Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
jwest21

Boeing to unveil Silent Hornet mock-up

Recommended Posts

A conceptual picture showing potential application (6 hard points) is very different from certification for operational status. I don't know if LM has plan in place to certify more than 2 hard points.

Why bother if you already have the Rino certified for 9 hard points at 1/3 the cost and proven reliability in flight readiness.

.....I just can't, empelish on this commment. It's the Whole argument wraped up in a single statment !

even IF the F-35 is just accepted as a stealthy "multirole fighter", this would NEVER justify the development ? -especialy if countries (multicash-partners) are potentialy pulling out left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A conceptual picture showing potential application (6 hard points) is very different from certification for operational status. I don't know if LM has plan in place to certify more than 2 hard points.

Why bother if you already have the Rino certified for 9 hard points at 1/3 the cost and proven reliability in flight readiness.

.....I just can't, empelish on this commment. It's the Whole argument wraped up in a single statment !

even IF the F-35 is just accepted as a stealthy "multirole fighter", this would NEVER justify the development ? -especialy if countries (multicash-partners) are potentialy pulling out left and right.

We are know that the F-35 has a different mission than the multirole fighter. The Indian government was offered the F-35 in the MMRCA competition and rejected it. Not all the mission needs a F-35.

According to an AW article today, IAF veterans suggest that the mix of new technology on offer in the MMRCA competition—electronically scanned radars, net-centric avionics and precision-guided weapons, for instance—will give commanders unprecedented mission flexibility in squadrons that have historically been assigned to specific tasks. They believe such platforms will change the way the air force protects Indian airspace.

The US fighting forces need the F-35 type fighter. It no doubt is a lot more capable than the Rhino in the F-35 design mission. But it must prove its promise of huge improvement over the F-22 in required maintainence to stay stealth to be successful.

Edited by Kei Lau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
network centric capability

Thanks for the laugh of the night. L-16, does not by any means, magically make a platform network centric. L-16 isn't even a network, it's a tactical data link.

They believe such platforms will change the way the air force protects Indian airspace.

Thanks for good laugh #2. I think since they're replacing Gen 2-ish, former Soviet designs with Gen 4.5 aircraft this rates a "duh". Also, even the IAF is saying they're going to get the shaft on "net centric avionics" (whatever they actually are - congrats on tonight's edition of Buzzword Bingo) due to the technology transfer laws India has in place that pretty much ensure any gear on the jets just became intellectual property of the Indian government. Because of that, nobody is ponying up their good stuff. Also look at the downgraded avionics their C-130J's are coming with.

Spongebob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so Sponge but India has just gone to Israel for avionics upgrades in the past ...

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found the new cockpit mockup to be interesting. One big screen that can be configured as needed.

Rodney

It will be easier for flight sims to replicate modern cockpits in the future. Instead to build a real life mockup, gamers will just buy another LCD monitor. Touchscreen for full realism, LOL.

GG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the laugh of the night. L-16, does not by any means, magically make a platform network centric. L-16 isn't even a network, it's a tactical data link.

Thanks for good laugh #2. I think since they're replacing Gen 2-ish, former Soviet designs with Gen 4.5 aircraft this rates a "duh". Also, even the IAF is saying they're going to get the shaft on "net centric avionics" (whatever they actually are - congrats on tonight's edition of Buzzword Bingo) due to the technology transfer laws India has in place that pretty much ensure any gear on the jets just became intellectual property of the Indian government. Because of that, nobody is ponying up their good stuff. Also look at the downgraded avionics their C-130J's are coming with.

Spongebob

If US does not want to sell India a net centric capable airplane, the UK and French will without a moment of hesitation. You just underestimated the intelligence of the IAF staff. It is a cut throat market out there and the Indian AF staff knows it.

If you care to check up on what the Australian got for their F/A-18E/F and the comments from RAAF, you will not be laughing. The US Navy and RAAF know what they are doing when they continue to order the Rhino. Do they have criticism, YES. Are the Australian unhappy with their buy, NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If US does not want to sell India a net centric capable airplane, the UK and French will without a moment of hesitation. You just underestimated the intelligence of the IAF staff. It is a cut throat market out there and the Indian AF staff knows it.

If you care to check up on what the Australian got for their F/A-18E/F and the comments from RAAF, you will not be laughing. The US Navy and RAAF know what they are doing when they continue to order the Rhino. Do they have criticism, YES. Are the Australian unhappy with their buy, NO.

...and as soon as anyone designs a "network centric capable" aircraft, they are more than welcome to sell them to whomever. Spongebob's point was dead on. Just tossing around a bunch of buzzwords doesn't make the featured capability a reality. Even with the technologically most advanced air force, the US is still in the infancy of network centric ops, assuming that term means anything specific in the first place. That's the problem with buzzwords. Aiming F-35 delivers on what MADL and fusion bring to the table, the next generation of aircraft could be the first true "net centric" platforms.

Out of curiosity, why are you so willing to swallow what Boeing puts on the glossy brochures? Their track record of delivering what theyp promise is much worse than LM. And Silent Hornet won't have NAVAIR keeping them honest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LM's latest two programs have gone off soooo smoothly, right Mark ? :rofl:

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Gregg, since it is more a hobby of yours to judge the industrial military complex than actually have working knowledge of it, I can understand why you would leap to that conclusion. But if you were even a casual student of defense acquisition in general, you would know Boeing has had a terrible track record of late. Yes, LM, has had a couple truly spectacular screw ups, but by and large the case studies of what not to do end up being related to our friends from Chicago. Ever since McDonnell-Douglas took over after the merger, they have had far more than their fair share of expensive disasters.

Besides, I'm not defending LM--why did you jump to that conclusion? I'm simply asking why anyone reasoning adult would believe any of the marketing BS from any of these guys.

Silent Eagle = Silent Hornet = JSF block 3--all are vaporware at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LM's latest two programs have gone off soooo smoothly, right Mark ? :rofl:

Gregg

Those in glass houses..... Boeing definitely can't take the high road in this area. Besides the ongoing trainwreck with the most important civil program in their history, the Wedgetail AEW and 767 tanker programs are not exactly role models for how to deliver on time and on budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pointing out that LM has also had their fair share of mismanagement and making of promises that they can't keep with the budget they signed to ... And that goes along with all of the Defense Contractors ... I wasn't 'excusing anyone' ...

Actually, Boeing took over McAir, not the other way around ... And I seriously doubt that there are many, if any McAir execs left after the 14 or so years that have passed since ... The division is now called: Boeing Defense, Space & Security ...

As far as 787 goes, that isn't on the shoulders of the Taxpayers ... It's on the Shareholders ... BIG difference ...

I can use Mark's excuse on that one ... New Technologies ... Yadda yadda yadda, Blah blah blah, etc etc etc .... :thumbsup:

I'll bet 787 is profitable for Boeing before(if) F-35 enters service ... 10 years from now .... :rofl:

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing unveiling the Silent version of the Hornet?

Pfft! Back in 'those' days companies like Lockheed, Martin, General Dynamics, Grumman, Republic, Fairchild, Convair, North American, Rockwell, McDonnell, & Douglas each built unique aircraft in design, performance, and capability. Now we have only three defense contractors with Boeing acting as the "primary" supplier of military aircraft for the U.S.

Silent Hornet? Please they're making aviation boring with that stuff. Even though if it's going to be for foreign customers it still doesn't interest me especially when it's from Boeing itself. Since the USAF tanker program 'that' company went from a big bad aviation co. to a whiny power-hungry conglomerate.

Don't get me wrong guys - I got nothing against the plane itself but from the company that's unveiling it ... I got one word for their announcement ....

BORING~!

HomerBored.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Jack, Lock-Mart is the #1 US Defense Contractor ... So, I guess that makes them the #1 "whiny power-hungry

conglomerate" ... Boeing is Second ...

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If US does not want to sell India a net centric capable airplane, the UK and French will without a moment of hesitation. You just underestimated the intelligence of the IAF staff. It is a cut throat market out there and the Indian AF staff knows it.

Except that all of their gear has some American content, so not-so-much. Read my comments about the gov't license rights in India - the biggest concerns come from BAE, Thales...the Europeans. China or Russia may be able to help but quite simply, their stuff is crap. I don't underestimate the IAF staff. I DO read their comments to the media - Feb DTI, pg 48-51.

If you care to check up on what the Australian got for their F/A-18E/F and the comments from RAAF, you will not be laughing. The US Navy and RAAF know what they are doing when they continue to order the Rhino. Do they have criticism, YES. Are the Australian unhappy with their buy, NO.

Flight Global, really? Good grief. Not sure where you construed that I implied anyone was unhappy with the Super Hornet. My comment was that just slapping Link-16 onto a platform does not make it network centric. Of course, from your infinite TDL and NCO experience, you know that L-16 tracks lack the ability to record all of the metadata necessary for actually using the data for anything more than a real time track and as such are useless to the Net Centric Enterprise Services. Or that a SMALL image takes 6+ minutes to transmit across a L-16 nextwork because of the dearth of available time slots in today's L-16 surveillance net implementations.

For that matter, until JSF/MADL Enterprise figure out how to bring a non-JSF into the network and extend the data out to the planet, MADL doesn't really qualify either, but there is a plan to have a plan.

Spongebob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure where you construed that I implied anyone was unhappy with the Super Hornet. My comment was that just slapping Link-16 onto a platform does not make it network centric.

For that matter, until JSF/MADL Enterprise figure out how to bring a non-JSF into the network and extend the data out to the planet, MADL doesn't really qualify either, but there is a plan to have a plan.

Spongebob

For that matter, nor a few radar shields at the inlet and nozzle will make the Super Hornet stealth. The question is what is the best IAF can buy today instead of waiting for F-35 to become operational. Their aging MIG-21 just do not allow them to do so. They picked 6 candidates and go with them.

The MMRCA competition is one of the most impressive that I've seen in recent years. The Indian government knows what they want and knows how to play the cards to get them. The Brazilian government has similar ambition, but does not run the show nearly as well. Will the Indian get everything they want? Probably not, but will be damn close to it.

Give Boeing some credit too. They call them Silent Eagle and Silent Hornet, not stealth. They know the difference, but they have to improve cost effectiveness to sell airplanes too. In today market, a glossy brochure is just not enough.

Edited by Kei Lau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Boeing took over McAir, not the other way around ... And I seriously doubt that there are many, if any McAir execs left after the 14 or so years that have passed since ... The division is now called: Boeing Defense, Space & Security ...

As far as 787 goes, that isn't on the shoulders of the Taxpayers ... It's on the Shareholders ... BIG difference ...

Again, since criticizing the aerospace industry is more a hobby for you than a professional consideration, your ignorance of the situation its entirely understandable. The inside joke is that McD got Boeing to buy Boeing for McD using Boeing's money. And while many of the senior management has moved on, the culture McD brought to Boeing military product divisions lives on. To this day you can easily tell the pedigree of this division or that division of any major defense contractor by who they were in the 90's. The integration at the corporate level is by no means complete. The damage the McD "merger" did to Boeing is something still lamented by Boeing old timers. As for Boeing's "stellar" record, look no further than C-130 AMP, the massive and messed up satellite and space launch projects, or the money pit for nothing known as FCS. Since 787 comes from the largely intact Boeing Commercial division, it isn't at all relevant to this discussion, as you correctly point out.

And again, my point is simply none of these clowns have any credibility in the marketing department, so why would anyone trust any of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does "network centric" mean? :monkeydance:

Exactly. The requirements types have some grand notions, but none of it is physically practical at the moment. The closest thing on the table to reality now would be what happens in a JSF four ship as they share not only data, but sensors etc. across a high speed network. And that is still five years away.

The basic idea would be a shared vision across the battle domain, where everybody is in Vulcan mind meld from the CAOC to the penetrating stealth guy. Information flows seamlessly to users who ned it when they need it, blah blah blah, kill Osama, we're all home for Christmas.

Then we all woke up, realized there wasn't the bandwidth, time, or budget to do all this, and made do with what we got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAO PAULO, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has told visitors she believes Boeing's F-18 is the best jet among three finalists in a multi-billion dollar Air Force fighter tender, but she is still pressing for better terms on technology transfers that are critical to any deal.

Rousseff raised the issue of the jet tender during a meeting in Brasilia on Monday with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, sources with knowledge of the conversation told Reuters. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

More details here.

Both India and Brazil have ambition to build up more of their Aerospace industry and have made strong head start on that. And for industrial reasons the MMRCA competition will not simply be to select a fighter on the basis of aircraft performance and cost. The Indian government all but said so when it issued the long-delayed request for proposals more than three years ago. The RFP set out that the program would fulfill the air force’s operational requirements and give the defense industry an opportunity to grow to a globally competitive scale.

Edited by Kei Lau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. The requirements types have some grand notions, but none of it is physically practical at the moment. The closest thing on the table to reality now would be what happens in a JSF four ship as they share not only data, but sensors etc. across a high speed network. And that is still five years away.

The basic idea would be a shared vision across the battle domain, where everybody is in Vulcan mind meld from the CAOC to the penetrating stealth guy. Information flows seamlessly to users who ned it when they need it, blah blah blah, kill Osama, we're all home for Christmas.

Then we all woke up, realized there wasn't the bandwidth, time, or budget to do all this, and made do with what we got.

The Matrix has us. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Net-Centric" is so pilots can text each other ... :woo:

Walk-Around Super Hornet at Aero-India 2011 ...

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Net-Centric" is so pilots can text each other ... ;)

Walk-Around Super Hornet at Aero-India 2011 ...

Gregg

:woo: ;) :pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...