A possible CF-18 replacement?
Just a thought, what with two engines and all (via CougarDaddy):
1) AW&ST:
The video here.
Update: More here, with diagrams (via Fred in "Comments"). And just for comparison, F-22 vs F-35 capabilities (via Jay Crawford):
1) AW&ST:
Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-152) Flightglobal:
...the cost of a Silent Eagle will be about $100 million per aircraft, including spares, if built new [Oops! for Canada]...
Video: Boeing unveils the "stealthy" F-15 Silent Eagle
...
Boeing today unveiled the V-tailed F-15 Silent Eagle, the most significant refresh of the venerable air superiority fighter since the F-15E Strike Eagle entered service in 1988...
The video here.Update: More here, with diagrams (via Fred in "Comments"). And just for comparison, F-22 vs F-35 capabilities (via Jay Crawford):
F-22 Secrets Revealed
February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has released some performance data on the F-22. The stealthiness factor of the F-22 has turned out to be better than predicted. For radar purposes, the F-22 is about the size of a steel marble. The F-35 comes out as a steel golf ball. The AESA radar turned out to have a longer effective range of about 210 kilometers, versus a 200 on the official spec sheet. The AESA radar is also able to detect enemy radars at a considerable distance, meaning that, if an approaching enemy aircraft is using its radar, an F-22 can detect it about 300 kilometers distant. That gives the F-22 more time to get into position for a decisive first shot at the enemy aircraft.
These goodies are being released as the air force makes a pitch to delay some F-35 production in order to build more F-22s. The air force generals point out that the first 500 or so F-35s will cost $200 million each (without taking R&D into account), while F-22s only cost $145 million each (without taking R&D into account). The construction cost of the F-35 will eventually go to about $100 million each as more are produced.
The air force also points out that their simulations (which are classified, so it's difficult for anyone check their accuracy) indicate the an F-22 would destroy 30 Su-27/MiG-29 type aircraft for getting destroyed. But the F-35 would only have a 3:1 ratio, while the F-15 and F-16 would only have a 1:1 ratio (there are a lot of F-15 and F-16 pilots who would dispute this). Thus the need for more F-22s, even if it means fewer F-35s (in the near and long term).
The air force also points out that, with a force of 183 F-22s (all Congress will allow them to build at the moment), only about a hundred would be available for combat (the rest would be down for maintenance or used for training.) By building another 60-100 F-22s, and reducing initial F-35 production by that much, American air superiority would be much improved, at no (well, not much) additional expense. Or so goes the pitch.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 7:53 p.m.
4 Comments:
The need for two engines has always been overstated. How often has just one engine on a CF-18 failed and the plane landed safely?
more . . .
http://tinyurl.com/covg6y
I love Eagles; they're absolutely kick*ss Generation 4 fighters.
(In fact, because of their great range and blistering Mach 2.8 speed, I think Canada should have bought Eagles instead of Hornets!) But Eagles are still Generation 4 fighters.
While the frontal radar aspect can be made comparable to an F-35, side and rear aspects are absolutely important on strike missions, which is why you buy an F-15E. In fact the article states that the Silent Eagle's L/O features are not intended to overcome ground-based IAD radar.
It's a fine fix, especially as a retrocative improvement to keep the F-15 viable for another decade...but it won't make the fighter a force multiplier for smaller air forces like Canada's.
And God forbid your Silent Eagle gets a 2015-vintage A2A missile on the side or rear aspects!
"The need for two engines has always been overstated. How often has just one engine on a CF-18 failed and the plane landed safely?"
Lots of times?
I don't have any hard data, but I saw pictures from a flight-safety incident where an F-18 sucked a goose into one of it's engines. Very messy. But the plane made it down just fine, and it was much cheaper to clean and fix one engine than buy a new fighter.
Post a Comment
<< Home