Comments on: Another Food Fight Between Boeing and the Air Force

By: OCL

OCL — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:12 +0000

a lot of this started a year or so ago when Boeing started touting the F/A-18's "fifth generation" capabilities...particularly when a bunch of new stuff is hung on the airframe. while patently ridiculous it was causing some issues with the JSF (foreign) program partners (the Australia F/A-18 & JSF kerfuffle is amusing if you really dig). The assertions also torqued the F-22 high priesthood which stood up an entire action group to hit back at any hint that that "lowly F/A-18" could sufficiently bridge the gap between current acft production and future acft production. Then-CNO and current CJCS got into the game and told all of the Navy folks to knock it off with the '18 fifth gen stuff and his displeasure was - likewise - transmitted to Boeing. Boeing is playing the "upgraded F/A-18s are 'close enough' to what you'll get with the F-35" card. Pisses off the FMS crew, is factually incorrect, but probably is a good business strategy at least in the short-run

By: Kalroy

Kalroy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:09:05 +0000

Seems to me that Gen. Davis didn’t deny the Boeing statements, and he doesn’t disagree with them, he’s just pissed ’cause Boeing publicly aired the comments.
Kalroy

By: FoxThree

FoxThree — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:34:53 +0000

Pfcem,
Upon revisiting each of the entries listed under Specifications I realized I must have glanced at the Range instead of the Combat radius. Off of pure internal fuel the F-35A/C have a longer combat radius by quite a bit over the Super Hornet. While I don’t know what the F-35B’s radius is it is interesting to note that its fuel capacity is pretty close to the single seat Super Hornet. Regardless, you were correct in your original assumption.
Super Hornet:
# Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s
# Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
# Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,145 kg)
# External fuel capacity: 5

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:52:03 +0000

FoxThree,
I can not find where Wikipedia says the F/A-18E/F & F-35 have a similar “combat radius”. F-35B (the USMC V/STOL varient), yes but the F-35A & F-35C significantly greater range/combat radius. The F/A-18E/F needs external fuel to even come close to the F-35A & F-35C.
***
Trial Lawyer,
While the F-16 & F/A-18 do serve essentially the same roles, they do so for two different services. The F-16 for the USAF & the F/A-18 for the USN.

By: Tad

Tad — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:30:05 +0000

It seems I’ve read an awful lot of stories lately with a common theme linking them — the Air Force brass are running scared. Perhaps what they once thought was their due is now being questioned whereas in prior days they always got what they wanted. It’s just a feeling I’m getting, maybe others feel this way too, maybe not.

By: Trial Lawyer

Trial Lawyer — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:30:52 +0000

Why do we have both the F-16 and F/A-18 They appear to serve the same roles.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:09:35 +0000

F-18 series may have done better within exports if the F-18L was rolled out. There has been some stories about F/A-18E/F for India, having its own carriers, while some mention the difficulties for use with Russian made Aircraft carriers.

By: FoxThree

FoxThree — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:45:13 +0000

Pfcem,
According to Wikipedia they have a similar “combat radius” so yes you might be close.

By: ELP

ELP — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:29:42 +0000

About all I could say about the behavior of Gen Davis is: pathetic.

By: C4Casey

C4Casey — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:24:33 +0000

Well, our F-15’s are older than the Hornets, and yet the F-15 has mopped the floor with the Mig-29. I don’t see any reason why the Hornet couldn’t hold it’s own against a Mig-29 as well.