Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boeing shows F/A18 Replacement thoughts

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I've got a replacement for the F-18. It would fly rings around it. Everyone loves it and it is very good looking.





posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

I personally would like to see a stealthier revision of the F-18 airframe in the Navy's arsenal. That way you would have:
1. A twin engine attack aircraft that won't splash if one engine flames out
2.A less expensive aircraft available in overwhelming numbers
3. A bomb truck to carry out attacks after the more stealthy F-35's have "kicked the door down".


Have to agree here... Seems we put so much stock in these advanced concepts, that we tend to not think about replacing more inexpensive combat roles with more inexpensive planes.... Does a mop-up attack aircraft really need all the bells and whistles? Wouldn't more be better? (after stealth has already established air superiority)...

Just seems a heavy investment for little return... If the enemy isn't able to get anything up to fight you, you really don't need the latest and greatest to continue the job...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Can't see those happening...


I can't see them having enough yaw authority and lateral stability for coming in over a carrier deck in any kinda rough weather.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I hate to bump old threads, but I just came across this while searching on google for something else and must have entirely missed it.

A very interesting concept, glad to know that tailless designs are still being floated.

Any updates or are we all too poor to be thinking about any other aircraft right now?

Jensy



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luke.S
I've got a replacement for the F-18. It would fly rings around it. Everyone loves it and it is very good looking.



Strange where people get the idea that the F-14 is superior to the F-18.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86

Originally posted by Luke.S
I've got a replacement for the F-18. It would fly rings around it. Everyone loves it and it is very good looking.



Strange where people get the idea that the F-14 is superior to the F-18.


Because in most ways the F-14 was infact superior.

The F-18 was a heavily compromised platform - remember that it originated from the YF-17, the *rejected* aircraft in the USAFs lightweight fighter competition. The USN got the "second best" aircraft there...

The F-14 was faster, had better acceleration, had a better fuel load and could carry a heavier payload further. But it was more complex, and suffered mechanical difficulties as a result.

And the redesign into the F/A-18 Super Hornet didn't wholly resolve the issues faced - the F/A-18 still suffers from aerodynamic deficiencies which means a lot of tweaks have to be applied to clean up the transonic airflow (ever wondered why the F/A-18 weapons pylons are angled outward? It helps to resolve an inherent issue in the airframe design which induces more drag when approaching supersonic speeds).

The F-14 was withdrawn for financial reasons, not because it had been replaced by a superior aircraft.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


The only way the f-14 was superior was in its ability to carry the aim-54, and that superiority was only theoretical. The hornet is more manueverable and has a higher thrust to weight ratio, so there goes your acceleration argument.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
That first aircraft doesnt seem large enough to fit 2 massive jet engines behind the huge intakes - but maybe its just perception because you cant see underneath.

In anycase, I have no idea why we would choose single engine here in Oz (we selected the F-35). Doesnt seem a good fit for our geographical / polical interests at all.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisterBurns
That first aircraft doesnt seem large enough to fit 2 massive jet engines behind the huge intakes - but maybe its just perception because you cant see underneath.

In anycase, I have no idea why we would choose single engine here in Oz (we selected the F-35). Doesnt seem a good fit for our geographical / polical interests at all.


Same here in Canada. Harper still wants F-35s despite the recent election over his refusal to release the actual costs of buying them.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


The only way the f-14 was superior was in its ability to carry the aim-54, and that superiority was only theoretical. The hornet is more manueverable and has a higher thrust to weight ratio, so there goes your acceleration argument.


Well, firstly the AIM-54 ability isn't at all "theoretical" - the F-14 certainly could carry it, while no other active aircraft in the USAF or USN could.

Aside from that little issue, the thrust to weight ratio is only one small aspect of overall performance of the airframe - the thrust to weight ratios of the F-14 and F-18E/F are only marginally different, while the F-18 has worse aerodynamics, which will hamper it. Just having a marginally better ratio isn't the be-all end-all of these comparisons.

Its also doubtful that the F-18 is more manoueverable than the F-14 - certainly nothing I have seen supports that.

Its interesting that the F-14 was withdrawn from service because of maintenance costs, and immediately after the aircraft was committed to that withdrawl it was discovered that a lot of the new F-18E/Fs had to be returned to Boeing for major structural replacements after premature cracking was discovered...



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I said theoretical because the success ratio of the aim-54 has been called into question in the past.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
I said theoretical because the success ratio of the aim-54 has been called into question in the past.


Its been fired so infrequently, you can't rely on any statistics for it.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
No vertical stab? Uh. How would it have yaw stability?

TVC and Split ailerons?

Doubt it would be maneuverable in that configuration.
edit on 22/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 22/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
There is an update to this story from Flight, see link

www.flightglobal.com...

It mentions that as well as a new fighter, unmanned options are to be looked at (as expected) and it may not even result in an all-new type.

Surely this option, if chosen would be a development of the F-35, rather than yet another version of the Hornet?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Hate to bring everything back to JCA, but...

One wonders if the UK would be better off scrapping anything f-35 related, buying the Super Hornet in reasonable numbers and buying this the decade after next.

Jensy



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Navy has finally dropped an initial request for information to aircraft builders as of April 16th. While there isn't much more new information besides that, I still figured it would be worth posting in this thread.
F/a -XX news

And here's a bunch of new pictures and a short blurb about Boeing's F/a-XX entry.
pictures of boeing's F/a-XX entry



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Navy has finally dropped an initial request for information to aircraft builders as of April 16th. While there isn't much more new information besides that, I still figured it would be worth posting in this thread.
F/a -XX news

And here's a bunch of new pictures and a short blurb about Boeing's F/a-XX entry.
pictures of boeing's F/a-XX entry





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join