View Single Post
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:36
  #2711 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 50
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
"...[Shornet] it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day...." [cannot the F-35 dump external loads?]
A SH, like most other fighters besides the F35, can pretty much clean up, meaning optimize performance by minimizing drag and weight by jettison unwanted loads in the heat of combat when all things start going wrong and a quick exit strategy is needed.
The F35 can lose its loads also but it will still be a very drag prone fighter that, even without weapons and such.
It's like the saying goes, "all that empty space certainly adds a lot of weight and volume".

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
....SNI article you have linked. Care to elaborate.....
It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
The SH's would be deployed and the F35A's sold of later to other customers.
This would mean that the original production numbers don't need to go down and money can be saved by the US NAVY because they operate with a much cheaper fighter for which all infrastructure is already in place.
No need for ship mods, base mods and a separate training line (F35).
Basically acc to the study it would be cheaper owning both the F35A and F18SH, while only using 1 of both operationally.
kbrockman is offline