Via ELP, here’s the latest (large, 88 page) briefing book on the F/A-18E/F SuperHornet. You can download it as a pdf, or just read it here. Any questions, especially about all the acronyms, just ask in the comments.


[scribd id=89896210 key=key-vv8mffxvhguyywzktla mode=list]

5 thoughts on “SuperHornet”

  1. So now the question is what does the F-35C give us for the extra $170 million each, the increase in required stores aboard ship, and the loss of the redundant engine? Near as I can tell we get supercruise, reduced radar signature, increased combat radius, and keeping Lockheed in the defense contracting business. I’ll admit this is way outside my wheelhouse (as far as I’m concerned nothing good happens above the hangar bay), but it looks to me that an all-18 force would give the Navy the best value for money.

      1. I stand corrected. So the cost/benefit analysis is even worse for the Navy. I’m beginning to think that, in these times of budgetary constraints, we’re better off foregoing the Bently and getting a few more miles out of the Cadillac.

        1. Oh, as long as it is really suitable around the boat, I think the Charlie is going to end up a pretty good airplane. the avionics are pretty impressive.

          I just think they could have gotten much the same performance for a lot less money and development time if they’d not been forced to build the jet around a STOVL version.

          1. I agree it’s a great aircraft, I’m just not convinced it’s 3.5x greater than the SuperHornet. If we were flush with cash, there was a credible adversary aircraft out there, or we weren’t still making SuperHornets and line restart costs were significant I would say to hell with it and spend the money. But I don’t think any of those conditions exist.

Comments are closed.