F-18 Advanced Hornet

[John Fedup]

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.

 

[ADMk2]

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...

 

[the road runner]

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.

 

[StobieWan]

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

 

[John Fedup]

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.

 

[RobWilliams]

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.

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.

 

[t68]

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.

 

[OPSSG]

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

There is a view that its not the smartest way to have effective force balance and management - and the Malays themselves in their more circumspect moments would probably agree that the intention of splitting their procurement is not the smartest way to manage a tight budget

In Australias case very compelling arguments were made about single platform type main combatants - but unfort RAAF wasn't listened to and Govt blinked.

admittedly there are now some good reasons for interim retention of Shornets and Growlers, but the additional buys were not something that made some happy.

There is a view that the second tranche of Shornets/Growlers has screwed the budget for other critical requirements for the next 15 years

 

[StobieWan]

I have a question. Are the Malaysians ridiculous for operating multiple fighter types? And they are currently a potential sales target for the Euro-fighter Typhoon (the sale being chased by BAE).

Note: According to Flight Global, the Malaysians operate 13x Hawk 208, 10x Mig29s, 8x F-18Ds, 18x Su-30MKMs and 7-10 F-5s.

I'd say they were shouldering a pretty huge chunk of costs to do with keeping all those types in service and maintained - what's their availability rate out of that lot? I'm wondering if there's a lot of aircraft sitting in hangars, waiting for bits or maintainers.


As I said before, wrt to Canada, the idea that running E/F18 + F35 will be cheaper than running the same sized fleet of F35 is difficult to swallow. Two different spares paths, two sets of maintainers courses, plus the overheads of type conversions etc - unless F35 turns out to cost a *lot* more than currently thought to buy, then the TOC for one common fleet is bound to be lower.

 

[RobWilliams]

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.

I would definitely go as far as to say that their logistical costs would be reduced by a good amount if rather than operating packets of different types of aircraft they operated a single type for the bulk of their needs, yes.

Why bother funding several different types of spares/maintenance/training streams for such a small number of aircraft? To me, that setup does sound bonkers. It's no problem if you don't mind having a bucket of money with more holes in it than is necessary, but if you're looking for the most cost efficient approach then it's certainly not a shining example to follow.

WRT MiG29, on paper it only shows a part of the story, IIRC the original order was for 18 MiG29's and AFAIK 2 of those have crashed and another 8 have been cannibalized for spare parts to support an airworthy fleet of 8.

 

[t68]

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

Sorry GF wasn’t referring to the current operational F-22 actually talking about the medium bomber project which was canceled following the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Lockheed Martin FB-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...logy-could-be-applied-to-fb-22-bomber-182020/

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry GF wasn’t referring to the current operational F-22 actually talking about the medium bomber project which was canceled following the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Lockheed Martin FB-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fair enough - but an F-22 of any shape or form was flatly rejected by RAAF as not providing force effectiveness - and more to the point, a good way to dislocate RAAF force balance for no redeemable .benefit

 

[Toptob]

First:

Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
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.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-18-advanced-hornet-12727-3/#ixzz2kSUgYqkl

This topic has been discussed at length in several different threads (not to piss on your remark) and what that taught me was that this force build came in to being through corruption and political soap opera's. Different politicians and generals championing different machines at different points in time to get bribes and such. I don't believe a country with any sort of long term plan for its defense would operate 5 types of front line fighters (3 of which are supposed to be high end).

There is another bone I have to pick, basically with most of the participants in LO vs no LO discussions. Time and again I read about this 'first day capability'. I have an issue with this, because it supposes that a sustained conflict is impossible. Now riddle me this: if nation (or alliance) X would get into a conflict with nation Y that is of such a disposition that it makes LO a necessity. How do you suppose this conflict will take a shape where the LO is only necessary for several days of conflict? This seems very arrogant to me (from the perspective of military planners) and also short sighted!

If (God forbids) there were to be a confrontation in for instance the South China sea (ROK) or in or near the Korean peninsula. How would that conflict take such a shape that one side or the other would gain air superiority to such an extend so as to negate the need for LO? The way I see it, if (for instance of coarse :O) China where to field several regiments of high end LO/VLO fighters mixed with J-11 and J-10's versus available western resources in the region. Would the attrition rates be so high that one or both sides would run out of aircraft? I think not, so IMHO LO/VLO would be valuable far into the conflict. Therefore I think we shouldn't discount the efforts of boeing to stealthify the F-18 or F-15 for that matter. Plus I think those CFT's look wicked and wouldn't they open up hardpoints that would otherwise be used for bags?

Back to the 'day one capability', any other adversaries that could warrant LO to be necessary would not be that serious and for an overwhelming force like NATO or the US it wouldn't pose that much of a problem. Plus they could soak the attrition, although that wouldn't be a very popular prospect at home. So to conclude, as I see it the only situations where this 'day one capability' would be absolutely necessary we wouldn't need it for just one day!

Are these stupid thoughts? PS: I think the stealth hornet would be a great asset IF existing hornets could be easily adopted. I think adopting the tanks would be a great idea in any case. Why don't they have them yet?!?!?

 

[the road runner]

First:Therefore I think we shouldn't discount the efforts of boeing to stealthify the F-18 or F-15 for that matter.

Boeing has done a very good marketing campaign to make people think their 4+generation offering of planes is a true LO aircraft. Its far from it ,sure they have minimised certain areas of their planes to be less detectable in certain areas.To call the F-18 Advanced hornet or F15 silent eagle a LO or VLO would be a very big call.

Marketing is a wonderful tool

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing has done a very good marketing campaign to make people think their 4+generation offering of planes is a true LO aircraft. Its far from it ,sure they have minimised certain areas of their planes to be less detectable in certain areas.To call the F-18 Advanced hornet or F15 silent eagle a LO or VLO would be a very big call.

Marketing is a wonderful tool

True, the SH upgrades don't make it a real LO jet but the improvements are still worthwhile as the USN and Australia will be using their Superhornets and Growlers for quite awhile yet.

 

[Toptob]

Boeing has done a very good marketing campaign to make people think their 4+generation offering of planes is a true LO aircraft. Its far from it ,sure they have minimised certain areas of their planes to be less detectable in certain areas.To call the F-18 Advanced hornet or F15 silent eagle a LO or VLO would be a very big call.

Marketing is a wonderful tool

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-18-advanced-hornet-12727-3/#ixzz2kYTj8eWJ

I never said the F-15 or F-18 upgrades made them the bees knees. And its definitely not an alternative to investing into a true LO/VLO machine! However, as you could surmise from the context I made that remark in, that is not a sufficient reason to discount the efforts of Boeing. I think it would be more pertinent to see these as the latest valuable upgrades (in a long line of upgrades) to a set of very valuable platforms the operator(s) cannot afford to effectively replace as of yet.

That my dear road runner has nothing to do with marketing. I do agree with you that the marketing efforts Boeing is putting into these projects is a last ditch effort into keeping the production lines open. Because there is preciously little left for them after they close, seeing that the C17 line is closing soon too.

 

[StobieWan]

There is another bone I have to pick, basically with most of the participants in LO vs no LO discussions. Time and again I read about this 'first day capability'. I have an issue with this, because it supposes that a sustained conflict is impossible. Now riddle me this: if nation (or alliance) X would get into a conflict with nation Y that is of such a disposition that it makes LO a necessity. How do you suppose this conflict will take a shape where the LO is only necessary for several days of conflict? This seems very arrogant to me (from the perspective of military planners) and also short sighted!

Mmm.."First day" refers to the use of F35 with no externals to degrade and peel back the enemy assets, it's not to suggest that conflict can't carry on for more than a short period of time. If the F35 (which is the main platform I can think of that fits this "first day" metaphor) has to go on attacking into the teeth of an intact enemy defence, then it can keep on doing that, as long as there's fuel and pilots I should think. Soon as the big radars are down and the sam sites are all on fire, strap on some pylons and take in a ton of weapons more.