F-18 production to end in 2025

Boeing has announced it will not accept orders for US based F-18s beyond the eight in the pipeline from the FY23 budget. Production will end in 2025. Once production ends, Boeing will pivot to F-15EX, MQ-25, T-7A and other programs, ramping up production for them. They're building three new facilities in St Louis, including a specialized laboratory, advanced assembly facilities, and a post production assembly center. They also opened a new composites facility in Mesa that is part of Phantom Works. If India selects the F-18 as part of their new fighter program production would end in 2027.

WASHINGTON —Boeing will end the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet production line in 2025 and will not accept any more U.S. orders beyond the eight aircraft Congress added to the fiscal 2023 budget.

The company, describing the move as a “pivot,” will refocus its people and facilities on other projects and look ahead at future work, it said in a Feb. 23 statement.

With the St. Louis-based workforce and production facility freed up, Boeing said it will be able to increase production of the T-7A Red Hawk all-digital training system, F-15EX Eagle IIs and 777X wing components for the U.S. Air Force and the MQ-25 Stingray unmanned tanker drone for the U.S. Navy.

Additionally, the company plans to devote more attention to developing future programs.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

So the Navy is placing all it's chips in the Single engine F-35 .

While the Single Engine on the F-35 has more Thrust than any one single fighter engine out there including the F-22 , the Combined Thrust of the F-18 still exceeds the F-35 and the F-22 Far exceeds the F-35.

I'm just not a Fan of the Navy relying so heavily on a Single Engine Fighter , Stealthy as it may be and I would assume the plane requires less maintenance considering the single engine or perhaps I'm wrong . I'm assuming the F-35 has the edge on Avionics and Technology with the Russian twin engine Jets or at least I hope they do , but the Russian Jets have a Clear advantage on Maneuverability and if they actually get the Proper engines on there new Fighter they could have a real Edge in Speed as well.

All in All I'm not a fan of the F-35.

a reply to: z1asabovesobelow

That's because, like most people, you don't understand how radically the F-35 changes air warfare as we know it. That is made clear by the comment on assuming it has the edge on avionics. The F-35 has the edge on everything flying in terms of avionics and sensors. Nothing else flying even comes remotely close to the amount of information the sensors on the F-35 can gather, and a group of them working together can own the battlefield, without firing a shot.

Thrust is not everything when it comes to aircraft. Both GE414 engines on an F-18 come up to barely a thousand pounds more thrust. The F-22 is designed for a different mission, so needs a better thrust to weight ratio and top speed.

As for the Russians being more maneuverable, even if they are, the only way they get to a close range dogfight with an F-35 is if the F-35 pilot screws up so badly he's probably dead before they get in range. The F-35 will see every threat coming from a range that they can easily maneuver clear of it before it becomes a threat.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: z1asabovesobelow

That's because, like most people, you don't understand how radically the F-35 changes air warfare as we know it. That is made clear by the comment on assuming it has the edge on avionics. The F-35 has the edge on everything flying in terms of avionics and sensors. Nothing else flying even comes remotely close to the amount of information the sensors on the F-35 can gather, and a group of them working together can own the battlefield, without firing a shot.

Thrust is not everything when it comes to aircraft. Both GE414 engines on an F-18 come up to barely a thousand pounds more thrust. The F-22 is designed for a different mission, so needs a better thrust to weight ratio and top speed.

As for the Russians being more maneuverable, even if they are, the only way they get to a close range dogfight with an F-35 is if the F-35 pilot screws up so badly he's probably dead before they get in range. The F-35 will see every threat coming from a range that they can easily maneuver clear of it before it becomes a threat.

I think most people get their idea of air combat from watching Tom Cruise movies.

One thing the US learned from WWII is that the last thing in the world you want to do is get in a fair fight with the enemy. Some times it's unavoidable, of course, but if you get in a fair fight with the enemy there's a chance you could lose. What you want to do is have enough superiority over the enemy that you will exterminate him. The only way you can guarantee superiority is to design it in from the get-go. That's what the US military has been doing since the end of WWII because we have had the biggest economy in the world. The F-35 is just the latest example of that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As for the Russians being more maneuverable, even if they are, the only way they get to a close range dogfight with an F-35 is if the F-35 pilot screws up so badly he's probably dead before they get in range. The F-35 will see every threat coming from a range that they can easily maneuver clear of it before it becomes a threat.

Yes it's Clear that 'Dog fighting' is a thing of the past , Most engagements will happen beyond visible sight .

But this begs the question ' Why are the Russians placing so much effort in making there modern Jet Fighters more deadly in a dog fight ? '

The Omnidirectional Thrust vectoring capabilities Coupled with the over-all Thrust of the Russian SU-57 and the Close in Targeting system of the SU-57 make the Russian Jet the Theoretical Master of Dog-Fighting .

But Clearly America has placed all of her Chips on Stealth and Advanced Avionics .

So do the Russians know something America doesn't about the future of Air to Air Combat ? or are they just choosing the wrong designs for there jets ? I do have a theory.

EMP , The most underrated weapon on the modern battle-field almost talked about in whispers as if it doesn't exist because an EMP turns the Modern Battle Field Analog in an instant.

Perhaps instead of trying to match the Technology of America the plan is to render it useless . An F-35 without the fancy toys working correctly is helpless and hopelessly outmatched against Russian Jets.

originally posted by: z1asabovesobelow
a reply to: Zaphod58
An F-35 without the fancy toys working correctly is helpless and hopelessly outmatched against Russian Jets.

Right. Pull the other one.

originally posted by: z1asabovesobelow
Yes it's Clear that 'Dog fighting' is a thing of the past , Most engagements will happen beyond visible sight .

But this begs the question ' Why are the Russians placing so much effort in making there modern Jet Fighters more deadly in a dog fight ? '

Russian philosophy has always placed maneuverability over sensors. US philosophy has always placed sensors over maneuverability. But you're wildly underestimating the maneuverability of the F-35 and F-22.

The Omnidirectional Thrust vectoring capabilities Coupled with the over-all Thrust of the Russian SU-57 and the Close in Targeting system of the SU-57 make the Russian Jet the Theoretical Master of Dog-Fighting .

You've never read the studies done after the German reunification have you? The lessons learned there were incorporated in US aircraft, especially the F-35. But it was found that the MiG-29, with a helmet mounted sight, and one specific loadout could beat everything we had. The problem was that it wouldn't live to make it to that range where it could do that. The aircraft was very heads down, requiring the pilots to be looking in the cockpit most of the time.

A recent analysis of the Su-57 puts the radar somewhere around the AN/AWG-9 used in the F-14 in terms of range and detection capability. It's not going to be a show changer for anyone but Russia. Yes, it has super maneuverability, which most of their aircraft have, but its RCS is estimated, by multiple sources including non-US/non-friendly, as being roughly equivalent to an F-18. Good, but not game changing.

EMP , The most underrated weapon on the modern battle-field almost talked about in whispers as if it doesn't exist because an EMP turns the Modern Battle Field Analog in an instant.

Perhaps instead of trying to match the Technology of America the plan is to render it useless . An F-35 without the fancy toys working correctly is helpless and hopelessly outmatched against Russian Jets.

All aircraft built are tested against EMP. So is all military equipment. There are multiple test setups for testing them against EMP, and they're run through will all systems running at various power levels.

This is Atlas One. It was the largest structure built without metal fasteners. It was used to test B-52s and B-1s among others.

This is the setup at Pax River, used to test some large aircraft. They taxi under it with systems powered up, and get hit with a blast as they do.

The F-35 underwent those tests early in its development and passed them. Russian focus on maneuverability simply boils down to "That's how we've always done it", and since they can't keep up with the US in terms of tech (great engineers, massive brain drain) and in terms of production (see the initial Su-34 debacle). We've all seen how poorly Russian equipment that's supposed to be superior has performed over the last year. The Su-57 will do well at airshows, but it's not going to be the game changer that people think it will be. It doesn't even really qualify for first gen stealth, let alone getting near the sensor fusion of modern fifth gen, or even high end fourth gen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Russian philosophy has always placed maneuverability over sensors. US philosophy has always placed sensors over maneuverability. But you're wildly underestimating the maneuverability of the F-35 and F-22.

Absolutely no arguments with you on the F-22 , The Bi-Directional thrust vectoring of the F-22 make it absolutely comparable in terms of maneuverability to the SU-57 especially since the 57 is still operating with the older generation engines.

and From what I read the SU-57 is not even a True Stealth Fighter as it's really only stealthy from a single direction 'Head on ' I think.

and it's good to know that American Fighters can survive a full-on EMP , Perhaps the Russian Jets are betting there Thrust-Vectoring can out Maneuver American Missiles and then they can Close the gap with sheer speed and head on Stealth .

I'm just trying to see the Russian Angle here is all .

Still I'm not a fan of the F-35 being single engine , but I do see the positives of the air-craft it's over-all design is very logical short compact wings , Sleek over-all air-frame all internal weaponry and the Single Large Engine built around Stealth and Advanced Avionics. Effectively a Simplified F-22 . Probably easier to Build and Maintain the Aircraft and Train pilots for the F-35.

a reply to: z1asabovesobelow

A modern engine once went 50,000 hours on wing. The only reason it was removed finally was that it reached the time for a required inspection that meant pulling it off the wing. The single vs twin argument no longer applies. The single F135 has as much power as several twin engine aircraft, for slightly over half the weight. It has as much power production and cooling as most twin engine aircraft, if not more.

The F-35 is able to perform maneuvers that were previously only capable with thrust vectoring due to the advanced fly by wire system installed. It's at least as maneuverable as anything else flying, and has easily handled up to four much smaller, previously considered more maneuverable aircraft, in WVR situations. They're able to nose point at least as well as the F-22 can, while remaining in total control. They can't do some of the more extreme maneuvering that the F-22 can do, but they can do maneuvers no other non thrust vectored aircraft can do.

The Su-57 isn't really stealthy at all, according to the multiple reports I've read. It's reduced RCS, but it's not considered LO. It brings the RCS down to somewhere around 0.1m2, which is really good, but still comparable to 4th Gen aircraft that have been flying for decades, after they received RCS improvements. Frontal aspect is usually the area you want most of your RCS reduction, as more often then not you're approaching the radar that sees you.

When production of the Super Hornet ends, the F/A-18E/F will become the last in a long line of carrier-based fighter planes designed in St. Louis going back to the McDonnell FH Phantom, if Boeing loses the F/A-XX competition for a stealthy successor to the Super Hornet.

a reply to: Potlatch

Sort of what McDonnel Douglas / Boeing did to Grumman.