purchase of Super Hornets would be discussed as part of President Barack Obama's summit meeting with Gulf Cooperation Council leaders next week but said it was not clear the deal would be finalized then. The expected deal would make Kuwait the second foreign country after Australia to order the new Boeing jets.

uk.reuters.com...




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Makes sense to me, Canada is going bankrupt and the F35 deal is not helping things in My Opinion. We don't need an attack stealth fighter and never have. All we need are good defensive jets as in interceptors. I do believe that our current fleet of Hornets are just fine for what we need in our Country.

This is good news for the lowly taxpayers in Canada! I hope our military see the use and advantage of a jet that can fly in the rain and especially snow:-)
Keep them home and guard our Coasts I say.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

I'm still crossing my fingers for Eurofighters, those would be sweet to see in the skies over canuckistan.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

If they don't go with the F-35, they'll probably stick with Hornets. They already have the infrastructure in place, and the transition will be easy for the crews.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

If they don't go with the F-35, they'll probably stick with Hornets. They already have the infrastructure in place, and the transition will be easy for the crews.


That is what I am sure they will do ......(I hope) but you never know with a government that loves to do odd things with our tax money.
I never thought about the infrastructure and now that you mentioned it just think of the costs involved with training and such.
Not because Canada employs the Hornet but I always read great things about their capabilities and durability. That last sentence is wide open for correction:-)

Zaph how does the Hornet stack up with the F35? I really would like to know, as you are well aware I am a Monday morning quarter back in this forum.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

The entire Hornet family has range issues. Depending on the mission some of the weapons loads have a combat radius of less than 500 nm, including external tanks. The Lightning has a combat radius, on internal weapons and fuel of around 600 nm for the A and C, one of which is what Canada would get (most likely As).

Performance wise in combat, both seem to have similar problems with transonic acceleration and energy bleed, but the Lightning hasn't done much ACM yet.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
This is great news for Boeing! And for Boeing's employees!

The F/A-18 platform has been an unqualified success, and I am sure it is a great plane, but I have always been of the opinion that when the USN chose this platform they settled for the lowest common denominator. It seemed we had so much more before than after. I understand that this probably has more to do with emotion than logic, but there it is.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Must be a good life to buy useless toys thst instead could transform every aspect of society and rid of poverty and bad health.

But that wouldn't benefit the 1% and military bodies they control now would it...

I don't care about flying toys that cost more then building communities.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

The entire Hornet family has range issues. Depending on the mission some of the weapons loads have a combat radius of less than 500 nm, including external tanks. The Lightning has a combat radius, on internal weapons and fuel of around 600 nm for the A and C, one of which is what Canada would get (most likely As).

Performance wise in combat, both seem to have similar problems with transonic acceleration and energy bleed, but the Lightning hasn't done much ACM yet.


I was lucky enough to grasp 65% of what you posted above, thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I will keep an eye on this and try and decipher some of this secret code talk....LOL Thanks Zaph

Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"Combat radius..."

"Problems with... ...energy bleed... ...ACM"

"Transonic acceleration"

It's almost as if you're trying to further my argument about the Typhoon being the best choice...

The Rafale isn't a bad plane either, now that I think of it...
edit on 8-5-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Maybe I can help:

nm = Nautical miles

Most likely Canada will get the F-35A (Airforce, traditional run way) model as opposed to the F-35C (Navy, aircraft carrier).

ACM = Air Combat Manuvers
edit on 8-5-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Combat radius is the most important aspect of range. It's how far you can fly with a weapons load, and return, without refueling.

Transonic acceleration is acceleration at high subsonic speed, just before you get to supersonic. Both the Hornet and Lightning, once they get into that speed range are slow to accelerate, which means slow to recover energy.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

The F-35A has some advantages over the Typhoon that I think is why Canada is looking at them as closely as they are. It has a better sensor and avionics suite, has stealth (which is still relevant in today's battle field), Canada will always be close in operations with the USAF, so will be close to a large support infrastructure to sustain them and the F-35 already cost less than the Typhoon for the block they are looking to get.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

In some missions the Typhoon has a WORSE combat radius than the Hornet. The missions it is better than the Hornet, there's not a big enough advantage over the Lightning to be a selling point.

Add to that the time it would take to get them, the changes to infrastructure and training, and it doesn't have a significantadvantage over either of the others.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If they got Rafales, it might pacify the Quebecois


For at least another 5 minutes...
edit on 8-5-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Thanks to both Sam & Zaph for some further teachings, much appreciated.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Which has its own problems. They have only just recently made any significant foreign sales, so it doesn't have much of a support structure in place. The only reason they're making the sale to India is because they're offering already flying aircraft, at the same price France paid for them.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I happened across this article this morning, I found it interesting enough to post here on this thread to be looked at by the pro's.
www.independent.co.uk...
If this article contains facts, I never realized that these F35's were so far behind schedule and not projected to fly combat for at least another 3 years.
One opinion in the article is at least 5 more years.
This is just the messenger so be nice.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

Yeah, the F-35B reaches IOC this July. That allows for a basic weapons load. The first of them won't reach FOC, all the bells and whistles until closer to 2020 at least.

Even if they were ready now, there aren't enough of them to risk in combat yet.

Never ceases to amaze me how reporters can take old information and run with it without even trying to research.
edit on 5/10/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join