waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 I've already provided an answer. I guess it's about time to pack this thread in... you now refuse to provide any responses, simply choosing to say, "it's been provided before"!!! A thread now 220+ pages would seem to have petered right out - well done. I guess that's one way for a self-acknowledged/expressed cheerleader to avoid inconvenient questions, hey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Clearly to improve the survivability of the aircraft in a modern threat environment…….but one must ask, why is DoD not funding it? Clearly because allocating funds to a design that has it’s aerodynamic roots in the 1970s would akin to Sony improving upon VHS machines today. which must be why the USN just received the funding allocation for another 20 Super Hornets, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 C U later 2.0... enjoy your personal sandbox! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 ...One must ask though, why does the lauded Super Hornet require improvements aimed at increasing it range and decreasing it's RCS going forward? That's a very good question. I wonder what other aircraft (that is actually funded) meets that requirement today ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 from a recent post from one of the more prolific F-35 critics: c'mon cheerleaders... what actually works... just why would the U.S. Gyreens push that IOC date forward before actual operational testing? Harrier 18k per flight hour JDAM. LJDAM, Paveway, Dual-mode Paveway (LM version testing), Laser-Maverick, Gun, LITENING Pod. F-35B -- What exactly works that is worth the money spent? All of the above........based upon already tested weapons, but more importantly, the F-35's DAS......... Of course, for accuracy, said blogger should be contrasting the F-35B with the Marines F/A-18 A/B Hornets, since they are being replaced prior to the Harrier II…………But hey, he’s got a blog…..doesn’t need to actually know anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 which must be why the USN just received the funding allocation for another 20 Super Hornets, hey? Super Hornets or Growlers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Clearly to improve the survivability of the aircraft in a modern threat environment…….but one must ask, why is DoD not funding it? Clearly because allocating funds to a design that has it’s aerodynamic roots in the 1970s would akin to Sony improving upon VHS machines today. How come they can't get it to pull more that 3.2 g's (which is only a recent lifting of many restrictions) I can pull that in a cessna 150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 C U later 2.0... enjoy your personal sandbox! I trust you'll return once it has entered RCAF service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 That's a very good question. I wonder what other aircraft (that is actually funded) meets that requirement today ? Does its name start with an L and end with a ightning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Does its name start with an L and end with a ightning? Oh, you weren't talking about operational aircraft obviously, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Oh, you weren't talking about operational aircraft obviously, sorry. Just funded aircraft.......... So I'll ask again, why do you propose the RCAF operate the Super Hornet out to the 2050s timeframe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Just funded aircraft.......... Indeed....Super Duper Hornets are not "operational", except in some people's minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Indeed....Super Duper Hornets are not "operational", except in some people's minds. So dropping bombs on Iraq is nOT operational? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Indeed....Super Duper Hornets are not "operational", except in some people's minds. The post above clearly.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 The post above clearly.... Oh, did he mean Block III Superhornet? I don't know what duper is supposed to mean. Using the correct terminology at least helps make people sound like they may know what they are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Oh, did he mean Block III Superhornet? I don't know what duper is supposed to mean. Using the correct terminology at least helps make people sound like they may know what they are talking about. Yet the three members involved in the conversation had no issue with the term.........Clearly you had/have no idea what we were talking about..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Yet the three members involved in the conversation had no issue with the term.........Clearly you had/have no idea what we were talking about..... I know the differenc between Superhornets and which ones are and aren't in service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) I know the differenc between Superhornets and which ones are and aren't in service. Then why the confusion? Care to offer up why you feel the Super Hornet would be suitable for the RCAF out to the 2050s time frame, when the current operators, the USN and RAAF, plan to retire their fleets decades earlier? Edited August 9, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Then why the confusion? Care to offer up why you feel the Super Hornet would be suitable for the RCAF out to the 2050s time frame, when the current operators, the USN and RAAF, plan to retire their fleets decades earlier? Sure, here are just a few good reasons. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Sure, here are just a few good reasons. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909 Which are the few "good reasons" why Canada should operate the Super Hornet out to the 2050s, decades after the type is retired by the USN and RAAF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 12, 2014 Report Share Posted August 12, 2014 Which are the few "good reasons" why Canada should operate the Super Hornet out to the 2050s, decades after the type is retired by the USN and RAAF? As good an airplane for a lot less money and a known quantity are a few good reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 12, 2014 Report Share Posted August 12, 2014 You keep repeating the same tired slogans. No it isn't as good of an airplane. No, it isn't a lot less money taking into account upgrades that the SH will need and the F-35 won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 12, 2014 Report Share Posted August 12, 2014 As good an airplane for a lot less money and a known quantity are a few good reasons. So why do no militaries share your opinion that operating the Super Hornet out to the middle of the century is a viable approach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 12, 2014 Report Share Posted August 12, 2014 You keep repeating the same tired slogans. No it isn't as good of an airplane. No, it isn't a lot less money taking into account upgrades that the SH will need and the F-35 won't. you still chirping? You were given a waldo task to come up with something that supports your exuberance for what is, effectively, nothing more than a prototype today... come up with something other than your "on paper" presumptions of actually meeting targets/goals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 12, 2014 Report Share Posted August 12, 2014 So why do no militaries share your opinion that operating the Super Hornet out to the middle of the century is a viable approach? you keep harping on this "2050/middle of the century" endpoint... we've gone over this now several times. Are you still holding to the ridiculous presumption that any plane today (including JSFail) will be relied upon into that time period? Drone baby, drone!!! Technology advances - go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.