Print 44 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Feb 21 at 2:28 PM

Boeing thinks the EA-18 Growler is the most likely version to be purchased by the US

One of the staples U.S. Navy for a number of years has been the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter. However, reports indicate that the new U.S. defense budget that is set to be unveiled next month has no allowance for purchasing new versions of the fighter.
New purchases of the electronic attack version called the EA-18G Growler are also nonexistent. Some in Washington want to continue to purchase the aircraft with a $75 million defense appropriations bill that would call for the purchase of 22 new aircraft. Boeing, the maker of the Super Hornet, also wants the military to purchase more EA-18G aircraft.

The Hornet has been around since the 1970's and replaced the F-14 Tomcat and A-6 Prowler. When the last orders are completed, the Navy will have 563 Super Hornets and 138 Growlers. The current orders will have production of the aircraft continuing through 2016.
Boeing says that 90,000 full time jobs around the country are dependent on Super Hornet production, and the company is currently shopping the jet to foreign nations now. Boeing had hoped to court Brazil with the purchase of 36 Super Hornets, but concerns over the NSA’s spying program led the Latin American country into the arms of Sweden and its Saab JAS-39 Gripen NG.
The existing Super Hornets will be supplemented by the troubled (and expensive) F-35 Lightning II for U.S. Navy duties.

Source: Defense News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Great Jet
By Solandri on 2/18/2014 3:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've always thought the whole argument of two engines being superior to one a flawed one. Truth be told, most airplanes are harder (and more dangerous) to fly when one of two engines go out than a single-engine plane.

A two-engine plane with one engine is much safer and easier to fly than a one-engine plane with one engine out.

Also, think about this: If you have twice as many engines, you are twice as likely to eventually have a problem than not.

This really depends on the reliability rate. The number you're really after is in the in-service rate, not the failure rate. At low reliability rates, what you say is more or less true. e.g. at a 50% failure rate:

A 1-engine plane will be in service 50% of the time.

A 2-engine plane will have one engine out 50% of the time, both engines out 25% of the time. It will thus be in service only 25% of the time.

So at a 50% reliability rate, what you say is true and the 1-engine plane is in service twice as long as the 2-engine plane.

But if the failure rate is 1%, the 1-engine plane is in service 99% of the time, the 2-engine plane is in service 98% of the time. And there's really not much difference between the two. Yes the 2-engine plane is out of service twice as much, but it's so infrequent that it doesn't affect the in-service rate significantly - the single-engine plane is in service only 1% more than the two-engine plane.

RE: Great Jet
By NAVAIR on 2/18/2014 3:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wish your figure's were that simple...

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki