Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


F-18 Advanced Hornet

This is a discussion on F-18 Advanced Hornet within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Problem with selecting a different plane now is that Canada had already invested a large sum of money into the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 1st, 2013   #16
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Problem with selecting a different plane now is that Canada had already invested a large sum of money into the F-35 program. Also, contractors in Canada will be building some of the parts, so there is also a job creation issue. The money will go down the toilet if they opted for the Hornets instead, not to mention votes lost.
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2013   #17
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pathfinder-X View Post
Problem with selecting a different plane now is that Canada had already invested a large sum of money into the F-35 program. Also, contractors in Canada will be building some of the parts, so there is also a job creation issue. The money will go down the toilet if they opted for the Hornets instead, not to mention votes lost.
I don't believe existing contracts would be at risk if Canada does not select the F-35 but future contracts most likely would go to other partner countries that stick with the F-35. As for votes lost, who knows. Judging by posts in Cdn media, the F-35 is a vote loser and this is largely due to false information and a pi$$ poor job by DND and the Govt explaining the life cycle cost for fighters, regardless of which one is selected. The latest LRIP price of 113m is an indication that the cost is trending in the right direction for the F-35. By mid to end of 2014, we should have a good idea of eventual cost and program status to make a decision. The problem is by that time an election will be looming and the F-35 might be the same cross to bare as the EH101 was in 1993 for the Tories.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #18
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 10
Threads:
I like the idea of CFTs on the Hornet but now the weapons pod. I think it sacrifices far too much capability and payload for a very minor gain in stealth.
Jonton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #19
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,211
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonton View Post
I like the idea of CFTs on the Hornet but now the weapons pod. I think it sacrifices far too much capability and payload for a very minor gain in stealth.
Depends on how much payload you think the Hornet needs. That pod is very much a 'first day of the war' capability, clearly the intent is to mimic as far as possible the capability that currently only the F-22A and F-35 can bring to those scenarios, neither of which feature impressive internal payloads compared to what a modern fighter COULD carry if necessary (albeit at the expense of range, performance and low observability).

However that is the point. If you need large payloads at the expense of LO, it can do it. If you need maximum available LO and some weapons it can do that as well.

It looks a bit clunky I agree but short of building an F-35-esque aircraft how else are you going to get the desired LO performance AND manage to carry the weapons you are likely to require?
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2013   #20
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
King Wally's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 216
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonton View Post
I like the idea of CFTs on the Hornet but now the weapons pod. I think it sacrifices far too much capability and payload for a very minor gain in stealth.
Just looking at it quickly other platforms, like say the F-35 have a similar issue when they only use their LO internal weapons bay's. Your looking at highly reduced payloads there as well.
King Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2013   #21
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Wally View Post
Just looking at it quickly other platforms, like say the F-35 have a similar issue when they only use their LO internal weapons bay's. Your looking at highly reduced payloads there as well.
The LO versus weapons load issue may make Australia's decision to go with a mixed fleet of F-35s and F-18SH/EA-18G a wise one despite the increased costs of support. I think in Canada's case, the delivery pressures would be eased by getting 24 SH/Growlers allowing more time to evaluate the F-35's progress and perhaps re-evaluate the quantity needed. A fifth gen fighter is needed, the number may still be 65 even with a SH purchase. A RCAF with only 65 fighters is not viable.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2013   #22
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,211
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
The LO versus weapons load issue may make Australia's decision to go with a mixed fleet of F-35s and F-18SH/EA-18G a wise one despite the increased costs of support. I think in Canada's case, the delivery pressures would be eased by getting 24 SH/Growlers allowing more time to evaluate the F-35's progress and perhaps re-evaluate the quantity needed. A fifth gen fighter is needed, the number may still be 65 even with a SH purchase. A RCAF with only 65 fighters is not viable.
Why? The F-35 can carry plenty of external stores as needed. If you don't need full LO on the Super Hornet, why would you need it on F-35?

As to payload, a Shornet would struggle to carry 6x 2000lbs JDAM's. F-35 has no problem doing so...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg image.jpg (152.5 KB, 42 views)
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2013   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
The LO versus weapons load issue may make Australia's decision to go with a mixed fleet of F-35s and F-18SH/EA-18G a wise one despite the increased costs of support.
The Big wigs in the RAAF were pretty upset at the last purchase of Super bugs.
They wanted a Squadron of JSF to be purchased,but government decided on F-18

The Chiefs have said a number of time that the future for the RAAF will be an all JSF fleet.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013   #24
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
The LO versus weapons load issue may make Australia's decision to go with a mixed fleet of F-35s and F-18SH/EA-18G a wise one despite the increased costs of support. I think in Canada's case, the delivery pressures would be eased by getting 24 SH/Growlers allowing more time to evaluate the F-35's progress and perhaps re-evaluate the quantity needed. A fifth gen fighter is needed, the number may still be 65 even with a SH purchase. A RCAF with only 65 fighters is not viable.
If you're concerned about only having 65 fighters then buying in two small fleets of different aircraft won't help with that at all. You're shouldering two sets of fixed costs to do with spares, inventory, training, maintenance, tools etc.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013   #25
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
LO/VLO is about maximising effect during the opening days of a conflict where air force and every one else in the team is concentrating on delamination of the enemies defences and capacity to respond effectively

after day 2-5 the need for LO/VLO may well be tapering off and normal dirty fitouts are going to be the norm
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2013   #26
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
LO/VLO is about maximising effect during the opening days of a conflict where air force and every one else in the team is concentrating on delamination of the enemies defences and capacity to respond effectively

after day 2-5 the need for LO/VLO may well be tapering off and normal dirty fitouts are going to be the norm
Agreed, which makes a mixed fleet of F-35s and F-18SH worth considering in Canada's case, it is likely engagement will be after enemy defences have been delaminated which suits our CDN political lefturds.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2013   #27
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
Why? If VLO isn't required, the F35A has 6 other hardpoints as well as the 4 internal which are capable of taking stores, it's not as though it's incapable of doing so . . . . . I'm gunna quote Stobie because his reply is the most pertinent.

Quote:
If you're concerned about only having 65 fighters then buying in two small fleets of different aircraft won't help with that at all. You're shouldering two sets of fixed costs to do with spares, inventory, training, maintenance, tools etc.
The idea of creating mixed fleet of two types of aircraft totalling 65 aircraft is ridiculous.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2013   #28
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
Why? If VLO isn't required, the F35A has 6 other hardpoints as well as the 4 internal which are capable of taking stores, it's not as though it's incapable of doing so . . . . . I'm gunna quote Stobie because his reply is the most pertinent.



The idea of creating mixed fleet of two types of aircraft totalling 65 aircraft is ridiculous.


Especially when you consider that the RAAF had a small numbers of aircraft in 2 distinct roles with Mirage III/ English Electric Canberra and F-111 Aardvark/ F/A-18 Hornet then the RAAF would like an all F35A fleet to do both roles, but in saying that if the US built the F/B 22 Strike Raptor and was available for export which way would they jump.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2013   #29
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
The idea of creating mixed fleet of two types of aircraft totalling 65 aircraft is ridiculous.
I have a question. Are the Malaysians ridiculous for operating multiple fighter types?

Note: According to Flight Global, the Malaysians operate 13x Hawk 208, 10x Mig29s, 8x F-18Ds, 18x Su-30MKMs and 7-10 F-5s.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2013   #30
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
but in saying that if the US built the F/B 22 Strike Raptor and was available for export which way would they jump.
absolutely incorrect

RAAF had no interest in the F-22 despite all the hysteria that was generated in the press

I attended a Conf in late 2006 where US SecState indicated that if RAAF wanted F-22 then he could see no reason why Congress would object and they would facilitate any requirement.

RAAF have been quite clear that the JSF offered a whole lot better force balance and capability - and this was despite the US fixing all the Block 1 F-22 probs

Waste of time getting it and serves no benefit to RAAF at all
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 PM.