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.

 

STOBAR Carriers? No problem for the F-18E says Boeing

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Boeing which has been aggressively marketing the F-18E in 'Block 3" trim to India and has stated that they feel the F-18E can operate of the ski jump equipped Vikrant class that they have in development. Eventually the Indian Navy will field CATOBAR carriers but not until late in the next decade.

With most contracts the devil is in the details and India will demand a ton of offsets. Boeing is willing to set up an assembly line in India which will no doubt sweeten the deal. Its up against alot of competition however, like the Rafale, the Sea Grippen, F-35, and some soviet fighters. Given their experience with the Soviet fighters, I think those can be considered long shots.

The other interesting element in this is the UK. Its possible that they might consider the F-18E as part of the loadout for their new carriers........

www.thedrive.com...




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I can see India, but not the UK. Hell, for that matter, just about any fighter is STOBAR capable, since they're talking off light.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The UK will be using F35B for the carrier, that's settled. The question that remains is how many of the full F35 buy will be for the carrier, how many another variant for the RAF and what other variant it ends up being.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

I can see India, but not the UK. Hell, for that matter, just about any fighter is STOBAR capable, since they're talking off light.


True, but apparently they are looking at STOBAR and CATOBAR capable as the Migs etc would require modification to use a catapult which is where their future carriers would be.

Also, as with India the offsets will be a factor. With BREXIT, the UK may be looking alot harder at this. They may need to preserve industrial base and be willing to buy the Hornet strictly on those terms. A mixed F-18E/F-35 fleet would not be the worst thing in terms of capability either esp if you certify the F-18 to carry the Meteor things get interesting. The F-18E's could lug quite a few of the missiles and loiter a bit behind while the -35's operating foreword of the carrier group could cue them.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

I can see India, but not the UK. Hell, for that matter, just about any fighter is STOBAR capable, since they're talking off light.


True, but apparently they are looking at STOBAR and CATOBAR capable as the Migs etc would require modification to use a catapult which is where their future carriers would be.

Also, as with India the offsets will be a factor. With BREXIT, the UK may be looking alot harder at this. They may need to preserve industrial base and be willing to buy the Hornet strictly on those terms. A mixed F-18E/F-35 fleet would not be the worst thing in terms of capability either esp if you certify the F-18 to carry the Meteor things get interesting. The F-18E's could lug quite a few of the missiles and loiter a bit behind while the -35's operating foreword of the carrier group could cue them.


The UK is a tier 1 partner in F35, with that comes a lot of industrial participation already. There is no money available in the UK for the non essential introduction of another fast jet type. All the pressure is in the other direction, cuts and consolidation where possible. The UK will be operating a Typhoon and F35 fleet mix for a long time to come.

There was a time when UK f18s were a possibility but thats in the past.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT




The F-18E's could lug quite a few of the missiles and loiter a bit behind while the -35's operating foreword of the carrier group could cue them.


A Boeing 777 would carry a lot more rather than flying expensive fighters.

P



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

While being utterly useless at the same time.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I can't tell if you're sarcastic.

You do realize how much a Boeing 777 costs right? Cheapest list price is $261.5 million. Multiply that by 1.3 because military (P-8A is 30% more expensive than 737-900ER). A Super Hornet is going to be $70 million. So that's 5 Super Hornet for each militarized Boeing 777.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: pheonix358

I can't tell if you're sarcastic.

You do realize how much a Boeing 777 costs right? Cheapest list price is $261.5 million. Multiply that by 1.3 because military (P-8A is 30% more expensive than 737-900ER). A Super Hornet is going to be $70 million. So that's 5 Super Hornet for each militarized Boeing 777.


Plus the cost associated with designing then certifying hard-points for the 777 etc. Couple with the fact that the 777 probably has an RCS of well a 777 which would put it at risk for those long range A2A's the opfors are now fielding. On the other hand that B-1R concept would be more interesting. Low RCS from head on, speed to evade and a huge load out.......



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure that this is something that Boeing actually looked at some time ago and drew these conclusions. But lets be clear there is no substitute for a big CATOBAR carrier when it comes to weapons load out and fuel, that's where I feel the RN have really screwed themselves into a corner with the QE class. They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process. Actually the RAAF/RAN looked at the feasibility of operating legacy Hornets off an LHD in the 20-25,000 tonne class before they settled on the Canberra/Juan Carlos solution of about 27,000 tonnes. They appear to have concluded that it was feasible although clearly the fuel and weapons loads would be marginal. This is also a big reason why the Canberra's have not had the ski jump removed, despite all the claims that it was due to costs associated with removing it. Just like India the RAN would LOVE to get back into fixed wing operations. It will be interesting to see if India goes with the Super bug for its carriers. Personally I could see them doing a lot worse than operating them and at a lower cost than the Rafale. The only potential upset would be if they went with the Sea Gripen derivative, I would really like to see that pulled off. A maritime Gripen would have lots of potential sales to places like Brazil or even the UK.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.


5th Gen fighters
2 x 65,000 tonne carrier
Second only to their allies the USA in terms of global carrier capability
Not having an expensive and unnecessary steam catapult and arrestor gear requiring lots more sailors, power and maintenance.

Making themselves look silly? Dont think so.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.


5th Gen fighters
2 x 65,000 tonne carrier
Second only to their allies the USA in terms of global carrier capability
Not having an expensive and unnecessary steam catapult and arrestor gear requiring lots more sailors, power and maintenance.

Making themselves look silly? Dont think so.


If it had been re-evaluated 5 years earlier it might have stuck. It was a political led decision to study changing and far too late into the carrier programme to be financially viable.

Biggest problem of not having catapults is we are stuck with rotorcraft AEW again. Would have been nice to have the option of E2s.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: justwokeup

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.


5th Gen fighters
2 x 65,000 tonne carrier
Second only to their allies the USA in terms of global carrier capability
Not having an expensive and unnecessary steam catapult and arrestor gear requiring lots more sailors, power and maintenance.

Making themselves look silly? Dont think so.


If it had been re-evaluated 5 years earlier it might have stuck. It was a political led decision to study changing and far too late into the carrier programme to be financially viable.

Biggest problem of not having catapults is we are stuck with rotorcraft AEW again. Would have been nice to have the option of E2s.


We are not stuck with anything, MASaC or SKASaC are very formidable systems, Hawkeye may fly higher but that additional radar horizon is not a major factor in effective C2 range.

I understand that Crowsnest is a more formidable system and the F-35 sucks up so much information it can probably automatically send C2 back to Crowsnest (I am guessing) meaning its range is as far as the E2 doing the same thing?

On top of that, we can fly them off other ships potentially extending their range and we do not have to fund a unique aircraft type with one purpose of limited (if any) benefit.

A very sensible decision by the UK, what are the French E2s doing since CdG has been refuelling, touch and go's to keep the pilots and engineers current whilst adding no value whatsoever and putting hours on the aircraft.
edit on 2 9 2017 by Forensick because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1

log in

join