The US Navy began to receive new carrier-based fighters F / A-18 Super Hornet Block III

The US Navy has begun to receive the new F / A-18 Super Hornet Block III carrier-based fighters. According to the command of the US Navy, the first fighter has already entered service. aviation fleet.

The Boeing concern has begun deliveries of the new version of the F / A-18 Super Hornet Block III. In total, under the 2019 contract, the US Navy should receive 78 fighters of this version of the new construction.

Last year, the US Navy already received two of these aircraft, which were used for testing. One was broadcast in the single "E" version, the second in the double "F".

The F / A-18 Super Hornet of the Block III version received a glider with a resource of ten thousand flying hours, a cockpit with a panoramic multifunctional touchscreen display, an advanced weapon control system, an infrared search and tracking system and a radio-absorbing coating. In total, it was said about seven updates, two of which are classified.

The program for the creation and maintenance of Super Hornet fighters began in 1995, was designed for 25 years and was supposed to end in 2020, when the fifth generation F-18 fighters were to replace the F-35.

However, difficulties with the development of the F-35 and its introduction into the fleet led to the creation of a new version of the F-18 - the F / A-18 XT (Advanced Super Hornet), which received the name F / A-18E / F Super Hornet Block-III in the US Navy. ...

The command of the U.S. Navy decided to upgrade the entire fleet of Super Hornet fighters to a new modification.

Comments

[OgnennyiKotik]

The JSF program (on which the F-35 Lightning II was made) was aimed at replacing the American F-16, A-10, FA-18A-D Hornet, AV-8B and British Harrier GR7, GR9s, Tornado GR4 initially.

F-22, F-15 and FA-18E / F Super Hornet to this program never were not included.

In turn, the F / A-18E single-seat and F / A-18F twin-seat aircraft took the place of the F-14 Tomcat, A-6 Intruder, Lockheed S-3 Viking and KA-6D aircraft. An electronic warfare variant, the EA-18G Growler, replaces the EA-6B Prowler.

To replace the FA-18E / F Super Hornet, the FA-XX (NGAD) is being developed, but its creation is belated from the start, the fighter is expected in the early 30s.

[PROXOR]

Well, what then is the 35th generation of Fu-5, since it cannot replace the Super Hornet. It does not cover neither the radius of action nor the payload. And about stealth, I generally keep quiet. Both are visible long before they can use their weapons.

[Doccor18]

Quote: PROXOR

Well, what then is the 35th generation of the Fu-5, since it cannot replace the Super Hornet.

Maybe.
Or it may be easier, Lockheed rivets 35s, Northrop will cut B21, and Boeing still has a couple of contracts for 18s (especially against the background of problems in the civilian segment).
And no joke, quickly change the entire deck aircraft fleet to a new type, and the 18th is a car that "there are not enough stars from the sky", but will not let you down either ...

[PROXOR]

Hornet is primarily a bomber jacket. Its prospects in open combat against modern 4+ and 4 ++ are very vague. But at the same time, it is faster than the Fu-35, and the combat radius is larger, and in air combat the Fu-35 will lose to him.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Another bubble launcher. The combat radius of the F-35B (833 km) is greater than that of the Super Hornet (722 km), and there is no need to talk about the F-35C (1100 km). In a combat load, the situation is similar.
And how the FA-18D Hornet (which, unlike the Super Hornet, has a more tactical role as a bomber) wins 3-0 in close maneuvering combat of the Su-30MKM with UVT, you can see here:

[PROXOR]

It's really funny to read comments from Wikipedia fans. OK then:

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Another bubble launcher. The combat radius of the F-35B (833 km) is greater than that of the Super Hornet (722 km), and there is no need to talk about the F-35C (1100 km). In a combat load, the situation is similar.

Fu-35: Combat range 1670 km, radius 865. Radius is the aircraft's coverage area, taking into account round trip.
Fu-18 Super Hornet: Combat range 2346 km and then some mediocrity wrote a radius of 726 km. With the entire layout, the hornet can operate at a distance of 1100-1200 km. POINT. The fact that it does not fly away from the aircraft carrier further than 722 km is a matter of tactics of the US Navy.

Combat maximum load:
Fu-35V 22 tons of which half will hang under the wings (invisibility kirdyk)
Fu-18 29 tons.

Well, the commercial is just "YAROSLAVNA'S CRY". Remembers 93. training battles of the Su-27 against the Fu-15 (which is overwhelmingly superior in maneuverability to the Fu-18). Our amers rolled into a clean one. That Super Hornet, that Fu-15, that this undersized Fu-35 is not able to twist our Drying with AL-41F engines. Not Su-30, not Su-35.

It's a pity I can roll in one minus.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: PROXOR

That's really funny to read comments from Wikipedia fans.

I took the data only from official sites, about the F-35 here: F35.com

Quote: PROXOR

With the entire layout, the hornet can operate at a distance of 1100-1200 km. POINT.

Without a combat load, of course, it can operate at this range, it can even operate at long ranges if it is not necessary to return to AB. The difference between the combat radius is that it must perform a combat mission and return, and not act.

Quote: PROXOR

Remembers 93. training battles Su-27 against Fu-15

Have you personally participated? What was the scenario of the battle? What evidence is there? Videos, white papers?

Quote: PROXOR

It's a pity I can roll in one minus.

You can go to my profile, open all my comments and put minuses in them. Take action.

[PROXOR]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

I took the data only from official sites, about the F-35 here: F35.com

Advertising materials for you Chinese diploma?

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Without a combat load, of course, it can operate at this range, it can even operate at long ranges if it is not necessary to return to AB. The difference between the combat radius is that it must perform a combat mission and return, and not act.

The combat radius for the Fu-18 is taken with two AIM-9 missiles. Fu-35 at full load even in internal bombs will be far from 800 km.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Have you personally participated? What was the scenario of the battle? What evidence is there? Videos, white papers?

https://youtu.be/roklT-emJHI
Everyone already knows this story.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

You can go to my profile, open all my comments and put minuses in them. Take action.

I don't want to do it. I put my pros and cons on the fact of what I have read and understood.

[Flooding]

Quote: PROXOR

Fu-35: Combat range 1670 km, radius 865. Radius is the aircraft's coverage area, taking into account round trip.
Fu-18 Super Hornet: Combat range 2346 km and then some mediocrity wrote a radius of 726 km.

unexpectedly for me PROXOR seemed more convincing

[Capt cook]

And is the combat radius just the range divided by 2? If everything were so simple ... We also need to take into account the time for conducting air combat / combat use, so the radius is much less than just the range divided in half for back and forth. Plus a variable flight profile.

[Bradley]

Remembers 93. training battles of the Su-27 against the Fu-15 (which is overwhelmingly superior in maneuverability to the Fu-18).

Langley in 1992 there was no air combat training between the F-15 and the Su-27. There was a joint maneuvering, where the Su-27 fell out of order and sat tightly on six of the F-15. he tried to shake it off, but could not.
But this is not an air fight, in such conditions it does not start when you start at six of your opponent.
Just hooliganism, nothing more.

[Lozovik]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Combat radius of the F-35B (833 km)

Do you know the flight profile? In fact, in their advertisements, they simply divide the practical range by 2. The real tactical radius will be at least a third less.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

And how the FA-18D Hornet (which, unlike the Super Hornet, has a more tactical role as a bomber) wins 3-0 in close maneuvering combat of the Su-30MKM with UVT, you can see here:

How to say, the probability of hitting a target when conducting defensive fire at a high-speed target under a large (about 6/8) angle is, to put it mildly, small. It is impossible to judge the maneuverability of aircraft from this video. In terms of vertical maneuvers, Su looks even more cheerful.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Lozovik

Do you know the flight profile?

You have drawn a profile on the diagram. And 3 fighters are compared on this profile: F-35В, Hornet, Harrier 2. In which the F-35В clearly wins the aircraft it replaces, which fully confirms my words.
Naturally, depending on the tasks and load, the real radius changes, so the averaged version is taken. The same Hornets, in reality, always fly with PTB.

Quote: Lozovik

How to say, the probability of hitting a target when conducting defensive fire at a high-speed target under a large (about 6/8) angle, to put it mildly, is small

The question of the rules of this training battle. Reality can be anything, but the statistics of real battles of 4th generation fighters are in favor of American vehicles. Naturally, the battle system wins, not a single aircraft.

[Lozovik]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

And 3 fighters are compared on this profile: F-35В, Hornet, Harrier 2. In which the F-35В clearly wins the aircraft it replaces, which fully confirms my words.

Don't get away from the essence, not a word about the harrier in my message.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Naturally, depending on the tasks and load, the real radius changes, so the averaged version is taken.

How is this averaged option? On this profile, the F-35 flies to the target and back over the ceilings, i.e. with a constant climb with the lowest possible kilometer fuel consumption, only 180 km of track at an altitude of 4500 meters, the aircraft does not maneuver in the target area. So this profile is purely theoretical; in reality, the F-35 will not be able to strike at such a range without refueling.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

The question of the rules of this training battle.

What are the "rules of this training battle"?

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Reality can be anything, but the statistics of real battles of 4th generation fighters are in favor of American vehicles.

Give an example.

[bayard]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

) wins 3-0 in close maneuvering combat between the Su-30MKM and the UHT, you can see it here:

This is after how many losers?
For several years, Indian pilots on the Su-30MKI regularly rolled out the Americans and their allies in training battles, so it is possible:
a) negotiated battle,
b) a deliberately weak Indian pilot was selected for self-promotion,
c) after many years of training and coaching their pilots in battles with the Su-30MKI, such a battle scenario has been chosen when the F-18 is put in an obviously advantageous position.
Not a single American pilot in his right mind would say that the F-18 is more maneuverable and capable of twisting the Su-30 under equal conditions.
Have you heard about the proposals of some analysts of the US Navy in 00 to start purchasing Su-30 gliders in Russia, equipping them with engines from F-22, avionics, and using them as carrier-based heavy fighters? In all seriousness, there were such proposals - after all, we were so "friends" then? This did not happen for ideological reasons, but the proposal found many supporters, because they had to change something too expensive to maintain and difficult to operate F-14.
And they motivated the choice of the platform precisely by the fact that it was the best glider and the best heavy aircraft for maneuverable combat.
But for ideological reasons, they chose "Super Hornet".
And the MiG-29 "Shershen" also lost, in many battles, but it all started with German pilots from the former GDR.

[OgnennyiKotik]

1. About the fight with the Su-30MKM, it's Malaysian. Yes, the Hornet is operated by an instructor, an ace pilot. They regularly carry out similar fights. The pilot himself says that only the F-30 is heavier than the battle with the Su-22. With the Su-30, he has 50/50 dogfight results. On the same day, he lost training battles. Why he posted the fights where he won is clear to everyone. In general, the Su-30MKM is superior to the FA-18D in terms of flight performance, but it was decommissioned from AB, maybe somewhere on the coast the Navy and the KMP remained.
What does this give for understanding. There is no catastrophic difference between the Su-27/30/35 and F-15/16/18/35 series in close maneuvering combat. The question is in the experience of the pilots and battle scenarios. What is unpleasant is the number of fighters and the training of pilots for NATO.
2. I do not believe in one story of supposedly participants and those who stood next to them about "training battles". They lie godlessly. Much depends on the scenario and what was worked out. It's a classic when, in training battles in India, they reported about the total superiority of the Su-30 over the Eurofighters, then it turned out that the battles were with the superiority of the dryers and the disconnected part of the equipment from the EF.
If we go into real battles, then the MiG-29 has no victories over the 4th generation, the Su-27/30/35 only won over the MiG-29 among 4ok.
3. The MiG-29 is an extremely unsuccessful machine, created for the outdated concept of an air defense fighter. Within the framework of the USSR air defense, it had some meaning, now it does not.
The training fight is below. What's interesting is that the minuses of smoking engines are clearly shown, the fuel for the MiG-29 was barely enough for 1 battle, the 29ka did not cause any problems to the American.

[bayard]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

1. About the fight with the Su-30MKM, it's Malaysian.

Which is what I meant. In the battle of fighters of the same generation (with similar characteristics), the qualifications of the pilots are of critical importance. If there were a pilot equal to the American pilot in the cockpit of the Su-30, he would not have seen victory - a more maneuverable and thrust-armed Su-30 would have twisted it.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

The pilot himself says that only the F-30 is heavier than the battle with the Su-22.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

... There is no catastrophic difference between the Su-27/30/35 and F-15/16/18/35 series in close maneuvering combat.

Not catastrophic, but the advantage in maneuverability is obvious.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

What is unpleasant is the number of fighters and the training of pilots for NATO.

That's for sure. And what a shame, this is for ever - a new Warsaw Pact is not expected.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

If we go into real battles, then the MiG-29 has no victories over the 4th generation, the Su-27/30/35 only won over the MiG-29 among 4ok.

But I must say that no one aspired to battles on an equal footing with them. In Yugoslavia, MiG-29s were shot down on takeoff on target designation from AWACS.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

the disadvantages of smoking engines are clearly shown,

This problem has been eliminated only on MiG-35 engines. But at the same time, soot does not detract from their traction and dynamic characteristics.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

The MiG-29 is an extremely unsuccessful machine, created for the outdated concept of an air defense fighter.

Completely wrong. This is what I am telling you as an officer of the combat directorate of an air defense formation. The Soviet air defense never had a MiG-29, it is an exclusively front-line (!) Fighter. His tasks included, based on front-line / border airfields, the first to engage in battle and bind the attacking order of the enemy in battle. Later, heavy Su-27s were to be pulled up from more distant airfields and complete what they had begun.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

the fuel of the MiG-29 was barely enough for 1 battle

Yes, that was one of the main drawbacks of the first version of this fighter. But it is also necessary to understand that it was created according to a specific technical assignment - a light front-line fighter, with ultimatum characteristics (speed, maneuverability, thrust-to-weight ratio, rate of climb, arming missiles with short and medium-range R-27 missiles) to replace the legendary MiG-21.
Operational difficulties (long inter-flight service, difficulties in service associated with a very tight line-up) became clear later. And that is why, immediately after the first version of the Mikoyan Design Bureau was put into production, they began to develop its modernized version. And now she was already much better.
But all these shortcomings do not diminish or negate the advantages of the MiG-29 in combat characteristics. And in close combat, the MiG-29 and Su-27 showed a result of 50/50, which can be a compliment for the heavy Su-27.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

29ka did not deliver any problems to the American.

I'm afraid that if you thoroughly investigate the history of this video, it will also turn out that the conditions were not equal. And I have heard about completely different results of such training fights.
To assess the real capabilities of fighters, it is best to arrange them between instructors, so it will be fair. And there should be at least 5 battles, and preferably 10, and when, after the first 5 battles, the pilots change aircraft in order to eliminate the influence of the difference in qualifications. History knows such comparative battles.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: bayard

The USSR air defense never had a MiG-29, this is an exclusively front-line (!) Fighter

Yes, my mistake. Then I have even more questions to the technical specification for this aircraft.

Quote: bayard

But I must say that no one aspired to battles on an equal footing with them.

And which Army is striving for this? It is the art of war, to create a knowingly winning situation.

Quote: bayard

To assess the real capabilities of fighters, it is best to arrange them between instructors, so it will be fair. And there should be at least 5 battles, and preferably 10, and when, after the first 5 battles, the pilots change aircraft in order to eliminate the influence of the difference in qualifications. History knows such comparative battles.

This is interesting purely in theory, but in practice it will give nothing.
I show that it will not work to throw hats. The belief that we have the advantage in close combat is wrong. They systematically and systematically prepare for these battles, the flight characteristics of the vehicles allow them to be conducted on an equal footing.
That the USSR, that the United States compared and conducted exercises Army for army. In the summer, there was just another red flag exercise, according to my estimates, 200-300 boards took part. "Aggressors", among other things, used the F-117, against them F-35/22. The results of these battles are really very interesting to know.

[bayard]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Then I have even more questions to the technical specification for this aircraft.

What about the terms of reference? A light (to replace the MiG-21) twin-engine (this was especially emphasized) with spaced engines was ordered from a front-line (!) Fighter.
The heavy fighter was ordered separately. And they had to complement each other.
The TK was drawn up in the late 60s, based on the experience of air battles in Vietnam and on the BV.
The customers were inspired by the high survivability of the Phantom, which often came out of battle / under fire on one engine. Therefore, it was then that the rule was adopted - from now on, only twin-engine fighters.
In the United States, they also summed up and generalized the experience, and came to the opposite opinion.
They were inspired by our MiG-21. Its simplicity, cheapness and the highest fighting qualities. In the United States then they were very worried that they did not have a normal light single-engine fighter. And those that are, were unable to adequately fight even with the MiG-17 and MiG-19. They (the generals of the Air Force) literally demanded "Give us the same as the MiG-21!" ...
And they were given - F-16.
But it was not easy to shove two engines into a small fighter and EVERYTHING that the designers wanted so much. But they did it. True, to the detriment of the range and combat load ... as well as convenience and laboriousness of service.
And when the flaws of the MiG-29 were eliminated in its modernized and naval versions, it actually became, in fact, not a light, but a medium fighter.
For the USSR, it was tolerable, they planned to operate them (MiG-29) no longer than 10 - 15 years. But ... times have changed.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

It is the art of war, to create a knowingly winning situation.

But this is not a criterion for assessing the quality of a weapon system.
It's just that since then there has not been a case that two comparable opponents fought, armed with modern fighters from the Russian Federation and the United States.
But there were enough training battles.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

This is interesting purely in theory, but in practice it will give nothing.

Not at all. In order to assess the quality of the aircraft, and not the pilot, they do just that.
It was this series of battles that was conducted between the Su-27 and MiG-29 to assess their capabilities in close maneuvering combat. Two pilots and test takers fought 5 battles, then exchanged vehicles, and fought 5 more battles. The result was equal.
They offered to conduct the same battles with the American F-16, F-15 and F-18, right during the international air show. But they didn't go for it.
But at home with the MiG-29 and Su-27 obtained in a roundabout way, they carried out more than once. But the results were not published.
And this is normal, under the USSR, their planes were also mined and conducted a series of battles.
Once the "Phantom" was to be driven from Iran ... illegally - the recruited pilot was supposed to drive him to one of our airfields (Kurdamir) ... they waited all night, but ... it failed.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

I show that it will not work to throw hats.

How many of these hats do we have?
We would have to fight off their hats.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

They systematically and systematically prepare for these battles, the flight characteristics of the vehicles allow them to be conducted on an equal footing.

They usually had a serious advantage in avionics, while ours in speed and responsiveness. No wonder they in Vietnam had to use huge twin-engine "Phantoms" against small single-engine MiG-17 \ 19 \ 21, while ALWAYS creating a numerical advantage. After all, "Phantom" was originally created as an "all-weather interceptor" and did not have a gun at all. But they had to not only take out all the air battles on it, but also turn it into a bomber - life forced them. And he coped with everything.
The first response to the Phantom was the MiG-23, a missile duel fighter.
The second, belatedly, but generalizing the experience of its survivability is the MiG-29.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

"Aggressors", among other things, used the F-117, against them F-35/22. The results of these battles are really very interesting to know.

It probably will not be soon, because here the capabilities of the radar and OLS were tested first of all.

[Liam]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Su-27/30/35 wins only over MiG-29 among 4ok.

This is a bearded internet bike.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Nuu ... Zero air victories for the Su-27/30/35 looks very sad. At least these very controversial victories will be abandoned.

[Lozovik]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

3. MiG-29 is an extremely unsuccessful machine

What is the failure?

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

designed for the outdated air defense fighter concept

Have you come up with it yourself? Excerpt from RLE:

The light front-line fighter MiG-29 is designed to destroy enemy aircraft in air battles while conquering and maintaining air supremacy, covering their troops from enemy air strikes and aerial reconnaissance.
As ancillary aircraft, the tasks of destroying (suppressing) enemy ground (surface) objects and conducting aerial reconnaissance are solved.

Where does such an endless stream of nonsense and lies come from, which has never been refuted? Did the MiG-29 get bitten?

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

What is interesting, the disadvantages of smoking engines are clearly shown, the fuel of the MiG-29 was barely enough for 1 battle

The American says that afterwards he performed a counter refueling in the air.

[Doccor18]

Quote: PROXOR

and in an air battle, the Fu-35 will lose to him.

Much will depend on: the qualifications of the pilot, the provision of reconnaissance, means of destruction (SAM), stealth and capabilities of the radar (the 35th clearly wins) and, of course, the number of opponents ...

[PROXOR]

I unambiguously agree with you. It all depends on other factors.
By the way: turn on the radar and become immediately visible))))

[Doccor18]

Quote: PROXOR

will become immediately visible))))

Where can you go then ...

[voyaka uh]

The Americans are beginning to change the structure of aviation on aircraft carriers.
F-18 Super Hornet, F-35S, and F-18 Growler will be in 1: 1: 1 proportions.
Fewer normal strikers, more scouts, stealth and jammers.
Double the number of AWACS resins.
Create "long-range air reconnaissance groups"
with each aircraft carrier.

[Cowbra]

Initially, the F-35 was designed as a replacement for ALL fighters in general, as well as attack aircraft. Tales about who did not enter - oh, leave.

Production of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet carrier-based fighter-bombers will continue until 2025, and possibly their assembly will continue after that. Dan Gillian, the head of this program at Boeing Corporation, told Defense News about this.
It was previously expected that production of the F / A-18E / F could be completed by 2017.

... and by 20 they should have been written off and left alone by the F-35. I wonder why hang a linden about the fact that the F-35 is not a failure, if it was recognized even at the Pentagon ?!

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Cowbra

Initially, the F-35 was developed as a replacement for ALL fighters in general, as well as attack aircraft.

Can you provide official proof of your bunch?

[Cowbra]

Judging by your "argumentation" of the question - you don't care what I say - a sect - it is such a sect. But even single-celled cultists can be pitied
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/
https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5103655
Provide "official proof" that the F / A-18 E / F did not go anywhere.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Cowbra

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/
https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5103655

And where does it say that the F-35 was created to replace the FA-18E / F Super Hornet?

Quote: Cowbra

Provide "official proof" that the F / A-18 E / F did not go anywhere.

Easy, with confirmation that the F-35C and FA-18E / F Super Hornet are to serve together.

Report to the committees of Congress:
Page 8, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-437.pdf

There are three variants. The conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant will be an air-to-ground replacement for the Air Force's F-16 Falcon and the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, and will complement the F-22A Raptor. The STOVL variant will be a multi-role strike fighter to replace the Marine Corps' F / A-18C / D Hornet and AV-8B Harrier aircraft. The carrier-suitable variant (CV) will provide the Navy a multi-role, stealthy strike aircraft to complement the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet.

There are three options. The Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) option will replace the Air Force F-16 Falcon and the A-10 Thunderbolt II air-to-ground aircraft and complement the F-22A Raptor. The STOVL variant will be a multi-role strike fighter that will replace Marine Corps aircraft F / A-18C / D Hornet and AV-8B Harrier. An option suitable for an aircraft carrier (CV) will provide the Navy with a multipurpose, stealthy strike aircraft in addition to the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet.

[Cowbra]

Ah, funny) It seems that the only mention that the F-35 is not omnipotent - "will add"))) So all the time PentaNog preferred to write "will replace the F-15/16/18" without comment

[OgnennyiKotik]

I have already written several times that the Pentagon wants to replace the F-18. The problem is that Hornet and Super Hornet are different aircraft with different missions. They change them with different fighters.

It's funny that apart from cursing you can not provide anything to prove your words. Just a stream of bile and fantasies based on journalistic inventions. As such people as your name, you know.

[lucul]

In total, it was said about seven updates, two of which are classified.

Hmm ... and the most key indicator for this type of aircraft - the range, remained unchanged)))

[Cowbra]

Well, you know how they crumpled liquidly with conformal tanks, dropped according to technical specifications? Five-wall sawmill - many years of experience in sawing

[rocket757]

So they do not seek from goodness!
Especially when some new good is not ... so good.
But, they will not stop there, but will continue to research, test further!