Boeing displays concepts for F/A-18E/F replacement

[[email protected]]

"Boeing has started publicly marketing two
concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet after 2025.

Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
overruns and technical problems."


So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II

Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.


How would this compare to an improved JSF?

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 2:49*pm, wrote:
> "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> Hornet after 2025.
>
> Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> overruns and technical problems."
>
> So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> How would this compare to an improved JSF?

pix

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 3:09*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On May 7, 2:49*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> pix
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display...

more pix

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts

[Typhoon502]

On May 7, 3:10*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On May 7, 3:09*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2:49*pm, wrote:
>
> > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> > pix
>
> >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display...
>
> more pix
>
> http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts- Hide quoted text -

Weirrrrd. The manned version's cockpit is really tall, like the
Su-30whichever two-seater.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 7, 12:10 pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On May 7, 3:09 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2:49 pm, wrote:
>
> > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> > pix
>
> >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display...
>
> more pix
>
> http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts

NIFTY, certainly looks efficiently futuristic.
There's something cooking at Boeing about building more F/A-18's here,

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506?type=marketsNews

has something to do with a possible delay of the F-35.
Looks like a good deal for the taxpayer too.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 3:35*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 7, 12:10 pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 3:09 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 2:49 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > > > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > > > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> > > pix
>
> > >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display....
>
> > more pix
>
> >http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts
>
> NIFTY, certainly looks efficiently futuristic.
> There's something cooking at Boeing about building more F/A-18's here,
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506?type=marketsNews
>
> has something to do with a possible delay of the F-35.
> Looks like a good deal for the taxpayer too.
> Ken

Canada is talking F-35 for an FA-18 replacement.

[David E. Powell]

On May 7, 3:15*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On May 7, 3:10*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 3:09*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 2:49*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > > > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > > > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> > > pix
>
> > >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display....
>
> > more pix
>
> >http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts-Hide quoted text -
>
> Weirrrrd. The manned version's cockpit is really tall, like the
> Su-30whichever two-seater.

The Sukhoi Fullback "Strike Flanker?"

[Typhoon502]

On May 7, 3:39*pm, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> On May 7, 3:15*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:

> > Weirrrrd. The manned version's cockpit is really tall, like the
> > Su-30whichever two-seater.
>
> The Sukhoi Fullback "Strike Flanker?"-

Yeah, I think that's the one. The tandem, not side-by-side.

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 7 May 2010 12:37:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On May 7, 3:35*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On May 7, 12:10 pm, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 7, 3:09 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 7, 2:49 pm, wrote:
>>
>> > > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
>> > > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
>> > > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
>> > > > Hornet after 2025.
>>
>> > > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
>> > > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
>> > > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
>> > > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
>> > > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
>> > > > overruns and technical problems."
>>
>> > > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>>
>> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>>
>> > > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>>
>> > > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>>
>> > > pix
>>
>> > >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display...
>>
>> > more pix
>>
>> >http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts
>>
>> NIFTY, certainly looks efficiently futuristic.
>> There's something cooking at Boeing about building more F/A-18's here,
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506?type=marketsNews
>>
>> has something to do with a possible delay of the F-35.
>> Looks like a good deal for the taxpayer too.
>> Ken
>
>Canada is talking F-35 for an FA-18 replacement.

There wasw a 5% cut in defense spending for next year announced
this week. Quite a bit of previouly announced spending had
already been delayed.

It's talk at this point.

Peter Skelton

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 7, 12:37 pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On May 7, 3:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 12:10 pm, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 3:09 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 7, 2:49 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > > > > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > > > > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > > > > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > > > > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > > > > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > > > > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > > > > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > > > > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > > > > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > > > > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > > > > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > > > > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> > > > pix
>
> > > >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-display...
>
> > > more pix
>
> > >http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2508669/posts
>
> > NIFTY, certainly looks efficiently futuristic.
> > There's something cooking at Boeing about building more F/A-18's here,
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506?type=marketsNews
>
> > has something to do with a possible delay of the F-35.
> > Looks like a good deal for the taxpayer too.
> > Ken
>
> Canada is talking F-35 for an FA-18 replacement.

I'd hope Canuck pilots will objectively evaluate the F-35 vs F-18's,
for the foreseeable missions.
The F-18's are a formidable competition, like a bench mark.
Canucks have a lot of good experience with the F-18.
The F-35 will need to demo a superior capability to justify the
extra cost and 'learning curve' , it's still a new born babe.
Ken

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

wrote:
> "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> Hornet after 2025.
>
> Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> overruns and technical problems."
>
>
> So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
>
> How would this compare to an improved JSF?

This'll be for a fleet of how many planes d'you think? Ten? Twenty?

AHS

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 7, 6:18*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> wrote:
> > "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> > concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> > strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> > Hornet after 2025.
>
> > Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> > optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> > modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> > Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> > project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> > overruns and technical problems."
>
> > So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>
> > Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>
> > How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>
> This'll be for a fleet of how many planes d'you think? Ten? Twenty?
>
> AHS

The Canadians were talking about 65

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On May 7, 6:18 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
>>> concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
>>> strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
>>> Hornet after 2025.
>>> Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
>>> optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
>>> modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
>>> Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
>>> project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
>>> overruns and technical problems."
>>> So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
>>> Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
>>> How would this compare to an improved JSF?
>> This'll be for a fleet of how many planes d'you think? Ten? Twenty?
>>
>> AHS
>
> The Canadians were talking about 65

Yeah, "talking about". 65 NGFS (Next-Gen Fighters) under a contract to
be signed by 2012, with deliveries starting in 2015-16. Realistically
you'll see that chopped, maybe not below the symbolic 50 where numbers
start looking really absurd.

But with this new Boeing proposal we're talking something that is
presumably better than JSF and comes in 1/2 a generation later. Which
means considerably more expensive. Although I was joking about the 10 or
20 numbers, this next plane - if ever built - might be procured in the
low hundreds by the US, because they are still pitching "optionally"
piloted, so it'll be even more stupid expensive than the JSF or F-22.

If Canada does get some JSFs she sure won't be buying any later
generation fighters after; she won't be able to afford it. Well, OK,
maybe a single squadron.

AHS

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 7, 3:52 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On May 7, 6:18 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Boeing has started publicly marketing two
> >>> concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising
> >>> strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super
> >>> Hornet after 2025.
> >>> Both twin-engine concepts, which feature
> >>> optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a
> >>> modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12
> >>> Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber
> >>> project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost
> >>> overruns and technical problems."
> >>> So if the A-12 was the Avenger II:
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II
> >>> Maybe they should call this one the Avenger III.
> >>> How would this compare to an improved JSF?
> >> This'll be for a fleet of how many planes d'you think? Ten? Twenty?
>
> >> AHS
>
> > The Canadians were talking about 65
>
> Yeah, "talking about". 65 NGFS (Next-Gen Fighters) under a contract to
> be signed by 2012, with deliveries starting in 2015-16. Realistically
> you'll see that chopped, maybe not below the symbolic 50 where numbers
> start looking really absurd.
>
> But with this new Boeing proposal we're talking something that is
> presumably better than JSF and comes in 1/2 a generation later. Which
> means considerably more expensive. Although I was joking about the 10 or
> 20 numbers, this next plane - if ever built - might be procured in the
> low hundreds by the US, because they are still pitching "optionally"
> piloted, so it'll be even more stupid expensive than the JSF or F-22.
>
> If Canada does get some JSFs she sure won't be buying any later
> generation fighters after; she won't be able to afford it. Well, OK,
> maybe a single squadron.
> AHS

Going forward, Canucks should focus on logistics, so upgrading
to fancy fighters would be a distraction, so if I had input, I'd wait
until the followup over the F-35, Canucks need to focus on supply
to US (oil) etc, and also to China.
Me I'd stick with the F-18, for now for Canucks.
Canada will never be in the business of military power projection,
I think Canucks want to improve their image as peace keepers.

A Rusky bear shows up, and an F18 scrambles it away, but way
cheaper to a dime in a phone and call the Kremlin and tell "don't
do that", a tourism outfit will fly you where ever you want cheaper.

Ruskies need a fair good AF cuz they got crazy muslimes in the
south they might need to bomb.
US has some sort of vague international policy, that needs big AF,
but they're a bit nutty.
Ken