Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by Gravityloss on Monday May 02, 2016 @12:08PM (#11612642)

The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later.

The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc...

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by neurotech1 on Monday May 02, 2016 @04:42PM (#11615412)

There is 3 different models of super Hornets.

1) F/A-18E Strike Fighter

2) F/A-18F FAC(A) CAS/Strike Fighter

3) EA-18G Growler

Commonality is ~80% between all 3 aircraft. They could probably make a F/A-XX based on F/A-18E/F with similar avionics, and engines based on the F135 in a larger airframe, but they could make it happen relatively economically if that was the priority.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by Gravityloss on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @12:47PM (#11622250)

It's not a good design in the stealth and supercruise departments.

Back in the sixties and seventies when the Hornet was designed, modern stealth shaping was not really known.

Modern airframes could be a lot more capable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by maxerickson on Monday May 02, 2016 @01:24PM (#11613462)

Yes, my naive reaction to reading about these planes and the maintenance requirements is that they are pushing for capabilities that are unreasonable given the available technology.

[ Parent | on HN ]