There was some good reading there. I enjoyed the breakdown of some of the F-18F block II cost and sustainment. Well done. Informative.
I did find this in error though...
ADBR-E research indicates the F/A-18F B2 is significantly more combat effective than the F-15E Block II - because of its designed-in stealth capability - which is regarded as “tactically significant” [20] in head on combat aspects, as well as the overall generational
improvement in the aircraft’s radar and combat management systems.
For the Super, 1 meter squared at 0db isn't stealth. Granted there is nothing L.O. about an F-15, the F-15 makes up for the difference with onboard fuel and speed. What the L.O. appliances on the Super give you is a solid base line for the self-protection gear on board Super ( and even more advantage with Block II Super because of the better avionics vs earlier Super LOT number avionics), to not have to work so hard and know when to do what effort in jamming/spoofing for self protection including knowing what it's exposure is to different threats specific to aircraft configuration/stores. And what L.O. it has is mostly on the front aspect. If anything makes Super Block II really low observable it is the relationship between it's excellent passive detection gear ( which it uses better because it is integrated into the system better) and of course how the self-protection gear, passive sensors and APG-79 all work as a team. Similar to F-22. I would wager many AMRAAM shots from Super could be done passive. That is what makes it scary. The Boeing advert using the word "stealth" makes nice, hoping people don't know those things and will believe it, also allowing the sales force to hide behind classified data pertaining to L.O. "Tactically significant" would really have to be justified. I would say "tactically helpful" in the way it is tactically helpful for a B-1 L.O. signature vs. weight of ECM gear on board. Every ounce of weight savings helps. B-1, like Super are easy examples of how L.O. tech enhancement improves on board ECM. This relationship goes even further when you consider a JSF is even more survivable with a G model Super helping it. The relationship is almost exactly the same, just that the JSF has better L.O.
F-15K has already been cleared for drop with not only Harpoon but SLAM-ER.
Don't have a TacMan in front of me but the one of the may ways Super kept development costs low is the spiral plan from which it came. They didn't blow a bunch of money right away clearing all kinds of weapons under the sun although if they had the cash they could have. Only the ones needed by the Navy. Super will carry a wide variety of weapons.... just not right away. Example JASSM captive carry has been done but was slowed a bit when Navy a few years ago dropped their participation in the JASSM program thinking SLAM-ER was enough and oh btw they have tons of really long range Tomahawks on call from ships and subs. . I am sure real JASSM clearance on Super will happen, er.. if the JASSM program doesn't get in even worse trouble than it already is. Where F-15E/K would come up short is being able to only carry 2 JASSM, however the Tac Man for JASSM on Super when it is all said and done may show only 2 JASSMs because of clearance issues ( those hardpoints being close) when you consider the rubber meets the road on dropping and a flying JASSM and not just captive carry. Don't know yet but I guess we will all see. Then even if you could carry 4 JASSM on Super that is a lot of elongated drag on 4 toed out hardpoints where you may prefer having drop tanks to help with the strike. The fuel consumption/tanking required would be interesting to see. The point being that if one is to get into a contest of who can carry what in a F-15E/K v Super comp at this date it wouldn't be pretty, including the higher weight on some E/K pylons. More about Super weapons clearance: When considering Super and weapons you have to consider a bunch of things like problematic clearance. The toed out hardpoints and SUU-79 plyons don't work and play well with all weapons configs, because of clearance issues and those stations are a bit close together. You also have other things to consider in that when carrying the ATFLIR on station 5 on Super, many USN people leave the drop tank off of station 4 (inboard left wing) because it can block the field of view of the ATFLIR on an attack or look-see when banking. That is why you see USN carry of ATFLIR sometimes a drop tank on centerline, inboard right wing, no drop tank on the inboard left wing station 4 and instead they will put a PGM on station 4 because they don't want the tank blocking the view. Not trying to knock a proven weapon system with this, althought it speaks to where the Super came from in a rushed development spiral with a gun to their head to watch costs. The costs were of course why they went with the toed out center and inboard stations and canted outboard hardpoints to address weapons clearance issues. This was first discovered in wind tunnel testing before any weapons drop flight testing. Scaled down models of the plane and weapons showed weapons bumping into weapons and fuselage in different configs with the original straight hard point design. They considered a wing redesign but decided toeing out and canting hardpoints/pylons was cheaper. This cut the range down some and created other things like vibration issues of hanging weapons vs life of certain weapons.
This is also off and doesn't match up to how E is used in ops..
twice the number of tankers to support an ‘Eagle’ fleet compared to F/A-18Fs, or would need to program into mission planning extended time wasted by the capability limiter of longer in-flight refuellings.
This looks good at first but incomplete in the whole tanking mix..., the higher fuel flow of a boom is significant, also, a F-15E/K will go longer with less refuelings. 800-900-1000 mile radius depending on what you hang, using less tanker resources by available tanking airframe/fraction. How the Super buddy tanking combined with big tankers, works out is about 8 or so hours with 3 tankings. This as mentioned above will depend on if you want ATFLIR on the mission and possible no drop tank on station 4 of Super in that ATFLIR config. Range being whatever. This link gives you an idea of long Strike Eagle missions. It isn't the complete article:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7574
I have the article but that was the only free link from the Atlantic Monthly Article "The Kabul-ki Dance" I could find.
Sorry. Not trying to be overly critical. Most of the down checks on the advanced Strike Eagle for RAAF service put down in that piece were valid. I am not endorsing one for RAAF service. However on combat ability
alone, except for carrier landings, a Strike Eagle is more powerful and it has some additional speed, fuel to play with for egress and setup. Pull the conformals off which is the preferred test pilot fun ride and the way it was demo'd on one of the flights in the Korea competition and you have an over powered monster good for sitting alert where your time from brake release to intercept is quick. Expensive, but very very capable.
