Rhino Rumors and who is to blame!

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

INO

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006, 06:40
  • Location: Virginia Beach

Unread post21 Jun 2007, 01:33

New thread for all the Rhino officiando's out there in cyber world. Who started the Rhino Myths and why.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post21 Jun 2007, 04:56

Yet the Marines say "No". They have only been doing honest internal studies. USN Super Hornet project managers just need to STFU. There are some known Super Hornet airframe performance issues out there that that the U.S. Navy would rather forget about. Some of those issues come up when there are foreign sales involved and the customer actually does some research. Example: India is a big deal. Navy is most likely not happy as part of the FMS coordination goes through them. I am not trying to drag up old stuff. However Navy has to remember that not everything was addressed when fixing Super over the years.... example vibration that reduces expensive weapons airframe life at a higher rate that hang on the jet compared to hanging those same weapons on other aircraft types. See the attached report. That one fix by itself would require a new wing design. So it really never went away.
Given where the Super Hornet program is going most of this is water under the bridge. And the Navy was happy to live with some of the shortcomings re: some of the fixes needed. ( again see attached report). However Navy crying that it is all the Marines fault is silly and ridiculous.
Attachments
ns00158.pdf
F-18E/F Does Not Meet All Criteria For Multi-Year Procurement-GAO-May2000
(540.42 KiB) Downloaded 222 times
- ELP -
Offline

INO

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006, 06:40
  • Location: Virginia Beach

Unread post21 Jun 2007, 15:44

ELP,

Your GAO report is 7 years old. Are you kidding me. Do you really think that nothing has been done in 7 years. Yeah and "honest internal" studies of problem over 7 years old in which they are trying to persuade congress to let them have an all stovl fleet? I also dont think that the Navy program managers need to STFU as you say, but I think all the people talking smack about the Rhino are the ones that need to take your advice. It's obvious that you are biased in your views of the Rhino and thats fine. However, you should really think about using outdated material to form your conclusions. Maybe you should try listening to the guys that actually fly them today.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post21 Jun 2007, 20:31

High INO,

Yes lots of things on the Super have improved over the years. The basic raw performance is something they are living with. That hasn't changed. Matter of fact it would be interesting to see if they built in extra vibration resistance into AMRAAM C/D and latests production blocks of HARM so as airframe life doesn't go away so fast. If they haven't, then those weapons flying hours figures on the SH in that report, haven't changed. Unless you can wave a magic wand, the basic airframe setup is for the most part the same one there was some years ago.

Again, all water under the bridge. Me thinks that the Navy crying above has more to do with them not having a complete lock on all the history of the Super Hornet. That and industry want to pant the history of it as if there are NO shortcomings. That just isn't true. It is a stop gap aircraft that is doing a very good job. And of course for the air to air stuff, well.... in order for air to air to be a real issue, we would have to go to war with an enemy that has real air power. That hasn't happened in a long time. We do strike warfare for the most part and that's it. No big deal. If for example we have a go at Iran, Super Hornet won't be at a disadvantage. And so on. Then of course in the case of the Navy, they have a seriously large supply of Tomahawks to beat down someone. Even more now with the 4 converted Ohio class ex-Boomers coming on line, moving all our Seawolf basing to the west coast, etc etc.
- ELP -
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post22 Jun 2007, 01:39

Elp I don't know why you have an axe to grind against the Rhino. I admit up until about a year ago I was not much of a fan either but once you get the facts , and once you understand that today's A2A warfare is very much different from that just 15 or 20 years ago I could not help but realise that the SH is one hell of a plane. There is not one p[lane out there other than a Raptor more capable.

As for the alleged "problems". Every AC has it's problems. What counts is that they are identified and a cost effective fix is applied.

Stealing what Conan posted in the F-35s for Oz thread I think this sums it up best and its worth repeating:

While aircraft performance, speed and acceleration rates are still important for positioning and maximising missile ranges, they are no longer the determining factor in the outcome of aerial engagements. Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot through:

information dominance – (modern networking);

• survivability – (through signature reduction and integrated electronic counter-measures that deny opponents the ability to cue weapons);

• advanced onboard sensors – (advanced radars to cue weapons early, enhanced situational awareness from networked systems); and

• lethal missiles – (with long range and protection against countermeasures).

Likewise, aircraft performance remains important in dogfighting but not necessarily the determining factor. First shot is achieved through:

• nose authority – an aircraft's ability to rapidly change aspect;

• advanced radars and helmet cueing sensors; and

• modern high off-boresight weapons.

In its air superiority roles, the F/A-18F possesses all the listed attributes and will test any modern air defence system. The aircraft's nose authority, combined with its advanced radar and helmet cueing AIM-9X and AIM-120 missiles, make it a superb dogfighting system. The electronic warfare suite, including a modern jammer and towed decoy, can degrade an enemy's ability to shoot before the Super Hornet can.

In its strike and ground attack roles the Super Hornet is clearly capable of employing the full suite of the US Navy's precision, direct attack and stand-off strike weapons and the vital maritime strike capability absent in current F-15 or F-16 variants. It is very stealthy compared to fourth generation strike fighters and this small signature, excellent integrated electronic warfare systems and superior situational awareness through Link 16 make the Super Hornet very difficult to kill.



IMHO the one major shortcoming the SH has is lack of range.

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests