Why won't the US navy create a new variant of the F-18.Replace the twin small engines of the F-18, with a single big engine of the F-35.This would simplify the logistics of the US navy.One engine to serve two airplanes.Doesn't seem something very complicated or expensive.
>>65645584because its being replaced by the F/A-XX and the US Navy thinks that the airframe can't be further upgraded
>>65645584>Doesn't seem something very complicated or expensive.It is. The engine is an integrated part of a fighterjet from early conceptual studies. You would have to basically design a whole new plane at that point anyway, so its expensive as all hell. If anything, designing a whole new plane might even be cheaper then trying to redesign a F/A-18 to go from two small engines to a single big one.
>>65645584>Doesn't seem something very complicated or expensive.It is.The airframe is built around the engine(s). The whole thing is a lifting body and you'd have to more or less redesign the entire thing (thus making a new plane) to accommodate your one massive engine.As an aside:>the backseater's callsign is "Manhole"The Navy is never beating the allegations.
>>65645584you must be above 13 to post here
>>65645584You want an aircraft which is decently heavier than the F-35 to have the same engine as the F-35 when the F-35 is already fat and slow?
>>65645597>If anything, designing a whole new plane might even be cheaper then trying to redesign a F/A-18 to go from two small engines to a single big one.Didn't they do it with the F-5G?
>>65645764Yes, and that turned out so expensive it defeated the whole purpose of the F-5, wich was a cheap light fighter. Hence why nobody bought it.
>>65645769Technically speaking, the F-20 wasn’t killed because it was too expensive. It was killed because the whole point of the F-20, which was to be as advanced a fighter as the US could legally sell, was made obsolete by the US allowing the F-16 to be sold.
>>65645793Yeah, thats correct, but Northrop could still have sold it if it was significantly cheaper to buy/operate than an F-16, wich it really wasnt at that point.
>>65645769None of that is the reason for F-20's lack of success (which was world-historical and result of post-1970s global military technology development, Pentagon procurement *and politics* overall - nothing to do with the airplane itself or "its cost".... maintenance cost ongoing while-in-actual-service is the unmeasured never-accounted-for 'cost' of all weapon systems particularly prior to them being actually purchased or in production. muh 'Cost' excuses-comparsions for weapons in the post-1970s era are made-up fantasy utter raving total bullshit).>to operateSee ^above.>>65645764>"didn't they do it"No it was designed by Northrop in mid-1970s at which specific time interval the F-16 single-engine LWF had <--*just been adopted* by USAF (with an additional marketing hook from General Dynamics that the Fighting Falcon would become 'Europe's fighter' aka the fighter for 1970s NATO to adopt) and Northrop was trying to remain competitive in the size class of small fighters ; even though the Tiger II had and was still then doing well in other markets. See ^^above about world geopolitics, economics etc. in late 1970s-afterward, *everything [global context] totally changed* and during the 1975-1985 specific time interval so did U.S. arms manufacturer export restrictions on discrete target types of equipment fits for combat aircraft, etc.>>65645793Correct.>'purpose of the F-5'RE: the stupid hornet should never have been conceived. Even the OG legacy F/A-18 was at the limit of its justification (still was doing fine) as a 'light weight' USN multirole fighter parallel to USAF's F-16 and the A-6F, Tomcat 21 should never have been deleted from fleet carrier air wing procurement, but here we are in clown world.
YF-17 was the peak of Northop fighter design.
>>65645584cat-shot brain
