Boeing hedges against JSF delays with stealthier Super Hornet

Originally posted by NWguy83
"Meanwhile, US Navy (USN) Super Hornet programme manager Captain Don Gaddis disclosed at the Avalon air show that the USN has changed it s future force mix. Previously, it planned to field 20 squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs, a fleet of EA-18G jamming aircraft and 20 squadrons of JSFs. Now, however, the USN plans to operate 22 F/A-18E/F squadrons and 18 F-35C squadrons. The change will not make any immediate difference to aircraft purchases, Capt Gaddis said. The reduction in JSF numbers will not take effect until the end of the programme, while the extra Super Hornet squadrons will be filled by higher utilisation of the basic aircraft and by rationalising test and training assets." - Janes

The Navy absolutely loves the F/A-18E/F but has always been reluctant about the JSF. The service feels that he larger Super Hornet has more room for growth and improvment in the future than does the F-35.

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by M6D
why so worriedabout redundancy? loads of fighters have one engine..no biggy

It's called a Safety feature! Our people face enough dangers without taking foolish risks. It's the same reason paratroopers carry a reserve parachute. The main chute almost never fails, yet all paratroopers wear a reserve chute! Why do you think they have a second parachute?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

the harrier was just fine with one engine, and that was complex, i see no problem seeing how reliable the harrier is/was with its engine

The F-16 Fighting Falcon has 1 engine, and it's the premier fighter to well over 20 nations.

Shattered OUT...

M6D, there appears to be a perception in the US that the Harrier is a bit of a death trap due to the very high number of accidents suffered by trhe USMC so you might not have picked the right example there.

However the fact that this accident rate hasn't been a problem in Spain, India, Italy or the UK does not point to the fault lying with US training or their pilots, oh no siree.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The F-16 Fighting Falcon has 1 engine, and it's the premier fighter to well over 20 nations.

Shattered OUT...

It also has had 34 crashes in 8 Years in the US Alone! Take a look at the Appalling safety record of the F-16, you just might want to reconsider your position!

According to "Air Force Times", "After a few years in which F-16 accidents decreased, their accident rate is rising, and the USAF does not know why. Worse: it cannot point to a solution for this state of affairs, until official teams identify the problem that needs correcting".

Source: Globes (online)

Just because it's a frount line fighter, doesn't mean it's as safe as they would like you to think. Remember: some of the things the Pentagon says and does have a political motive to them!

[edit on 1-6-2005 by ghost]

It's a frontline fighter? Wow, learn something new everyday!

Anyways, I only said the F-16 was trustable because thousands were built, shipped to several nations, and Lockheed Martin seems to be pretty happy with what they've designed, hmm 34 accidents in 8 years compared to the thousands that exist. This would be a good 3 percent of the aircraft built, assuming that atleast 1000 were built in all.

To me, in 8 years, that's pretty damn good compared to how many were actually built, yes I'm sorry for the pilots who had to die, but still the stastitics are pretty attractive to me, even though the accidents should be down to like 1 percent, still pretty good numbers though.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 1-6-2005 by ShatteredSkies]