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; Originally Posted by D_H_S The advanced Hornet also has the stealth weapons pod that can be attached as needed, and ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 21st, 2014   #76
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,912
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
The advanced Hornet also has the stealth weapons pod that can be attached as needed, and detached as needed. The US navy will be purchasing the advanced super hornet and no doubt will be used as an air superiority weapons platform as well. I fail to see why we need an overly priced aircraft that has raised a lot of eyebrows as to whether it can operate in Arctic conditions. So what is the actual advantage to having a 490 million dollar aircraft that if history repeats itself will rise in production cost, not to even mention the maintenance costs and midlife refurbishments, and avionics updates. The money saved will go along way to keep Canada in the air for regular training missions and international peacekeeping missions. The policies and goals of Canada are different than that of our Allies, our military needs to uphold those goals, we are not in the habit of interfering with other countries and there internal conflicts, and if the time comes when we need to, I'm sure that the option to purchase more tech will still be on the table.
Firstly: PARAGRAPHS!

Like this.

The weapons pod you're referring to doesn't as yet exist - I'm sure it'll be lovely when it's finished but right now, it's powerpoint.

Price difference - by the time you add in the LITENING pod to get the equivalent to EOTS, you're into something not that far from the F35A - and the unit price for an F35 is nowhere near and never has ever been near $430 million - never. Most expensive F35's were the LRIP one birds which were $200m or near enough - they're currently down to $115m or so.

I'll add the observation that the workshare for F35 is far more favourable than the offsets the Canadians may negotiate...

Make a decision by all means, but do it with the correct reasons and facts to hand.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2014   #77
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
King Wally's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
The advanced Hornet also has the stealth weapons pod that can be attached as needed, and detached as needed. The US navy will be purchasing the advanced super hornet and no doubt will be used as an air superiority weapons platform as well. I fail to see why we need an overly priced aircraft that has raised a lot of eyebrows as to whether it can operate in Arctic conditions. So what is the actual advantage to having a 490 million dollar aircraft that if history repeats itself will rise in production cost, not to even mention the maintenance costs and midlife refurbishments, and avionics updates. The money saved will go along way to keep Canada in the air for regular training missions and international peacekeeping missions. The policies and goals of Canada are different than that of our Allies, our military needs to uphold those goals, we are not in the habit of interfering with other countries and there internal conflicts, and if the time comes when we need to, I'm sure that the option to purchase more tech will still be on the table.
Unfortunately my friend I would say you have been exposed to inaccurate information regarding the F-35. Not your fault, you probably picked it up from unreliable sources, often in mainstream media sadly. The Unit cost you quote there is off the scale, if you look at the actual current F-35 prices floating around, and compare them with recent SH/Growler purchases (say by the RAAF) and you will see the difference in bottom line investment isn't huge. It's more a % difference then anything exponential like you imagine. At the end of the day no matter what direction Canada goes it will cost a hell of a lot of money (to not only buy but to run and maintain each year), so you may as well do it right, in my humble opinion.

And that leads to the question of "if I am going to spend X Billion to stand up a fighter fleet for the next 30 years what do I want it to be able to do, today, in 10 years, in 20 years etc".

There's no secret in the fact that developers from Russia and China for example will be able to field and will start exporting (often to shady characters) 'cute and fluffy' low observable 5th gen fighters at some stage in the future. Certainly within the 30 odd year lifespan of this Canadian fighter investment cycle. Right now the JSF program presents a clear edge on the competition, but it's going to get competitive in the future and I have no doubt much work will be put into continuously upgrading and improving the F-35 in the years to come to ensure that edge is retained (much like how the F-16's of 1984 are a mile away from the F-16's of 2014). Does Canada want to come along for that ride? Well that's a decision for your government to make really, but I do know which way I'll be hoping my own Government focuses!
King Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2014   #78
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,874
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
...stealth missions are cute and fluffy and would be very prestigious
Please make a better effort to understand the intentions behind certain capabilities, such as low observable qualities. It has nothing to do with prestige, nor is it a "cute and fluffy" capability, and comments to that effect appear dreadfully lacking in knowledge. I don't mean this in a personal sense but I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about.

Here, read this small article written by gf0012-aust, it may help your understanding:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ai...tory-lo-10856/
Bonza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #79
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Threads:
Aviation week, the article is called "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades"

You may want to ask dudly Dr where he received his information from, I also noticed that no one is calling him on it, perhaps you can be the first. Sorry I can't post images or links until I have posted at least 10 posts, you'll have to manually link.
D_H_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #80
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,194
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
Aviation week, the article is called "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades"

You may want to ask dudly Dr where he received his information from, I also noticed that no one is calling him on it, perhaps you can be the first. Sorry I can't post images or links until I have posted at least 10 posts, you'll have to manually link.
Real simple. Two different generations of aircraft. The F35 is 5th generation; the F18E/F, SAAB Gripen E, F15SG are 4+ generation aircraft. The F35 has capabilities that none of those other aircraft have or will have. Now if you need to read the following: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ai...members-12457/ It will answer some of your questions and give you a good grounding before you start googling F35 stuff which will educate you.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just donít know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #81
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,418
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
Aviation week, the article is called "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades"

You may want to ask dudly Dr where he received his information from, I also noticed that no one is calling him on it, perhaps you can be the first. Sorry I can't post images or links until I have posted at least 10 posts, you'll have to manually link.
The source you provided explains the misconceptions and inaccuracies within your posts. Aviation week have demonstrated a distinct bias against the F-35 program since its inception and any article they run relating to it needs to be read with that in mind. If you read their old stuff on the program and compare it to facts available today you will see how far off the mark they have been.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #82
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,912
Threads:
Probably worth remembering the F35 isn't just a one trick bird when it comes to combat - there's a bunch of other stuff it does as well as being LO - sensor fusion is a big deal.

Recall that there's a six fixed camera system pointing in all directions around the aircraft plus the integrated EOTS system, all pushed into the pilots field of vision via the helmet. That means the pilot can be alerted to threats, respond to them very naturally, and cue weapons just by looking in the direction of the target (even if that's through the bottom of the aircraft)

Supposing your hypothetical Canadian soldier is nose to nose with an enemy force, scattered through a series of buildings in a rapidly evolving contact and needs fire support right now? Which would you rather have overhead? The aircraft tied straight into blue force tracker, with a live image of everything available from JSTARS, or the one where the pilot is looking out the window trying to work out which side of the street the good guys are on?
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #83
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,823
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
Aviation week, the article is called "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades"

You may want to ask dudly Dr where he received his information from, I also noticed that no one is calling him on it, perhaps you can be the first. Sorry I can't post images or links until I have posted at least 10 posts, you'll have to manually link.
Well, here is some help for you. Here is the link to the article, "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades".

Given your apparent take on the article, I would suggest seeing an optometrist, you might need glasses for reading. Or if you already wear glasses your prescription might have changed. Or they might need cleaning.

Basically the article does not support any of the assertions you have made.

LO weapons pods are in development, but not deployed yet. Their primary usage will be to minimize the negative LO/Sig management impact of externals carriage upon aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. They should (if also developed or compatible with 4.5 Gen fighters) help reduce the negative impact the odd shapes of external stores have on the RCS of legacy fighters like the Super Hornet, etc. However, even a 'clean' Superhornet operating under EMCOMM is believed to orders of magnitude easier to detect than a 'clean' F-35 operating under similar rules.

The article basically explains that Boeing 'expects' more Super Hornets will get ordered, but also plans to have the production rate for them slowed to about half the current production rate within about two years, just to keep the production line open.

The article also quoted the Boeing VP for the Super Hornet, who would naturally (his job and current position literally depends on this aircraft) put the best face forward on the prospects for 'his' aircraft. Even with that in mind, it was mentioned that a half-dozen countries were potentially interested in the Super Hornet, but it was specifically mentioned that no announcements were expected in the near term, and that even if new orders are placed for the Super Hornet, production is still most likely going to be slowed.

Such a slow-down is a tacit acknowledgement that the aircraft will soon be surpassed by a newer design. Which in turn raises the question of the long-term viability and survivability of the design. From an airframe perspective, a SHornet ordered now and properly maintained should have sufficient airframe flight hours to see it safely flying around 2040 or so. This assumes an order placed now gets delivered by Boeing in 2015 and has about 25 years of flying. However, the expectation is that the flying conditions in a contested or hostile air battlespace will be significantly different before then (IIRC starting sometime around 2025-2030 or so). Sufficient that current 4th Gen fighters would not be 'survivable' except in uncontested airspace and where ground-based threats have been suppressed or destroyed.

Given that a new fighter aircraft purchase is likely to see two+ decades of service before replacement, would it make sense to purchase a design when the writing on the wall is already indicating a short and/or limited future.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #84
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,912
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_H_S View Post
Aviation week, the article is called "F-35 Gains More Market; Rivals Push Upgrades"

You may want to ask dudly Dr where he received his information from, I also noticed that no one is calling him on it, perhaps you can be the first. Sorry I can't post images or links until I have posted at least 10 posts, you'll have to manually link.
What does that article say that supports any of the things you've listed? It's a fairly positive article on how Boeing is a bit in disarray given it's lost the SK bid for it's next fighter (to the F35) and then goes on to mention that a couple of previously reported issues with the F35 have been resolved.

Whoopee..

Oh, wait, you're not referencing the article? You're referencing an unreferenced comment *on* the article. Ho..kay..

I shall call Mr Dudly on the price.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip...act-agreements


That's your "off the shelf" price for low rate initial production jets purchased under contract, minus the engine and some other GFE (government furnished equipment)

LRIP 7

"∑ 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet
∑ 7 F-35B STOVL - $104 million/jet
∑ 4 F-35C CV - $116 million/jet"

Those figures are of public record.

I'm not wasting my time creating an account with Avleak, just to rebut an unsourced and provably untrue claim that the F35 costs $618 dollars, just like I'm not signing up to VINE to argue the toss with people who claim vaccines don't work, or any flat earth folk out there to persuade them the earth is round.

EDIT : I can feel my IQ decreasing as I read the comments on that article..let's take a couple:

" The USAF won't fly single-engined F-16s over Arctic ice"

Bzztt..192nd air wing operates F16 north of the Arctic circle. The Norwegians might want to differ as well..

"The USMC will declare an IOC on now an essentially unarmed F-35 - it won't even be able to drop iron bombs for at least it's first year of service."

I doubt the USMC cares about dropping iron bombs - no-one else does - they're going IOC with GBU-12, JDAM and SDB is either here or coming RSN.

"This program has disaster written all over it. Low-tech numbers will overwhelm it. A couple GPS sat problems and we have the most expensive iron bombs on the planet."

Right, so there are no weapons available with inertial guidance or a second or third mode seeker then? Does this bloke know SDB II comes with a tri mode seeker for instance? One assumes not.

Last edited by StobieWan; January 22nd, 2014 at 06:32 AM. Reason: Further spleen to vent
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #85
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,418
Threads:
I remember it being common knowledge that Western equipment was vastly inferior to Eastern block gear and that the West was extremely fortunate that the USSR never attacked. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait and the rest is history.

Basically western, in particular US, gear was found to have been greatly underestimated and eastern stuff very much overrated. 125mm sabot failing to penetrate Abrams or Challenger MBTs while rifled and smooth bore 120mm was dispatching T-72 at much greater than expected ranges. Is there any point going into what western airpower did the Iraqs IADS, probably no since they have done it again and again around the world since.

Its the same old story, commentator invent problems and slag off against equipment and can only proven wrong when the proverbial hits the fan.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #86
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,912
Threads:
At least one of the current F35 critics, Sprey, is on record as having said on the eve of GW1, that the death toll on the coalition side would be enormous as all their aircraft were fragile, unreliable and too complex. The F15 then went 102-0 for kills.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014   #87
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
Right, so there are no weapons available with inertial guidance or a second or third mode seeker then? Does this bloke know SDB II comes with a tri mode seeker for instance? One assumes not.
IIRC Paveway IV is due to fly with anti GPS jamming equipment later this year, the kit can be fitted to Paveway II too.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014   #88
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,337
Threads:
Boeing reports 2016 as the end of the F-18 if no new orders are received. At present the USN's unfunded 2015 request for 22 Growlers is the only opportunity left.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2014   #89
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,667
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
I remember it being common knowledge that Western equipment was vastly inferior to Eastern block gear and that the West was extremely fortunate that the USSR never attacked. ....
I don't remember anything like that, & I grew up paying close attention to the Cold War, because if it went hot I'd have a good chance of being fried, living as I did between Strike Command HQ & a base with nuclear-armed strike aircraft, & then moving to a few miles downwind of an atom bomb factory when I started working. Friends of mine were in the forces, facing the Warsaw Pact in Germany.

I remember it being 'common knowledge' in some quarters that western equipment was vastly superior, & the only reason the VPAF shot down any US aircraft was the restrictive RoEs of the USA over Vietnam. I remember great shock among many people when the Israeli air force took significant losses from SAMs in 1973, because they'd assumed that Soviet SAMs were junk.

I also remember it being said, by more sober-minded people, that perhaps our superior quality equipment would be enough to counter Warsaw Pact numerical advantages.

More recently, I've read armour specialists who now know what Soviet tanks were actually like, saying that they were better than was thought in the 1960s & 1970s.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2014   #90
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: san diego
Posts: 4
Threads:
When an F-18 Hornet goes up against a Formula One race car, who will win in this speed showdown?

This adrenaline frenzy was hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force at a base near Melbourne, just ahead of the Australian Grand Prix this week.

Reigning F1 champions Red Bull lined up their latest driver, Aussie native Daniel Ricciardo, alongside a the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet for the spectacular drag race, according to the Daily Mail.

Letís be clear, jets and cars canít really race each other, although itís always awesome to see the stunt. When starting from a dead stop on a runway, almost any car with at least six cylinders could get a head start on the 16-ton fighter aircraft.

But when the F-18′s two massive jet engines kicked in, blasting roughly 24,000 pounds of thrust per engine, the Formula One race car ó with its V6 1.6l turbo engine boosted by an electric motor ó didnít stand a chance.
spaceface is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.