Super Hornet News

[Sniper]

Olha os comedores de hamburguer correndo por fora...

[Carlos Mathias]

Num te assanha não, olha a data da notícia.

Boeing interested in selling military aircraft to Brazil
The Associated Press
Published: March 13, 2008

SAO PAULO, Brazil: U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. is looking into bidding on an estimated US$2.2 billion (€1.41 billion) contract to provide military planes to Brazil's air force, the company said Thursday.

Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems executive Joseph T. McAndrew spent three days in Brazil this week meeting with military officials and business and industrial leaders to "get a better understanding of how Boeing can satisfy some of the future defense requirements of Brazil," company spokesman Damien Hills said.

McAndrew, who left Brazil on Wednesday, discussed Boeing's F/A-18 Hornet — a twin-engine, multi-mission tactical aircraft — as a potential candidate for the air force's plans to purchase 24 to 36 aircraft, Mills said.

Companies such as Russia's Sukhoi, Sweden's Saab and France's Dassault Aviation are also interested in bidding for the contract.

Brazil's has conditioned the contract to the sharing of the technology behind whatever aircraft it buys, and so far the only country that has said it would allow such a transfer has been France, which is interested in selling Dassault's Rafale fighter plane.

Boeing's Mills said he preferred to not discuss technology transfer issues because they are a "government-to-government matter."

The U.S. Embassy in Brasilia also declined to comment on the matter.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/ ... Boeing.php

[Penguin]

De acordo com colegas mais informados, o RFP ainda nao saiu e nem a FAB recebeu as propostas oficiais. Essas sao as que contarao. Ate agora muita pirotecnia e pouca decisao.

[]'s

Jacques

[Sniper]

Num te assanha não, olha a data da notícia.

[soultrain]

Growler Day

In a drizzly ceremony today, we will witness Secretary of the Navy Don Winter accept the delivery of the first EA-18G Growler to the USN's fleet readiness squadron.

This would be a fairly routine affair except for a couple of very distinguishing facts: first, the event is occurring exactly according to the original schedule and, second, Boeing's five-year-old development program is not over-budget.

It'd be nice to think those two facts weren't so extraordinary, but, in the world of military acquisition, it is.

To be sure, there remain a few caveats. The operational test phase begins in September, which will expose any unresolved design or technology glitches. The Government Accountability Office reported in March that a few software issues need to be fixed before operational tests can be performed. We'll see how that pans out, but none of the issues sound like show-stoppers.

Some of the more cynical observers (blush) might also say that Boeing and the Navy cheated with the EA-18G.

This is not the same as starting a new weapon project from scratch. The airframe for the EA-18G is based on the design of the already proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the electronic warfare package is based largely on the ICAP III suite already flying on the EA-6B Prowler. The ALQ-99 jammer is merely a decade-old, upgraded version of a pod that first flew in 1971 (and needs to be retired as threats evolve over the next decade).

But it's also not fair to Boeing to dismiss the complexity of this project. Repackaging the ICAP III to fit inside the Growler involved no small risk. The "football" ALQ-218 receiver mounted on the EA-6B's tail was split into two pieces and installed in the more aerodynamically harsh environment of the EA-18G's wingtips. I'm still curious how they managed to pull off the ALQ-218's radome, which must be sturdy enough to survive on the wingtip, yet not too sturdy to interfere with the operations of the embedded antenna.

Integrating the all-new Raytheon-made Communications Countermeasures Set (CCS) also added some complexity to the project, as did the introduction of the highly useful interference cancellation system (INCANS), which allows the EA-18G to continue jamming an enemy radar even while the pilot continues to communicate with other friendly aircraft.

It's reasonable to question whether the navy should have been still more ambitious. Why not introduce an all-new, digital-era jamming pod with the first delivery of the EA-18G? Why not design a next-generation jammer aircraft around a more stealthy platform, like the navy's forthcoming F-35C due to be delivered in 2015? Why not challenge your contractor -- to which you're paying billions of dollars -- to invent something completely new, versus "repackaging" two familiar systems?

At the end of the day, the navy is getting exactly what it paid for, on-time. In this day and age, maybe that's all you can really ask for.

-- Steve Trimble

[Tigershark]

Eagle vs Hornet - Boeing's fighters square off for remaining orders
By Jamie Hunter
06 June 2008

Although now notionally Boeing aircraft, both the F-15E Strike Eagle and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have their roots in McDonnell Douglas, before its amalgamation into Boeing in 1997.

Both will remain in production for at least another four years but, given the pre-eminence of Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor in the fighter market and with the company's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) primed to fill multiple roles in the future, Eagle and Hornet are set to be the company's final manned fighters. Meanwhile, Boeing is keen to plug gaps caused by JSF delays and its two fighters come loaded with new technology and promises of relatively quick delivery, but how much life is left in these designs?

The F-15 Eagle was first conceived to meet the US Air Force (USAF) Fighter Experimental (FX) programme, launched on 29 April 1965. The programme came as a direct result of combat experience in the Vietnam War and led to the McDonnell Douglas F-15 being ordered without a fly-off against competing designs. The first YF-15A rolled off the St Louis line on 26 June 1972 and the Eagle entered service just over two years later.

An improved F-15C/D variant followed - a total of 483 F-15Cs and 92 F-15Ds were built between 1979 and 1985 - and the C variant proved its combat credentials in Operation 'Desert Storm' in 1991, accounting for 36 Iraqi aircraft.

The Eagle had already been blooded in Israeli service, claiming to have shot down 56 aircraft. Israel placed its first order for 23 F-15A/B models in 1975 under 'Peace Fox I and II', with the aircraft (known locally as 'Baz') delivered from 1976. A further 18 F-15Cs and 13 F-15Ds followed under 'Peace Fox III and IV', followed by a further undisclosed batch after the 1990-91 Gulf War.

In the Middle East, the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) received 47 F-15Cs and 15 F-15Ds, which achieved their first air-to-air victories (against Iranian Phantoms) on 5 June 1984.

Another early Eagle customer, the Japanese Air Self Defence Force (JASDF), first evaluated the F-15 in 1975 and selected it to replace the F-104J Starfighter. The first two F-15Js (broadly based on the F-15C) were built in the United States, with the first flight taking place on 4 June 1980. Eight more were subsequently assembled under licence by Mitsubishi, the first of these making its maiden flight on 26 August 1981. McDonnell Douglas also built the first 12 F-15DJs before production switched entirely to Japan, where Mitsubishi built 163 F-15Js and 36 F-15DJs, bringing the overall total to 213 aircraft for the JASDF.

In 1978, the USAF began the Tactical All-Weather Requirements Study (TAWRS) to evaluate the Strike Eagle proposal, as well as other options including the cranked-arrow winged F-16XL and the Panavia Tornado. The new aircraft needed outstanding targeting capabilities, supreme low-level performance in all conditions and the ability to tackle any opposing fighters.


Fonte:Jane's

[Luís Henrique]

Ja que o SH pode vir a ser o caça da FAB, procurei algumas informações e gostaria de saber o que os amigos sabem da versão Block 3?

Li que provavelmente as melhorias serão:

1) Novo Motor: 25% a mais de empuxo e 30% mais fácil de manter, além de ser mais leve.

2) Radar: Melhoria no processamento dos dados e no poder de saída para melhorar o alcance.

3) RCS: Melhoria e barateamento do RAM.

O que mais me chamou a atenção foi o novo motor. A única crítica real contra os SH é o empuxo, aceleração, ...

O SH B2 tem 19.995 kg/F de empuxo.

O SH B3 terá cerca de 24.943 kg/F de empuxo e será mais leve.

Realmente um caça bastante perigoso.

[Tigershark]

Concordo,Luís,é um caça de respeito.Mas e a tão exigida transferência de tecnologia?Você imagina ser possível a construção do SH por aqui?Eu continuo com muitas dúvidas.

[Wolfgang]

No concurso indiano, por 126 caças, (somente 6 a mais do que o tal projeto fabiano), a Boeing não ofereceu algo semelhante?
Eu conversaria com a India e fecharia junto com ela a construção bi-nacional do Super Hornet, peças feitas aqui e acolá... com abertura de algumas cousas buenas.. OS EUA não negariam, pois imagine vender de uma tacada, 246 caças e ainda trazer India (potência nuclear) e Brasil (potência agrícola e energética) para mais perto?
Show de bola.

[Immortal Horgh]

Não gosto de concordar muito com o Wolf não ( ),mas faz bastante sentido.



[ ]s

[Tigershark]

Sentido faz,mas pensem:se todos os "fontados" dizem que vamos de Rafale, vocês imaginam em sã consciência que os decision makers da FAB/Governo,os pensadores desta brilhante solução,iriam pensar em algo tão racional?

[Immortal Horgh]

Outra info sobre o Block III: capacidade interna de combustível aumentada em 1500 kg.


[ ]s

[Immortal Horgh]

Sentido faz,mas pensem:se todos os "fontados" dizem que vamos de Rafale, vocês imaginam em sã consciência que os decision makers da FAB/Governo,os pensadores desta brilhante solução,iriam pensar em algo tão racional?

Andas esquecendo as palavras do Professor Orestes: ele falou que o lobby para o SH está bem montado.




[ ]s

[Wolfgang]

A única coisa que me incomoda no Super Hornet é o teto de serviço. É o mais baixo dos caças elencados no RFI.

[Immortal Horgh]

O SH não é realmente projetado para dogfight, assim como o Tomcat não era, tanto que os limites G de ambos são semelhantes. A função é destruir a força aérea inimiga a distância. Assim também acho irrelevante o teto de serviço.



[ ]s