Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?

rip

New Member
I think you've missed my point. I asked what utility JSOW, specifically, would have. You've not answered that.

Your first example assumes that Japan is in an all-out war with China, & has already lost the first stage, including the loss of air superiority over Ryukyu & control of the sea around the islands. At this point, they'd be completely focused on the air-sea battle, both the prevent further Chinese gains & because the islands could not be regained without command of the air & sea.

That command of the air & sea would require defeat of the PLAF & PLAN. I don't see much use for JSOW in that battle. They'd want something longer range than JSOW for attacking Chinese air bases & SAM sites, unless the PLAF has been beaten in the air - & if so, how did the islands fall?

Your second example assumes Japan launching attacks in response to N. Korean missiles being fired over Japan. That won't happen. Japan would only bomb North Korea in response to a direct attack.


Japan already has a better maritime strike capability than JSOW can provide, integrated on current aircraft which will remain in service for long after the next type is operational.
I agree with you that Japan would not attack North Korea unless it was first attacked but if North Korea shot a missile high over its territory, they might shoot the missile down. if they have the capacity. They may soon have that capacity, which then depends on what kind of missile N. K. fired, when, and where.

Not saying that they would. But if the game was to try to intimidate Japan, as some say they have tried to do in the past, they might do it. But they again if N.K. thought that Japan could shot down their test missile, why would they run the risk of firing it in a direction where they might be able to shoot it down and have their act of intimidation trumped.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think you've missed my point. I asked what utility JSOW, specifically, would have. You've not answered that.
Of course I did. It's going to have the exact same utility that any other land attack capable weapon has. Your argument assumes Japan has no need for land attack capability from a long range missile, which of course we know to be incorrect due to the inherent capability for such in it's current inventory (ASM-2 to be precise).

Your first example assumes that Japan is in an all-out war with China, & has already lost the first stage, including the loss of air superiority over Ryukyu & control of the sea around the islands. At this point, they'd be completely focused on the air-sea battle, both the prevent further Chinese gains & because the islands could not be regained without command of the air & sea.
On the contrary. It assume Japan needs to take military action against a foreign invader who lodges on some of their islands. The Japanese themselves are concerned in particular about the Ryukyu and the Prime Minister himself has called for increased protection and defences being placed there (to no effect as yet).

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the utility of a weapon like JSOW in such a scenario, employed in attacking C4I facilities, SAM sites, vehicles, ships, fuel/ammunition dumps etc then I'm not sure why we're discussing this. It's not soley a bunker busting weapon. See Australia's weapons trials and how we employed it...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w73pbfRJwOs"]RAAF Conduct Weapons Trial with New F18 Hornets - YouTube[/nomedia]

That command of the air & sea would require defeat of the PLAF & PLAN. I don't see much use for JSOW in that battle. They'd want something longer range than JSOW for attacking Chinese air bases & SAM sites, unless the PLAF has been beaten in the air - & if so, how did the islands fall?

Your second example assumes Japan launching attacks in response to N. Korean missiles being fired over Japan. That won't happen. Japan would only bomb North Korea in response to a direct attack.
They might very well want something longer ranged than JSOW in the long term and Raytheon is working on that very thing. My point is that a country that has deliberately denied itself "offensive" weapons since WW2 seems to be nearing the point where it may be edging ever so slightly back towards re-acquiring them.

As it will be ready to go from day dot if they purchase the Super Hornet or JSF (which seems likely) it would be a good purchase for many reasons. Your own JDAM example shows they are willing to acquire foreign weapons when necessary.

I agree they won't be attacking North Korea first, I see that the acquisition of a standoff weapon capability as a direct response to further aggression (short of outright war) from the North Koreans at a "detente" level.

Japan already has a better maritime strike capability than JSOW can provide, integrated on current aircraft which will remain in service for long after the next type is operational.
I disagree. When they have ASM-3 in-service they should have a better weapon in-service, I would suggest the ASM-2 is a far less capable weapon than JSOW C1.

1. It's a subsonic weapon same as the JSOW C1.

2. It is not of a low observable design.

3. It is shorter ranged than the JSOW C1.

4. Like the JSOW it features an IIR seeker, data-link and INS guidance package. It does not feature a radar seeker or a GPS package, meaning it has no active terminal guidance mode, nor an ability to update it's own position and fly via waypoints other than by direct operator control. It must be "steered" onto a target in any final engagement, unless it has automatic target recognition capability, which has not been disclosed that I have seen. If it has, then it is still only equivalent to JSOW in that regard and lacks the GPS guidance package.

5. It has a smaller warhead and has less obvious land attack utility...

I doubt many would claim the ASM-2 a better weapon than the Harpoon Block II ASM, yet Harpoon Block II users are acquiring the moving maritime targetting enabled version of JSOW as their primary strike weapon.

It obviously has something going for it...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'm not saying that JSOW couldn't be useful, but what extra utility would it have that would justify buying it - specifically?

I see you're comparing JSOW-C1 (first launch August 2011) with ASM-2 (in service since 1996), not ASM-3 (first known captive flight 2006, first launch maybe 2007). You discuss the ASM-2 assuming that the published capabilities of the base model have remained constant, although there is known to have been at least one upgraded model - but with no published details that I can find.

You say JSOW has a longer range. Really? From high altitude, maybe - but not by a great deal. At low-medium altitudes, the powered ASM-2 will outrange JSOW easily.

You're arguing like a lawyer trying to prove a case, or a salesman trying to sell a product.

Which navies with Harpoon are buying it as their primary anti-ship weapon? Do any have experience of anti-ship missiles in combat? There are plenty which insist on having powered anti-ship weapons.

You list targets JSOW can be used against - fine. But you don't state why it is better to have it for those targets rather than other weapons which Japan already has, or is developing, or could buy, which is the point. Why would Japan want to use something with a large specialised anti-bunker warhead, or a submunitions dispenser, rather than other weapons?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not saying that JSOW couldn't be useful, but what extra utility would it have that would justify buying it - specifically?

I see you're comparing JSOW-C1 (first launch August 2011) with ASM-2 (in service since 1996), not ASM-3 (first known captive flight 2006, first launch maybe 2007). You discuss the ASM-2 assuming that the published capabilities of the base model have remained constant, although there is known to have been at least one upgraded model - but with no published details that I can find.
A little bit incorrect there. JSOW C1 was ordered in 2007, developed and went through IOT&E from 2008 - 2010 and was ordered under full rate production in October 2010. It is now the AGM-154 JSOW production standard, which is why I compared it to ASM-2, the current frontline JASDF air to surface missile. Whatever the capabilities of the ASM-3, it remains a developmental weapon not currently in-service. A bit pointless comparing a developed weapon against one still under development IMHO.

Should we add JSOW-ER's capabilities to the mix then?

I agree that ASM-2 has undergone an upgrade, whatever that may entail however, seems a bit speculative. I'd suggest, seeker, ECCM and data-link upgrades (2 way, re-targeting etc) are most likely but there is no literature that I've been able to find about it one way or the other. It seems likely however that no matter the scale of the ASM-2 upgrade, the JSOW retains several advantages, not least of which being it's LO airframe and Link 16 integration...

You say JSOW has a longer range. Really? From high altitude, maybe - but not by a great deal. At low-medium altitudes, the powered ASM-2 will outrange JSOW easily.
From published data? That is certainly the case. JSOW outranges it by at least 30k's under maximum range conditions.

You're arguing like a lawyer trying to prove a case, or a salesman trying to sell a product.
The only reason I'm arguing is because I see it likely that Japan will require such a weapon in future years, if for no other reason than politically "standing up" to others' "aggression" and the JSOW being a natural fit to either a Super Hornet or JSF acquisition if a standoff attack capability is sought. I see Shornet or JSF as the most likely aircraft sought by Japan and anti-ship and land attack being the primary roles of the F-4 Kai, that Japan is seeking to replace.

I see lots of punters arguing how superior the Typhoon is in air to air as it's edge in this competition. I too see it as a fine aircraft. I'm just not sure it's the best maritime attack and land strike platform in this competition and as Japan uses (and intends to continue) to use it's very large F-15 fleet in this role, I think the A2A capability of the 3 aircraft is somehow moot.

Which navies with Harpoon are buying it as their primary anti-ship weapon? Do any have experience of anti-ship missiles in combat? There are plenty which insist on having powered anti-ship weapons.
Never said anyone was buying it as their primary anti-ship weapon, but rather their primary strike weapon. It's a weapon that has a strong capability in each role. As the Falklands showed, un-powered weapons still have utility in the anti-ship role. Imagine how effective they might have been in an LO airframe launched from beyond the 7k horizon each side had to deal with...

You list targets JSOW can be used against - fine. But you don't state why it is better to have it for those targets rather than other weapons which Japan already has, or is developing, or could buy, which is the point. Why would Japan want to use something with a large specialised anti-bunker warhead, or a submunitions dispenser, rather than other weapons?
JSOW has a Mk 82 500lbs warhead and a BROACH warhead. it's likely therefore to be far more adept at surface targets as it is bunkers than a bog standard ASM warhead...

Besides, I never once argued JSOW should be acquired instead of or as a replacement for any other weapon. Only that it seems to me a more likely short term acquisition than any of the main powered standoff weapons currently on offer, for Japan's purposes...
 

fretburner

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #205
Maybe the Super Super Hornet would be a reality via the USN? US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet

The lockmart comment though, I think is legit...

"One problem with CFTs on the F/A-18 is that I'm not really sure it has the power," Aboulafia says. "If they put CFTs on the [Boeing] F-15 and [Lockheed] F-16, they're fast jets. But the Super Hornet is already pretty much slowest in class."


The only way I see the CFTs going forward is if the engines get an upgrade as well.
 

Belesari

New Member
From what I remember the plan was to have a engine upgrade for the International they proposed. More power not sure if that would be taken up by the extra weight of the CFTs or if they would have some more power to spare.

God the Navy needs something for their logistics. Something like the A-6 which could carry a lot of mass in fuel or weapons efficiently.

Maybe the Super Super Hornet would be a reality via the USN? US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet

The lockmart comment though, I think is legit...

"One problem with CFTs on the F/A-18 is that I'm not really sure it has the power," Aboulafia says. "If they put CFTs on the [Boeing] F-15 and [Lockheed] F-16, they're fast jets. But the Super Hornet is already pretty much slowest in class."


The only way I see the CFTs going forward is if the engines get an upgrade as well.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe the Super Super Hornet would be a reality via the USN? US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet

The lockmart comment though, I think is legit...

"One problem with CFTs on the F/A-18 is that I'm not really sure it has the power," Aboulafia says. "If they put CFTs on the [Boeing] F-15 and [Lockheed] F-16, they're fast jets. But the Super Hornet is already pretty much slowest in class."


The only way I see the CFTs going forward is if the engines get an upgrade as well.
Boeing naturally disagrees. Boeing has already announced that the CFT design they are planning is effectively a zero drag option, because of the location of the CFT's and the design will actually provide some lift, in addition to which any CFT design is going to be significantly less draggy than drop tanks and it's quite obvious the Super Hornet has sufficient power to carry external tanks even today...

Here's Boeing's video on the subject.

Aero India: Boeing's advanced Super Hornet upgrade options - YouTube
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Most CFTs can be designed so they are drag neutral at subsonic speeds. Go transonic and supersonic and its a different matter.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
God the Navy needs something for their logistics. Something like the A-6 which could carry a lot of mass in fuel or weapons efficiently.
A Shornet loaded with buddy tanks carries more fuel than an old KA-6.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
God the Navy needs something for their logistics. Something like the A-6 which could carry a lot of mass in fuel or weapons efficiently.
As much as I have a soft spot for the A-6, lets just remember that its combat capability and crew loading of that platform does not stack up against a Shornet

The efficiencies are stacked far far far ahead for the Shornet
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Most CFTs can be designed so they are drag neutral at subsonic speeds. Go transonic and supersonic and its a different matter.
I would imagine the big LERX's on the Super Hornet would limit the amount of airflow over the position the CFT's are to occupy on the Super Hornet?
 

fretburner

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #212
Most CFTs can be designed so they are drag neutral at subsonic speeds. Go transonic and supersonic and its a different matter.
Has Boeing published anything on these speeds -- transonic and supersonic?

Also, can they put those weapons pods on the wings as well, or just centerline?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Has Boeing published anything on these speeds -- transonic and supersonic?

Also, can they put those weapons pods on the wings as well, or just centerline?
Nope, only a salesman's pitch that the CFT's actually create lift, so conepsequently they are drag neutral...

No information on speeds etc.
 
Top