New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

shurshot17
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:29 pm

New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by shurshot17 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:56 pm

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 611079.xml

Think this will make the Super Hornet more appealing to Canada for the F-35?
---------- ADS -----------
  

BibleMonkey
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by BibleMonkey » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:33 pm

shurshot17 wrote:http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 611079.xml

Think this will make the Super Hornet more appealing to Canada for the F-35?
Pffft. ha.
no way.
That Jet is not stealthy. I can still see it in the photo.

To be real stealthy, it has to be like James Bonds car in that Pierce Brosnan one...hmmm ..Die Another Day-totally invisible.

When I get to be Defense Minister, I'm going to drop hints over six months about developing an invisible fighter jet...then pick some random empty airfield no one's really heard of to unveil it.

Stand in front of the microphone, gesture to some nicely mown grass...my six hired mimes dressed in flight suits 'sitting in the cockpit' flipping 'switches'..

Did you ever see a mime walking down the stairs? Ahaha those guys crack me up-sitting in a cockpit 'flipping switches' is easy compared to 'walking down stairs'.

If some nosey reporter asks ' how come I can see their feet are on the ground"
I'll say

'That's because they're still in ground effect-don't you know anything about flying? Who let you in here? 'and nod to the security guy.

My other plan is buying all of the ten or twenty thousand still flying Cessna 150s, and posting them two miles apart all over the North. Unemployed Maritimes fishermen can fly them.

This will be called the

'How many five year olds would it take to beat you up ' strategy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Colonel Sanders » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:56 am

buying all of the ten or twenty thousand still flying Cessna 150s, and posting them two miles apart all over the North. Unemployed Maritimes fishermen can fly them
You are closer to the truth than you know :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

frozen solid
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:29 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by frozen solid » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:52 am

Now you're just stealing Bob Diemert's idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6379
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: Lurking

Post by Beefitarian » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:12 pm

Wonder woman had an invisible jet decades ago. What about L-4s Monk?
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by TheStig » Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:40 am

Pretty sad that our national defence has turned into such a joke. Two years ago I was 100% behind the F-35, but as a taxpayer its hard to ignore it's ever increasing price tag and the fact that it may not be all that well suited to Canada's requirements. Value isn't the only factor when selecting aircraft tasked with Defending our Country, but it does matter especially when the F-35 is now projected to cost more than twice as much as a Super Hornet. What Canadians really deserve to told by our Military and Political leaders is what are the specific requirements for the CF-18's replacement.

While not the only differences; the most common talking points when comparing the F-18 Super Hornet and F-35 seem to be; the merits of single engine vs. twin engine and 'stealth' capabilities.

Here on Avcanada we love to debate the PC-12 vs King Air, single versus multi-engine aircraft safety levels, and I tend to think that a single engine turbine aircraft (such as a PC-12) is perfectly safe for most civilian flying. However, what we ask of our military pilots is above and beyond what we do in the civilian world. I certainly wouldn't want to be hundreds of miles off shore over the Beaufort Sea intercepting Bears in a single engine aircraft no matter how reliable some politician feels the engine is. I know the Norwegian Air Force flies F-16's over frigid waters but the scale of their landmass/territorial waters hardly seems comparable.

What in-flight failure rate is deemed to be acceptable for the purposes of this competition (for a single engine aircraft)? Will the F-35 be able to honour Canada's commitment to NORAD?

The term "First day of war capabilities" has always seemed conceited and presumptuous to me. Is it good national defence policy for us to assume that that the outcome of any conflict we may enter over the next few decades will only be contested on the first day? Where this phrase is truly misleading though is how it is made in reference to 'Stealth' capabilities. As highlighted by the posters above, steath does not mean invisible, it is now being used as a marketing term to differentiate so called '4th (or 4.5th) Generation Fighters' from '5th Generation Fighters'. Military people seem to prefer terms like 'radar cross section' or 'degree of stealth'; everything a radar is trying to detect has a 'degree of stealth'; some have more some have less. What is the difference between the F-35 and F/A-18? Will it make a difference in conflicts?

What I think we have a right to know is what degree of stealth do Canadian military planners think our fighters will require? Obviously Military planners aren't going to come right out and say, "We need this aircraft to defeat the North Korean Army," but I think Canadian taxpayers have a right to know what capabilities they feel are required and why. In the Vietnam War the Americans had the more advanced fighters but the Vietnamese Airforce MiG-17's and MiG-21's were often better suited to the conditions presented. A lot of smart people spend a lot of time running through various scenarios, tell us why we need specific capabilities and I think most Canadians would have no issues paying the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR8wxQrJwVM

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2 ... 28_13.page
---------- ADS -----------
  

frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by frosti » Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:44 am

Once you start mounting weapons, externally not internally like the F35, and fuel tanks that "Stealth" Hornet becomes a major blip on the radar. The Navy has always considered the Super Hornet an interim platform, so they are going to invest as little as possible. They'd rather save the money on more advanced and modern aircraft like the F35 and later the F/A-XX.
TheStig wrote:A lot of smart people spend a lot of time running through various scenarios, tell us why we need specific capabilities and I think most Canadians would have no issues paying the bill.
I think most Canadians don't really care and would rather abolish the military all together. They would rather focus on themselves or on their pet projects and have the US take care of their national defence needs.
---------- ADS -----------
  

frozen solid
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:29 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by frozen solid » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:04 pm

frosti wrote: The Navy has always considered the Super Hornet an interim platform, so they are going to invest as little as possible. They'd rather save the money on more advanced and modern aircraft like the F35 and later the F/A-XX.
I didn't realize Canada was considering these aircraft for our Navy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Rockie » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:05 am

TheStig wrote:What Canadians really deserve to told by our Military and Political leaders is what are the specific requirements for the CF-18's replacement.
There's no point in that because the specific requirements for any military acquisition are always political (and therefore constantly changing) and only pay lip service to military requirements. One only has to look at the chronically and criminally mishandled helicopter replacement program. There are military pilots who started their career looking forward to flying the Sea King's imminent replacement which was ancient back in the 80's who have long ago retired. We're still flying Sea Kings with no replacement even on the horizon.
frosti wrote:Once you start mounting weapons, externally not internally like the F35, and fuel tanks that "Stealth" Hornet becomes a major blip on the radar.
Stealth is a waste of money for an airplane we're going to have for 50 years. Once it's been defeated-which won't take long-all that money we'll still be shelling out is wasted. Ever wonder why the US isn't flying F-117's anymore?

Besides, how much does stealth matter when the plane's sitting at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea because the engine quit?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Genetk44
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:31 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Genetk44 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:43 am

frozen solid wrote:
frosti wrote: The Navy has always considered the Super Hornet an interim platform, so they are going to invest as little as possible. They'd rather save the money on more advanced and modern aircraft like the F35 and later the F/A-XX.
I didn't realize Canada was considering these aircraft for our Navy.

Of course...for our Trudeau class carriers
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by iflyforpie » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:46 am

Genetk44 wrote: Of course...for our Trudeau class carriers
:lol:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6379
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: Lurking

Post by Beefitarian » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:51 am

Rockie wrote: Ever wonder why the US isn't flying F-117's anymore?
Can't carry enough democracy and 1903 wright flyer like handling if the computer malfunctions.


Maybe they do but just don't advertise it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by grimey » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:00 am

Colonel Sanders wrote:
buying all of the ten or twenty thousand still flying Cessna 150s, and posting them two miles apart all over the North. Unemployed Maritimes fishermen can fly them
You are closer to the truth than you know :wink:
We could paint them red and call it the Sky Rangers. Give the pilot a Sten, tell him not to drop it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by TheStig » Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:08 pm

Rockie wrote: Stealth is a waste of money for an airplane we're going to have for 50 years. Once it's been defeated-which won't take long-all that money we'll still be shelling out is wasted. Ever wonder why the US isn't flying F-117's anymore?
I did, thankfully google had the answer…as always.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ ... 51121.aspx

Good to know that in about 10 years (the F-117 entered service in 1988 or '89 I believe and was shot down in 1999 over Kosovo) the F-35's stealth could be rendered outdated by a commender in some second world country with a couple of 1960's era surface to air missile batteries. $9 Billion well spent.
---------- ADS -----------
  

moocow
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:36 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by moocow » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:36 pm

Good to know that in about 10 years (the F-117 entered service in 1988 or '89 I believe and was shot down in 1999 over Kosovo) the F-35's stealth could be rendered outdated by a commender in some second world country with a couple of 1960's era surface to air missile batteries. $9 Billion well spent.
Is it fair to compare the stealth technology between aircraft designed 20 years apart? I'm not saying that the current design is perfect but there must be some level of improvements. It's a pretty smart move on Boeing's part considering it's the same thing they did the same thing to the F-15C/E to produce the new F-15SE. They see that Lockheed's clean sheet design is just getting worst and worst in terms of delivery while Boeing can just update an existing design and sell it to countries at lower cost as either a stop gap or out right replacement. Let see how well the PAK-FA's development program is going to be.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by trampbike » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:16 am

Rockie wrote: Stealth is a waste of money for an airplane we're going to have for 50 years. Once it's been defeated-which won't take long-all that money we'll still be shelling out is wasted.
Then why are Russia and China working really hard to develop stealthy aircraft? So far, your position about the performance of the F-35 always make it sounds as though YOU know better than every American, Russian and Chinese brain involved in the development of fighters.


The history always repeats itself:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/08/f-35-critics-same-sht-different-century.html wrote:Despite its ability to dominate the aerial arena, the F–15 attracted a vocal and influential group of detractors who continued to fight a battle for small, cheap dogfighters. Gathering advocates from several walks of life, a splinter group of congressmen, journalists, aircraft designers, former fighter pilots, and military analysts marched under the banner of the Military Reform Caucus to demonstrate the folly of the F–15. James Fallows eloquently expressed their credo in his best-selling book, National Defense. The reformers who focused on money saw the F–15 as too expensive at $20 million, seven times the cost of an F–4 and twenty times the cost of an F–5. They further argued that the airplane was so big and easy to see that the pilot of a small F–5-sized fighter could easily get inside the F–15 pilot’s OODA loop and wreak havoc. Ironically, the very argument the reformers used proved the case against them. The Eagle was big, but its radar and superb missiles not only gave the F–15 pilot the first chance to observe, orient, and decide, they also gave him the first chance to act. The reformers had good arguments, but they were based on old information. A new paradigm was emerging, and it was the paradigm of a very large battlefield, with reliable missiles that could truly “reach out and touch someone.”
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Rockie » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:17 am

trampbike wrote:Then why are Russia and China working really hard to develop stealthy aircraft? So far, your position about the performance of the F-35 always make it sounds as though YOU know better than every American, Russian and Chinese brain involved in the development of fighters.
They do it because they each want to be a military superpower. Canada doesn't. They do it because they each have a large military/industrial economy and culture. Canada doesn't. They do it because before that technology becomes obsolete they will begin work on its successor. Canada won't. They do it because they're willing to spend countless billions to have the most sophisticated weapons on the block (arguable with the US and the F-35) and Canadians aren't. They might even do it hoping for some sucker of a country to buy it too and help offset the obscene costs. Canada in this case is the sucker country.

I've also never commented on the performance of the F-35 for the simple reason I know nothing about the performance of the F-35. My objection to it is for the following reasons:

1. The costs have done nothing but go up, up, up.....and up. To the point the government is performing all kinds of contortions, sacrifices and illusions to make it appear as if the cost is staying the same when it clearly isn't. No one knows what the final cost will be.

2. We're paying a very expensive, and so far open ended premium for stealth technology that will be obsolete decades before we make our last payment and even begin to think of a replacement aircraft.

3. It only has one engine that even a school child knows is a very bad fit for Canada's land/sea mass and hostile environment.

4. The Conservatives have obfuscated, misled and withheld information on every aspect of this thing probably because they have no frick'in clue what they're doing, and are trying to hide their incompetence behind "trust us" bromides and comically absurd promises like the engine will never quit and the cost isn't rising. It's insulting to anybody with a brain.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Rockie on Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:20 am

Stealth, for me, is not really why I would like the F-35... It's all the other secret programs integrated into the F-35 that make it really interesting.

Unfortunately, the general public will never get to really know why the F-35 is a kick ass aircraft. Same goes for the Raptor.

For cost, I predict 90M$ per aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by iflyforpie » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:31 am

trampbike wrote: The history always repeats itself:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/08/f-35-critics-same-sht-different-century.html wrote:Despite its ability to dominate the aerial arena, the F–15 attracted a vocal and influential group of detractors who continued to fight a battle for small, cheap dogfighters. Gathering advocates from several walks of life, a splinter group of congressmen, journalists, aircraft designers, former fighter pilots, and military analysts marched under the banner of the Military Reform Caucus to demonstrate the folly of the F–15. James Fallows eloquently expressed their credo in his best-selling book, National Defense. The reformers who focused on money saw the F–15 as too expensive at $20 million, seven times the cost of an F–4 and twenty times the cost of an F–5. They further argued that the airplane was so big and easy to see that the pilot of a small F–5-sized fighter could easily get inside the F–15 pilot’s OODA loop and wreak havoc. Ironically, the very argument the reformers used proved the case against them. The Eagle was big, but its radar and superb missiles not only gave the F–15 pilot the first chance to observe, orient, and decide, they also gave him the first chance to act. The reformers had good arguments, but they were based on old information. A new paradigm was emerging, and it was the paradigm of a very large battlefield, with reliable missiles that could truly “reach out and touch someone.”
But, that opposition also brought out the F-16 and the YF-17.... later to evolve into the F-18. That was not one, but two fighters that were rejected (the F-15 was designed as a cheaper version of the F-111) to wind up with something that is still in service 50 years after the original requirement to replace the F-4.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by trampbike » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:45 am

Rockie wrote: I've also never commented on the performance of the F-35 for the simple reason I know nothing about the performance of the F-35.
Your assertion that stealth is a waste of money because you are certain it will soon be defeated seems o be a comment about the performance of the aircraft. I also find it weird that a guy like you who knows better treats stealth as an on/off thing (either you don't see me, or you do see me, with no regards to range, intercepting angle etc). Stealth being "defeated" does not necessarily mean the aircraft is now just as visible as any non-stealthy aircraft. You know this very well I'm sure.

Rockie wrote:1. The costs have done nothing but go up, up, up.....and up. To the point the government is performing all kinds of contortions, sacrifices and illusions to make it appear as if the cost is staying the same when it clearly isn't. No one knows what the final cost will be.
True, but can you tell me for sure about another option that will be cheaper on the long run?

Rockie wrote:We're paying a very expensive, and so far open ended premium for stealth technology that will be obsolete decades before we make our last payment and even begin to think of a replacement aircraft.
You know really well that stealth is only one of the many great aspects of the F-35. Also, assuming it will become obsolete soon is assuming a great deal, and again it looks as though your are commenting about the F-35 performance, which you said you know nothing about.

Rockie wrote:It only has one engine that even a school child knows is a very bad fit for Canada's land/sea mass and hostile environment.
Lucky for us, school child are not the ones that will fly it. :wink:

Rockie wrote:The Conservatives have obfuscated, misled and withheld information on every aspect of this thing probably because they have no frick'in clue what they're doing, and are trying to hide their incompetence behind "trust us" bromides and comically absurd promises like the engine will never quit and the cost isn't rising. It's insulting to anybody with a brain.
On this point, I could not agree more.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6379
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: Lurking

Post by Beefitarian » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:08 am

It's all the other secret programs integrated into the F-35 that make it really interesting.

Unfortunately, the general public will never get to really know why the F-35 is a kick ass aircraft. Same goes for the Raptor.

For cost, I predict 90M$ per aircraft.
Well that's fine, maybe it's the best and how it is can be a secret. So you just can't get that much value for a lower price but, how will Canada afford it?

Just because a luxury sedan is better than a cheap compact. Should you takeout a mortgage you can't afford, just to buy one risking your house?

What good is buying several of them if they end up parked in a field because the economy goes Zimbabwe?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Skyhunter
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Location: Near YOW

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Skyhunter » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:49 am

ok.... I have tried not to comment, but I feel I have to. One comment only though... am promising myself.

First, for one year I worked on the the fighter replacement project in NDHQ. I am not as in depth expert as some of my compatriots but have a reasonable knowledge of the options out there. Much of it classified. I am recently retired, I will never personally fly any of the options of what is chosen so have no personal vested interest.

My bottom line, if I had to put my son into one of those aircraft (f-35, super hornet, Eurofighter, grippen, etc) to go into a combat mission, including intercepting stuff over the Arctic I would put him in the F-35. Period dot. Hands down. The only exception would be if the F-22 were for sale and affordable.

Beef - we are not buying a car to commute to work, we are buying a war machine, unlike Jean Chretien I do believe our boys deserve the Cadillac. Very happy to put my tax dollars on the Caddy!

ok I am out. flame away boys
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by TheStig » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:38 am

Skyhunter wrote:
ok I am out. flame away boys
Flame away? You're the only poster with any real knowledge of this subject! I wish you'd add your 2 cents more often.

I recal that a few years ago the Aussies made an informal inquiry into whether the F-22 might be made available for export without success. To bad. I suppose with so much committed to the F-35 at this point the US doesn't want to jeopardize loosing some of the supporting cast on its sales.
---------- ADS -----------
  

moocow
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:36 pm

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by moocow » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:43 am

My bottom line, if I had to put my son into one of those aircraft (f-35, super hornet, Eurofighter, grippen, etc) to go into a combat mission, including intercepting stuff over the Arctic I would put him in the F-35. Period dot. Hands down. The only exception would be if the F-22 were for sale and affordable.
You said it yourself: affordable. Is the F-35 still affordable? Are we buying features that other aircraft don't have, if so what are they exactly? For example, full aspect stealth and advanced sensor suites? May be we should just do what the Aussies did. Buy some Super Hornet as a stop gap to replace the old aircraft until the F-35 is ready. I think for sure everyone here don't want this to end up like the SAR helicopter cluster leg hump.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

Post by Expat » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:02 pm

My answer has always been: Do we want to put all our taxpayer dollars into one project?

Let's see what other countries can afford:
Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force
Turkey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... y_aircraft
Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force
Pakistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force
These are minuscule countries, compared to Canada... :shock:

Does Canada want to be relevant in the future, as far as the Air Forces go? Obviously we are on the wrong track...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”