Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?

[Arthicrex]

Is it a given that the AAM-4 wouldn't fit on a Typhoon? It's diameter is arguably somewhat larger than that of the AMRAAM or Meteor, but who knows? Or do you have direct sources confirming this?
And why should it be necessary to fit a Japanese radar onto any aircraft to support that missile? AAM-4s are used by F-15Js as well and these are certainly not fitted with the J/APG-1!

Anyway maybe Meteor is an attractive option for the Japanese, somewhat smaller and lighter than the AAM-4 but with even greater range.

Typhoon's hardpoints are half-buried in order to reduce drag and RCS. AAM-4 will not fit in. As you said, If JASDF decides to acquire the Typhoon, it might be wise to just get Meteor as well, but Metor doesn't really have greater range than AAM-4.

J/ARG-1 is not a radar. It's a missile guidance device giving AAM-4 high ESM resistance.

 

[Scorpion82]

Typhoon's hardpoints are half-buried in order to reduce drag and RCS. AAM-4 will not fit in. As you said, If JASDF decides to acquire the Typhoon, it might be wise to just get Meteor as well, but Metor doesn't really have greater range than AAM-4.

As asked before is there an official confirmation that the AAM-4 doesn't fit? It's not THAT much bigger than an AMRAAM and depending on interface arrangement I think it's not necessarily problematic.
Wrt range I'm confident that the Meteor will offer a significant margin in performance, even more so if we consider the NEZ. A boost/sustainer rocket motor hardly matches the sustained high speed performance of a variable thrust air breathing motor as found on the Meteor. The publicly stated range figures might be identical, but they are very conservative for the Meteor.

J/ARG-1 is not a radar. It's a missile guidance device giving AAM-4 high ESM resistance.

Ok thanks for the info. I must admit that I'm not familiar with Japanese defence technology.

 

[Arthicrex]

As asked before is there an official confirmation that the AAM-4 doesn't fit? It's not THAT much bigger than an AMRAAM and depending on interface arrangement I think it's not necessarily problematic.

It's not an official confirmation, but it's coming from a defence contractor who worked with AAM-4.

The publicly stated range figures might be identical, but they are very conservative for the Meteor.

It is also conservative for AAM-4, and additionally the current version, AAM-4B has 20-40% greater range than the original AAM-4.

 

[swerve]

Typhoon's hardpoints are half-buried in order to reduce drag and RCS. AAM-4 will not fit in. As you said, If JASDF decides to acquire the Typhoon, it might be wise to just get Meteor as well, but Metor doesn't really have greater range than AAM-4. .

Can you give the measurements of AAM-4? What dimension causes the problem? Is it the diameter? The length appears to be the same as AIM-120.

Typhoon has four semi-recessed fuselage stations, and 9 other hardpoints. It may be possible to adapt the semi-recessed stations, or produce an interface, to enable the carriage of slightly larger missiles. Of course, larger AAMs would fit on the other hardpoints.

 

[rip]

Can you give the measurements of AAM-4? What dimension causes the problem? Is it the diameter? The length appears to be the same as AIM-120.

Typhoon has four semi-recessed fuselage stations, and 9 other hardpoints. It may be possible to adapt the semi-recessed stations, or produce an interface, to enable the carriage of slightly larger missiles. Of course, larger AAMs would fit on the other hardpoints.

I cannot find anything in the open sources that tells me that the AAM-4B is really that special of a weapon but of course that is just within the open sources and it might be a real winner. But even assuming that it is something special after all, which has great utility to the Japanese and fits tightly within their doctrine there is still something that does not make much since to me and perhaps someone out there can clarify. If the primary advantage of the AAM-4B is its great range and or possibly it’s rang and speed, I can see no reason to need to put it on any fighter type aircraft.

It could be put on patrol type aircraft which would then be cheaper, which then have longer ranges, and far longer loiter times. To use it, fire them on remote launch, using the targeting solutions available provided by ether AWACS, satellites, or even the F-18J via data link.

Large heavy missiles makes even the best fighters' slow, shorten their range and maneuverability, and increases their radar cross section. Why A fighter?

 

[Ananda]

What would much better mean to the Japanese?


We all know that they have the technical ability to develop their own state of the art systems and even complete aircraft but because they do not buy that many units and because they do not export, development is very expensive.

Personally, I still feel that Developing F-2 further will be more beneficial for Japanese industry than developing Shornet or Typhoon. I Don't see advantage of Shornet or Typhoon that can't be match by further developing F-2.
Hope Japan will still developed F-2 later on. Unless they can get F-22 (which close to impossible), developing F-2 further will provide them with a Fighter than can match any development Typhoon or Shornet can provide. F-2 already provide excellent base for 4.5 gen aircfrat, in which that's what they get by developing Shornet or Typhoon.

 

[surpreme]

The super hornet will be a good choice for Japan. They do have the skill to developed there own aircraft. But what holding them up from doing it? I could list number of reason why Japan should get the super hornet but I'm not going to do that. Sim like Japan have problems deciding what its going to do.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are a few reasons why the Super Hornet is a good choice.
Firstly it’s operational today. Depending on the reasons/urgency deals can be struck, Australia got the SH very quickly to fill a pressing need.
It used by the USN which operates F18’s, allowing shared stores, maintenance, parts, training etc. benefiting the US and Japan and local allies. The USN intends to use the F-18 even after the F-35 comes on line and as such it has a long life expectancy.
It has modern avionics and technology and it can be upgraded to fill the EW role if required. It is fairly unique in this role. Wiring can be fitted to any and all builds allowing conversion at a later date.
It is carrier capable. It could also be conceivable that Japanese F-18s could be decked or operate from a US, UK or French carrier. Allowing greater training and operational opportunities. Australia also operates this aircraft allowing easy basing of Australian aircraft to Japan or Japanese aircraft to Australia.
It is a 2 seater allowing options and capabilities that entails which may become important on several mission types.
It is twin engine, reliable, well supported and offers capabilities that EF and even the F-35(A) won’t offer conceivably at all (2 seats, immediate us carrier capability and specific EW variants).
Japan has not been afraid of operating more than 1 type of aircraft. So after purchasing the F-18 SH it may be able to acquire F-35/F-15/EF at a later date (or both/all) or choose to develop its own aircraft.
Australia has proven that it is possible to quickly build and adopt the F-18 SH to fill a capability gap. She may not be pretty, nor the fastest, nor the most agile. But is a proven and capable aircraft that fits into many situations.

 

[Arthicrex]

I cannot find anything in the open sources that tells me that the AAM-4B is really that special of a weapon but of course that is just within the open sources and it might be a real winner.

Links to the project assesment reports:
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/seisaku/results/13/jizen/honbun/19.pdf

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/seisaku/results/21/jigo/honbun/10.pdf

But even assuming that it is something special after all, which has great utility to the Japanese and fits tightly within their doctrine there is still something that does not make much since to me and perhaps someone out there can clarify. If the primary advantage of the AAM-4B is its great range and or possibly it’s rang and speed, I can see no reason to need to put it on any fighter type aircraft.

It could be put on patrol type aircraft which would then be cheaper, which then have longer ranges, and far longer loiter times. To use it, fire them on remote launch, using the targeting solutions available provided by ether AWACS, satellites, or even the F-18J via data link.

Large heavy missiles makes even the best fighters' slow, shorten their range and maneuverability, and increases their radar cross section. Why A fighter?

There are reasons to why fighter planes are used to intercept threats, and there are reasons to why the air forces around world are trying to equip those fighters with missiles with greater capabilities like AMRAAMs and Meteors. Loitering slow, patrol type aircraft equipped with AAMs would not work unless you knew exactly when and where the threats are coming beforehand. In that case, why bother investing in the aircrafts in the first place? Why don't you just invest everything in the SAMs?

I don't really wanna get into it because it's kinda off topic, but I think your idea has fundamental flaws.

 

[surpreme]

There are a few reasons why the Super Hornet is a good choice.
Firstly it’s operational today. Depending on the reasons/urgency deals can be struck, Australia got the SH very quickly to fill a pressing need.
It used by the USN which operates F18’s, allowing shared stores, maintenance, parts, training etc. benefiting the US and Japan and local allies. The USN intends to use the F-18 even after the F-35 comes on line and as such it has a long life expectancy.
It has modern avionics and technology and it can be upgraded to fill the EW role if required. It is fairly unique in this role. Wiring can be fitted to any and all builds allowing conversion at a later date.
It is carrier capable. It could also be conceivable that Japanese F-18s could be decked or operate from a US, UK or French carrier. Allowing greater training and operational opportunities. Australia also operates this aircraft allowing easy basing of Australian aircraft to Japan or Japanese aircraft to Australia.
It is a 2 seater allowing options and capabilities that entails which may become important on several mission types.
It is twin engine, reliable, well supported and offers capabilities that EF and even the F-35(A) won’t offer conceivably at all (2 seats, immediate us carrier capability and specific EW variants).
Japan has not been afraid of operating more than 1 type of aircraft. So after purchasing the F-18 SH it may be able to acquire F-35/F-15/EF at a later date (or both/all) or choose to develop its own aircraft.
Australia has proven that it is possible to quickly build and adopt the F-18 SH to fill a capability gap. She may not be pretty, nor the fastest, nor the most agile. But is a proven and capable aircraft that fits into many situations.

Thanks you got right to the point. I really see the benefits of having the super hornet more than ever now.

 

[swerve]

There are a few reasons why the Super Hornet is a good choice.
Firstly it’s operational today.

Also true of Typhoon.

It is a 2 seater allowing options and capabilities that entails which may become important on several mission types.
It is twin engine, reliable, well supported and offers capabilities that EF and even the F-35(A) won’t offer conceivably at all (2 seats, ...).

Also true of Typhoon. Comes in single & 2-seater versions, like F-18E & F-18F.

Japan has not been afraid of operating more than 1 type of aircraft. So after purchasing the F-18 SH it may be able to acquire F-35/F-15/EF at a later date (or both/all) or choose to develop its own aircraft..

Equally applicable to Typhoon.

Other reasons for picking F-18:
It has jet engines.
It has a radar.
It can fire missiles.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-18 is FULLY operational & battle tested with a large capability set , ie A2G, A2A, ASW, etc. That cannot be said of the Typhoon (no operational AESA, very limited A2G and no ASW).

 

[Scorpion82]

ASW is nothing which couldn't be added to a Typhoon either if required and by the time the JASDF wants to introduce its new fighter an AESA radar for the Typhoon should be readily available.
It's more interesting what are the operational requirements for the new fighter. The JASDF isn't requiring comprehensive AG capabilities at all, at best ASW a role currently well filled by the F-2. The JASDF appears to look for a fighter first and foremost otherwise it wouldn't have considered the F-22 for such a long time, thus all this talk about EW variants and comprehensive AG capabilities is more or less meaningless in the Japanese context. I also don't think that Japanese SH's would operate from USN carriers at all, the Japanese Navy has no carriers of that kind and pilots couldn't be sufficiently trained either, except they would regularly embark on USN carriers. But why should they? Most if not all of the arguments put forward for the SH here are meaningless in a Japanese context. What makes more sense is the interoperability with the US military, common logistics, spares, support etc. The rest is pretty much a no-brainer.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It is carrier capable. It could also be conceivable that Japanese F-18s could be decked or operate from a US, UK or French carrier.

Not going to happen in the foreseeable future, or the mid-term future. Japan just isn't ready to get involved in that sort of conflict.

And as has been described, the Typhoon is already operational. And it has a lot more growth scope than the Super Hornet.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If they choose the F-18 I think that instead of spending the money to integrate their weapons directly into the F-18 that they should partner with Boeing and bring UAI to the SH. Currently the UAI program is an USAF led program (F-15E, F-16, B-2, UAVs, and F-35).

This would have several benefits.
1. It would shield their weapon's capabilities from outside discovery.
2. They could develop and integrate newer weapons & pods and deploy them quickly without having to go through an extensive block upgrade program.
3. Boeing could use this as a bonus for extra sales potential.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Also true of Typhoon.

Sorry I didn't know this was the Typhoon love thread. : Not all the F-18 competitors have all of these features. Honestly the typhoon wasn't what I was pitching my post against. If you read it carefully there may be an argument for F-18 *AND* Typhoons as a strike/fighter mix.

It has jet engines.

Yes, two proven engines, able to be operated with US forces. Tying into US supplies, US training, US capabilities. Operates in hot and cold climates in remote harsh locations (carriers) with specific high operational requirements. Given the US operates a carrier out of Japan, stations thousands of personel in Japan and regionally (100,000's ?), thats a big advantage.

It has a radar.

And what a radar it is, its one of the key advantages over the Typhoon. Its has next generation performance in comparison to that punny limited thing on the typhoon.

It can fire missiles.

Good point, more importantly it can fire US missiles and ordance the Japanese have and would like to get. Japan can also source from US stock piles and suppliers which can supply much greater numbers than european stocks and piles. Japan could have access to forward stocked munitions right on its doorstep.

Not going to happen in the foreseeable future, or the mid-term future. Japan just isn't ready to get involved in that sort of conflict

Your right, it would take years of training, policy development, closer working relationship, equipment purchases, etc to make that happen.

 

[fretburner]

Will the Super Hornets eventually get F414 EPE/EDE Engines? Those will be used by India's Tejas right?

 

[ADMk2]

Not going to happen in the foreseeable future, or the mid-term future. Japan just isn't ready to get involved in that sort of conflict.

And as has been described, the Typhoon is already operational. And it has a lot more growth scope than the Super Hornet.

The Typhoon is operational in only a few roles. It is not operational in an anti-shipping role and to the best of my knowledge has not had any anti-ship missile integrated.

SImilarly the full range of air to ground capabilities. RAF Typhoons still require Litening equipped Tornados to lase for them (as witnessed in Libya at present) and air to air is the current focus of most users.

A full range of air to ground weapons and capabilities remains to be integrated with the aircraft. But no doubt others can give a more accurate appraisal of this situation.

Regards,

AD

 

[Scorpion82]

And what a radar it is, its one of the key advantages over the Typhoon. Its has next generation performance in comparison to that punny limited thing on the typhoon.

That point is somewhat moot as stated before as by the time Japan will introduce a new fighter the Typhoon will have an AESA radar readily available. The current situation doesn't equate that in 2017!

Good point, more importantly it can fire US missiles and ordance the Japanese have and would like to get. Japan can also source from US stock piles and suppliers which can supply much greater numbers than european stocks and piles. Japan could have access to forward stocked munitions right on its doorstep.

True, but it's not like Typhoon can't use AMRAAMs and stuff.

Your right, it would take years of training, policy development, closer working relationship, equipment purchases, etc to make that happen.

And that's not that likely from the current point of view. The JASDF or Japanese military in general is largely a defence orientated force, not an offensive one. Why should the Japanese embark aboard USN carriers at all?

@ADMk2

SImilarly the full range of air to ground capabilities. RAF Typhoons still require Litening equipped Tornados to lase for them (as witnessed in Libya at present)

That's not correct, while Tornados and Typhoon are operated in pairs over Libya, Typhoons are also designating targets themselves and for Tornados and the other way round. This capability is operationally available since July 2008. Dunno why people come up with such claims, just because Tornados lased targets for Typhoons in some missions.

 

[fretburner]

That point is somewhat moot as stated before as by the time Japan will introduce a new fighter the Typhoon will have an AESA radar readily available. The current situation doesn't equate that in 2017!

But then this AESA will still be a generation or two behind?