Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Congress has given Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter jet a lifeline, at least for now.

The omnibus spending bill contains a down payment of $75 million for 22 of the fighters that the Navy didn’t request.

The funding, signed into law on Jan. 17, will prod Navy officials to decide this year whether to spend as much as $2 billion for the unplanned planes as a hedge against delays of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

At stake is Boeing’s staying power as a producer of fighter jets alongside Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., which builds the F-35 for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.


http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b7f9f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where does all my Tax Money go again..?

Fighters = war = wounded veterans = more taxes.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Fighters = war = wounded veterans = more taxes.

= I don't have to learn how to speak Russian/Chinese

dbackjon wrote:Congress has given Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter jet a lifeline, at least for now.

The omnibus spending bill contains a down payment of $75 million for 22 of the fighters that the Navy didn’t request.

The funding, signed into law on Jan. 17, will prod Navy officials to decide this year whether to spend as much as $2 billion for the unplanned planes as a hedge against delays of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

At stake is Boeing’s staying power as a producer of fighter jets alongside Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., which builds the F-35 for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.


http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... b7f9f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO why are we still buying the F-35. The DOD, "We will spend your money any way we can."

This is actually a good move for several reasons. The F-35 is a buzzard and the late gen F-18s are still among the best multirole fighters in the world.

CID1990 wrote:This is actually a good move for several reasons. The F-35 is a buzzard and the late gen F-18s are still among the best multirole fighters in the world.

But its slow. Does not reach MACH 2. the Reds have a faster Fighter. I would keep the F-18 as a Attack jet and use the F-35 as a Fighter. But thats too much like right.

mrklean wrote:

CID1990 wrote:This is actually a good move for several reasons. The F-35 is a buzzard and the late gen F-18s are still among the best multirole fighters in the world.

But its slow. Does not reach MACH 2. the Reds have a faster Fighter. I would keep the F-18 as a Attack jet and use the F-35 as a Fighter. But thats too much like right.

I come from a family full of fighter pilots in all services (except the Army of course... they dont know how to flythings with wings)

Speed means nothing outside of a dogfight, which is as antiquated as jousting on a horse

The Hornet is the Honda Accord of the fighter world- as capable as anything anyone else can put in the air, and cheaper by the millions

CID1990 wrote:

mrklean wrote:
But its slow. Does not reach MACH 2. the Reds have a faster Fighter. I would keep the F-18 as a Attack jet and use the F-35 as a Fighter. But thats too much like right.

I come from a family full of fighter pilots in all services (except the Army of course... they dont know how to flythings with wings)

Speed means nothing outside of a dogfight, which is as antiquated as jousting on a horse

The Hornet is the Honda Accord of the fighter world- as capable as anything anyone else can put in the air, and cheaper by the millions

How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

mrklean wrote: How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

I think it's less about speed these days vs. stealth, countermeasures, and long range offensive capabilities. Mach 2 is great unless you're trying to outrun a missile coming at you at Mach 2.5. The F117 Nighthawks were slow as Christmas and were exceptionally effective in Desert Storm with early stealth and high tech sophistication. The F-22 is as fast and capable as anything the Russians are putting out, but at a ridiculous pricetag. The Hornet lacks the stealth or the speed of the Sukhois, but it gets you 80-90% of the speed and tech on a proven platform.

Oh wow. The thread title had me thinking this might have had something to do with the Government giving cheap loans to hermaphrodites.

93henfan wrote:Oh wow. The thread title had me thinking this might have had something to do with the Government giving cheap loans to hermaphrodites.

They already do that. The problem is they uses them to get a PhD in Baby Jesus Studies.

mrklean wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I come from a family full of fighter pilots in all services (except the Army of course... they dont know how to flythings with wings)

Speed means nothing outside of a dogfight, which is as antiquated as jousting on a horse

The Hornet is the Honda Accord of the fighter world- as capable as anything anyone else can put in the air, and cheaper by the millions

How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote: How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

I think it's less about speed these days vs. stealth, countermeasures, and long range offensive capabilities. Mach 2 is great unless you're trying to outrun a missile coming at you at Mach 2.5. The F117 Nighthawks were slow as Christmas and were exceptionally effective in Desert Storm with early stealth and high tech sophistication. The F-22 is as fast and capable as anything the Russians are putting out, but at a ridiculous pricetag. The Hornet lacks the stealth or the speed of the Sukhois, but it gets you 80-90% of the speed and tech on a proven platform.

Both the Chinese and Russian answers to the F-22 are pieces of junk. They stole the physical shape of the plane (because that contributes to its stealthiness) but the non-reflective materials and the guts of the aircraft are still Chinese and Russian junk. We won't even HAVE to fight these planes up close. We'll have a B-1 loaded with long range latest generation AMRAAM missiles and shoot them down like a really expensive round of space invaders.

CID1990 wrote:You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

Stick a fork in them, they're done!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black ... n_incident

Nice work, Air Force.

CID1990 wrote:

mrklean wrote:
How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

This is what though. Our F-15's, 16's and 18's are better than what the Russians have now. The F-22's and 35's are great but as you stated, cost too damn much. I'm whould hope we are looking for more bang for your buck.

mrklean wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

This is what though. Our F-15's, 16's and 18's are better than what the Russians have now. The F-22's and 35's are great but as you stated, cost too damn much. I'm whould hope we are looking for more bang for your buck.

That's precisely what I was referring to in my first reply- I think this is a good move.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Fighters = war = wounded veterans = more taxes.

Double the money we spend on defense and pay for it by taking it away from the people that dont pull the wagon. Cut anything but the military.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Fighters = war = wounded veterans = more taxes.

Double the money we spend on defense and pay for it by taking it away from the people that dont pull the wagon. Cut anything but the military.

The DOD blows too much money away on dumb shit. Stick to what works. F-22's and 35's are a waste of tax payers money.

CID1990 wrote:

mrklean wrote:
How would the F-18/F stack up against the newest Russian fighter?

You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

There won't be any fighter pilots 20 years from now.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

There won't be any fighter pilots 20 years from now.

Fuck you, Alohajiz1! Have some respect for Houndawg and quit posting under his name!

SMFH.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You're asking the wrong question-

What you should be asking is how do the Hornet's weapons delivery systems stack up against those of the SU-27 (which is not the latest Russian fighter, but the most prolific one... the one most likely to be encountered)?

The Hornet has a much more sophisticated targeting radar which feeds weapon systems that are still ten years ahead of anything the Russians will put on a SU-27.

The Hornet is also a VERY survivable platform; durable and also very maneuverable. However, maneuverability is not much of an issue these days, because all front line fighter aircraft being produced by the major powers are capable of exceeding the G tolerance of the pilots. So maneuverability becomes a wash after a certain point.

Another good point about the Hornet is that it is an 'on demand' multirole platform. You can do air-air or air-mud with the flip of a switch, without having to fly back home and change your loadout. This turned out to be a very big deal in the run-up to Desert Storm and during the no-fly zone enforcement. Guys heading in to attack a ground target found themselves having to flip the switch and shoot at aircraft enroute.

The F-35 is also capable of doing all of this, but the major difference is the F-35 of course has a much smaller radar cross section (which only matters at standoff distances). The other major difference between the F-35 and the F-18 is survivability. The F-35 is a China doll and it has only one engine. In fact, if we got into a major conflict with either China or Russia, ALL of our really sexy expensive aircraft (on both sides) would either be hidden in their bunkers (to avoid losing 1 BN dollars a pop) or smoking holes in the ground. The meat of the conflict would be fought with our 3rd gen aircraft like the F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. All three of these aircraft are very capable and very survivable, and nobody else's 3rd gen planes come close.

There won't be any fighter pilots 20 years from now.

I think we just about have that capability now, but we still need to find a way to replace having the good old Mark I Mod 0 eyeball on the scene