Boeing offer advanced FA-18E/F as interim fighter until JSF is ready.

#1
Wonder if they've seen that the JSF is a white elephant & decided to cash in by offering a cheaper alternative,considering we have RAF & RN pilots flying off US Navy carriers,it'd make a lot of sense...

Boeing is offering its Advanced Super Hornet as an interim solution pending the full-operational status arrival of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II system.
Boeing has taken to a private venture to produce a "stealthified" version of its excellent carrier-based F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" series under the project designation of "Advanced Super Hornet". The type will feature modular components retrofitted to the existing Super Hornet airframe in an attempt to lower its radar signature and overall profile while being a budget conscious solution to current USN needs.
Key to the changes will be implementation of an enclosed weapons pod under the fuselage, use of Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) and an all new "skin" coating along surfaces. On the whole, the airframe will remain largely the same and compatible with all current hardware and software systems in use. As such, it is expected that the Advanced Super Hornet will received some serious attention from the United States Navy and Super Hornet operators from around the world.
The base Super Hornet does field some inherent stealth capabilities though its external weapons loadout compromise further efforts - hence the development of a weapons pod to contain munitions until fired. Donned with conformal fuel tanks and an enclosed weapons pod will lay under the center fuselage and house up to four missiles (or similar stores). The conformal fuel tanks will not only retard the airframe's low already signature but also increase the base Super Hornet's combat radius from the standard 390 nautical miles to approximately 510 nautical miles. The cockpits will be slightly reworked to include increased-area touchscreen displays and projected engines will be uprated General Electric F414 turbofans.
Aero India: Boeing's advanced Super Hornet upgrade options - YouTube


1009596_688745947819307_1465038809_o.jpg
 
#2
Unless they can come up with a cheap way to put a catapult on the carrier its not happening
 
#3
But if we were to purchase an airframe that BAE had no financial stake in then the cost of refitting the carrier with cats would be £50 billion.
 
#6
Please make this stop.
 
#8
Unless they can come up with a cheap way to put a catapult on the carrier its not happening
IIRC, the billion pound quote occurred because electromagnetic catapults were proposed. At the time, no other carrier used this technology. The Americans and French all used steam catapults but their carriers are nuclear powered and so replete with steam.

Does anybody know why steam catapults were rejected? I believe space was set aside for a steam generator during design. When will the US Navy put to sea with one of these electro-catties?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
I thought it was partly due to them wanting new tech and not having the same boiler pressures to create said steam due to not using nuc plants in our ships and sticking to those wonky turbine genny combinations causing issues in the t45.

they could probably come up with an electric motor version now if they really really wanted to or rocket assisted take off.
 
#11
IIRC, the billion pound quote occurred because electromagnetic catapults were proposed. At the time, no other carrier used this technology. The Americans and French all used steam catapults but their carriers are nuclear powered and so replete with steam.

Does anybody know why steam catapults were rejected? I believe space was set aside for a steam generator during design. When will the US Navy put to sea with one of these electro-catties?
Gerald R Ford class will have EMALS:

Growler launches from EMALS catapult - The DEW Line

We didn't go for steam because EMALS was on the horizon and we were always going for the F-35B anyhoo. The ability to convert to cat and trap was in the requirement but wasn't specked. Or some such stuff, one of your chaps will be along shortly to correct me :)
 
#12
IIRC, the billion pound quote occurred because electromagnetic catapults were proposed. At the time, no other carrier used this technology. The Americans and French all used steam catapults but their carriers are nuclear powered and so replete with steam.

Does anybody know why steam catapults were rejected? I believe space was set aside for a steam generator during design. When will the US Navy put to sea with one of these electro-catties?
I think I may have mentioned this before, but can't recall getting an answer. What about a hydraulic cat?
 
#13
#14
Apparently there's a feasibility study currently underway between Boeing and the MoD to see if it would be cheaper to:

Retrofit magnetic catapults to the new (not fitted for or with) carriers for non-STOVL F18s

Retrofit lift fans to un-retrofitted, not fitted for or with FA18s

Upgrade the office furniture, change the MoD logo and give themselves a 60% pay increase

It's a no-brainer.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Unless they can come up with a cheap way to put a catapult on the carrier its not happening
So, Bring me up to speed on this one - We built two aircraft carriers which have no known method of actually launching aircraft from the flat bit on the top? Well, I suppose we got what he asked for. We got aircraft carriers. Pity all then can do is carry them.
 
#16
Perhaps we should buy Russian?
 
#17
TD published this FOI:

CVF Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment FOI | Think Defence

Forgot to say read the comments, Not a Boffin has posted much the same on here as well.
I must be missing something, but I couldn't see anything about a possible use of hydraulic catapults in either the article, or the comments. There was something about a pneumatic system, but I couldn't see that as a practical solution.
It did raise one question for me though, why did you not go with a nuclear powerplant?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#18
I must be missing something, but I couldn't see anything about a possible use of hydraulic catapults in either the article, or the comments. There was something about a pneumatic system, but I couldn't see that as a practical solution.
It did raise one question for me though, why did you not go with a nuclear powerplant?
Cost
 
#19
I must be missing something, but I couldn't see anything about a possible use of hydraulic catapults in either the article, or the comments. There was something about a pneumatic system, but I couldn't see that as a practical solution.
It did raise one question for me though, why did you not go with a nuclear powerplant?
The link was for the options considered. Have never heard of hydraulics as a viable option, it was steam or EMALS/EMCAT. Nuke was out because of cost, decommissioning in particular.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
So, Bring me up to speed on this one - We built two aircraft carriers which have no known method of actually launching aircraft from the flat bit on the top? Well, I suppose we got what he asked for. We got aircraft carriers. Pity all then can do is carry them.
well the costing trend is for chopper decks now as all you need is a few apache, flights from the uk to overthrow a govt so add some drones and a commando carrier refit is probably on the cards allready, or we just buy jumpy jets that work and put some black paint on them like they've done with the f18.

going up a bit, could pneumatic launchers work? same principle as the steam.

is airwolf still available?
 

Similar threads

Top