# The Canadian Air Force's Future



## Catch22 (Feb 24, 2010)

As most of you will know, Canada's combat aircraft fleet consists of CF-18s, which are now up to F-18C/D standard. We don't deploy them outside of Canada much, but as they are aging, I'm wondering what people's thoughts (who are more knowledgeable than I) are on whether or not we should consider replacing them before the F-35 comes into being. We are a "Level 3" Partner in the project, though I'm not sure what exactly that means, and are projected to contribute between US$4.8 billion and US$6.8 billion (from Wiki). Do you think we'll end up even buying the F-35, or should we go for something cheaper like the Gripen?


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 24, 2010)

I don't know what you'll end up buying
but I bet it won't be the Gripen; I can't see Canada defending her extensive borders easily with such a (comparatively) short-ranged aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> We are a "Level 3" Partner in the project, though I'm not sure what exactly that means, and are projected to contribute between US$4.8 billion and US$6.8 billion (from Wiki). Do you think we'll end up even buying the F-35, or should we go for something cheaper like the Gripen?



The level of partnership is dependant on the amont of money committed to the program. It also means that Canadain industry could bid on the program and DND could ask for an offset agreement if Canada decises to purchase F-35s.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 24, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The level of partnership is dependant on the amont of money committed to the program. It also means that Canadain industry could bid on the program and DND could ask for an offset agreement if Canada decises to purchase F-35s.



Ah k, thanks for the clarification.

Also, I wasn't aware that the Gripen was short ranged. I pretty much know nothing about these things. Another factor too is the single engine on the Gripen, and I know that was one of the main reasons we didn't buy the F-16.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> Ah k, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Also, I wasn't aware that the Gripen was short ranged. I pretty much know nothing about these things. Another factor too is the single engine on the Gripen, and I know that was one of the main reasons we didn't buy the F-16.


Very true. The Hudson Bay is a pretty lonely place during an engine failure in a single engine aircraft!


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 24, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> Also, I wasn't aware that the Gripen was short ranged. I pretty much know nothing about these things. Another factor too is the single engine on the Gripen, and I know that was one of the main reasons we didn't buy the F-16.


And the F-16 has a greater operating range; 3,900kms vs around 3,000kms for the Gripen


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 24, 2010)

Hmm, I guess that wouldn't be suitable at all. I have the distinct feeling our F-18s will be soldiering on for quite some time.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 24, 2010)

The F18's are in pretty good shape the maintainers are top notch compared to other NATO countries the F18's have been used a fiar amount outside Canada in combat roles Serbia and Iraq in 91 .The Gripen is not the aircraft for Canada it has no range IMHO . You must remember the 18's deploy IIRC on a regular basis to the far north to places like Frobisher to stand alert and I don't think the Gripen would be suited for that type of work. I'm curious as to how many times the Gripens did air to ir refuelling when they deployed to Alaska a few years ago


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2010)

If Grippen is ill suited for huge chunks of land sea, I don't see F-35 any better for same enviroement. 
Now, if the Canadian government might persuade LM to divert the money they invested to F-35 towards the F-22 'piggy-bank' ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> If Grippen is ill suited for huge chunks of land sea, I don't see F-35 any better for same enviroement.
> Now, if the Canadian government might persuade LM to divert the money they invested to F-35 towards the F-22 'piggy-bank' ...



The Grippen has an unrefueled combat radius of 500 miles. The F-35, over 600. 

The F-22 would probably suit Canada better in an intercept role.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2010)

That's where I was aiming


----------



## Waynos (Feb 24, 2010)

The F-15SE might be a better option, I would certainly prefer it over the Super Bug, which is the other likely twin engine alternative. Shame the Typhoon is a bit pricey compared to these.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 24, 2010)

I think the Gripen NG would be an excellent choice, just some info:

On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a LO-LO-LO strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km. With 2X GBU-16's and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Ferry range is 3500km according to Col Jan Jonsson of the Swedish Air Warfare Center.

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide roadstrips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters.

Jas 39 Gripen NG


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think the Gripen NG would be an excellent choice, just some info:
> 
> On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.
> 
> ...



That's all great if you want to defend Ontario only.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 24, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The F-15SE might be a better option, I would certainly prefer it over the Super Bug, which is the other likely twin engine alternative. Shame the Typhoon is a bit pricey compared to these.



The F-15SE's still $100 million, compared to the $54 million of the Super Hornet and the max $61 million of the Gripen. The Eurofighter's only $84 million, around $89 CDN. Still too expensive most likely, but still cheaper. The more I look at it, the Gripen's probably too short range and limited for Canadian use.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2010)

To go with Gripens, Canada is going to need more tanksers


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 24, 2010)

One thing too about the Gripens is I don't know how reliable they are. As Neil pointed out, our F-18s are very reliable, and seem to be able to withstand the cold conditions of the arctic.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2010)

The F-15 is much better then most of the possible candidates (minus F-22) for Canada, since it has notable range payload margin over them. Further more, single engine proposals lack the redundancy, and generous size of the plane benefits radar performance size/number of other electronic equipment.
Last, but not least, to extract same range loiter time from a Grippen or F-35, Canada would need a number of flying tankers (as pointed out by FLYBOYJ), so the final cost would be comparable with purchase of F-15/F-22 without tankers.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 25, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> One thing too about the Gripens is I don't know how reliable they are. As Neil pointed out, our F-18s are very reliable, and seem to be able to withstand the cold conditions of the arctic.


I'm not sure that's the point that puts the Gripen out of favour
It's a new bird so time will tell but Sweden can get pretty chilly too, don't forget they have Barents Sea defence commitments and they are by no means sunny climes.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 25, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Gripen has an unrefueled combat radius of 500 miles


Joe
what does 'operating range' (3,000kms) mean? Is that the range with the Gripen tanking as much fuel as it can carry + an in-flight? The two figures (operating range and unrefueled combat radius) seem enormously disparate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Joe
> what does 'operating range' (3,000kms) mean? Is that the range with the Gripen tanking as much fuel as it can carry + an in-flight? The two figures (operating range and unrefueled combat radius) seem enormously disparate.


The operating range is the range specified for normal operation. It seems the Gripen doesn't have long legs but then again for its primary operator, it doesn't need long legs.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm not sure that's the point that puts the Gripen out of favour
> It's a new bird so time will tell but Sweden can get pretty chilly too, don't forget they have Barents Sea defence commitments and they are by no means sunny climes.



Oh, I know it's not the point that puts it out of favour. I was just curious about its reliability.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 25, 2010)

The F15 was considered in the original competition
New Fighter Aircraft program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 25, 2010)

I believe the Grippen NG's range without drop tanks is better then the F-16


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe the Grippen NG's range without drop tanks is better then the F-16



I show 430 mile combat radius for the Gripen, 340 for the F-16. Ferry range for the F-16, 2620 with drop tanks, 2000 miles for the Gripen with drop tanks.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 25, 2010)

Gripen NG is supposed to carry 40% more internal fuel. Quite an impressive change.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2010)

If they do that, it's a great thing IMO. It's silly to see half of precious hard points occupied by drop tanks on today's fighters - just take a look on Rafale, or F-16 pictures. 
The ability to carry a lot of fuel is one more thing I like at Su-27 family; F-15E with CFT comes close too.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 25, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> If they do that, it's a great thing IMO. It's silly to see half of precious hard points occupied by drop tanks on today's fighters - just take a look on Rafale, or F-16 pictures.
> The ability to carry a lot of fuel is one more thing I like at Su-27 family; F-15E with CFT comes close too.


I'm going to guess that they will take the most modern frame with the most versatility preferably with 2 engines much like they did when ordering the F18, when they started the competition for the aircraft to replace the 104/101 combo they were leaning toward the F17


----------



## Waynos (Feb 27, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> The F-15SE's still $100 million, compared to the $54 million of the Super Hornet and the max $61 million of the Gripen. The Eurofighter's only $84 million, around $89 CDN. Still too expensive most likely, but still cheaper. The more I look at it, the Gripen's probably too short range and limited for Canadian use.



Thanks for that, I was guilty of believing the Boeing blurb that the F-15SE was an 'affordable alternative'. They were obviously referring to the F-22 rather than fighters that are actually available


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

Now that we speak about prices, is there a credible source that lists the prices of new a/c?


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 27, 2010)

Catch22 said:


> As most of you will know, Canada's combat aircraft fleet consists of CF-18s, which are now up to F-18C/D standard. We don't deploy them outside of Canada much, but as they are aging, I'm wondering what people's thoughts (who are more knowledgeable than I) are on whether or not we should consider replacing them before the F-35 comes into being. We are a "Level 3" Partner in the project, though I'm not sure what exactly that means, and are projected to contribute between US$4.8 billion and US$6.8 billion (from Wiki). Do you think we'll end up even buying the F-35, or should we go for something cheaper like the Gripen?



Funnily enough, the RAAF is in the exact same situation. Our Hornets are now 25+ years old and our F-111's are to be retired this year. To fill in the gap left by the F-111's and the fact that the F35 won't enter service with the RAAF for some time yet, the Government has aquired 24 Super Hornets to plug the gap. Obviously the need to have an interim aircraft is not the ideal situation to be in, but atleast if there are further delays with the F35, we will already have the required back up and support equipment to change over to a wholly Super Hornet fleet.
Maybe the CAF will follow a similar path?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

F-111 was surely a great asset. 
What was the price of Super Hornets?


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 27, 2010)

Whoops, didn't see the last page.

Tomo, I got the prices from Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to doubt the prices, but it IS Wiki so you never know I guess.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 27, 2010)

Wildcat said:


> Funnily enough, the RAAF is in the exact same situation. Our Hornets are now 25+ years old and our F-111's are to be retired this year. To fill in the gap left by the F-111's and the fact that the F35 won't enter service with the RAAF for some time yet, the Government has aquired 24 Super Hornets to plug the gap. Obviously the need to have an interim aircraft is not the ideal situation to be in, but atleast if there are further delays with the F35, we will already have the required back up and support equipment to change over to a wholly Super Hornet fleet.
> Maybe the CAF will follow a similar path?



I wouldn't be adverse to that. I would imagine it would be a fairly easy transition to the Super Hornet from the Hornet and it appears to be the cheapest option available as well. It makes sense because the Hornet's served our needs so well up until now.


----------



## Butters (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Now that we speak about prices, is there a credible source that lists the prices of new a/c?



Good luck with that. Here's a good paper by some unaffiliated analysts that explains quite a bit about the costs and price variations in modern fighter a/c. It predates the Gripen NG and the Block 60 F-16E/F, and does not reflect the ever-increasing price of the F-35, but other than being somewhat dated it seems credible.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

Should also note that the program unit cost for the F-22 does not include the $8 billion data/comm link upgrade (don't remember the program name)

Canada's fleet of Hornets is now down to 78 from the original 138. 16 have been lost in accidents, and after Allied Force, a number of the weariest ones were placed in storage. The remainder are not in fact 'reliable', and require extensive mantenance. Mostly due to age.

The CF-18 replacement should reflect our AF's actual requirements and treaty obligations. Because it is extremely unlikely that we will be engaged in any independent military actions, and because we are equally unlikely to be fighting a first-rate adversary ala Russia, China, India, et al, we do not require a pricey, stealthy 'first day of the war-knock down the door' battlefield interdiction fighter. Note that the original tentative proposed buy of 80 JSFs has already been reduced to 65... 

What we really need is a dual-role fighter that is reasonably affordable to buy and operate. That eliminates the Eurocanards, advanced F-15 variants, and, if sense prevailed the F-35. Note that the USN claims that F-35C operating costs are predicted to be 40% higher than the current fleet a/c.

The SuperHornet is decent aircraft but I think that the UAE funded Block 60 F-16E/F and Gripen NG are better choices. the Superbug has the twin-engine safety advantage, but given the plan to buy JSFs, that begs the question of why the single engine Viper or Gripen would not do as well, esp in the case of the Gripen. The GE 414-derived engine has one of the best, if not the best, reliability record of any modern fighter engine. The JSF, OTOH, uses a very high-pressure/temp engine with no track record (derived from the F-22's PW119, but still a very different animal) at all. 

The '18F is no match for either the Bk 60 Viper or the G NG in the AtA arena, and has no significant range advantage, if any. Both the Viper and the NG have very advanced avionic packages, AESA radars, and will be significantly less expensive both to buy and operate. Esp the Gripen, as it is a small a/c using just one of the engines used in the Superbug. In the Brazilian competition, the NG package is $1.6 billion less than the Hornet, IIRC. 

If we were to buy Gripens, we would save enough to buy a couple tanker/transports which would save wear and tear on the C-17's, and which we would require in any case, given that any likely combat deployment is going to be a long way from home. Not to mention that the Swedes would bend over backwards to sell us 80+ fighters .

Still, it's politically very unlikely that we would make such a major purchase from even a NATO country, much less Sweden, so I figure it will come down to 45-50 of the sluggish, obese SuperBugs, or if we're willing to wait 10-15 extra yrs and have a few extra billion kickin' around, the sluggish, obese F-35 . Add in the "fact" that the JSF is not only a match for any 4 (or is it 6 now?) non-Raptorfighters* in the world, and the undisputed Power Point dominance champ, we'll probably get stuck with 35-40 of them. So we'll just have to fill up on Super Tucanos or something...

BTW, I saw a price for the F-16E, and if IIRC it was approx $55-60M flyaway/$ 80M all in.

JL

*From the Gospel According to LM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Butters said:


> Note that the USN claims that F-35C operating costs are predicted to be 40% higher than the current fleet a/c.


 And comes from where?

And how can an operator make that prediction when the aircraft aren't even fielded and no one knows what type of problems or MC rates will be forthcoming.


----------



## Butters (Feb 27, 2010)

I don't have a link to the entire report at hand, but this site shows the NAVAIR chart.

CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers - The DEW Line

It's been around a while, so the official report shouldn't be hard to find.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Ok, I have to laugh - good find Butters but some of the comments posted from that article sum it up...

"As presented, it looks like FY2008 $/flying hours are compared to dollars in the 2020s. 40% higher would be the same as less than 2% annual inflation over 20 years."

"OK, blowing up the teeny-weeny slide.... I see that TOC 'claimed' includes adjustment for inflation and indirect cost increases, This leaves direct cost increases unrelated to inflation. What is the cost of fuel estimate in the far future? 
The real question is how does this compare to the TOC of keeping the F-18 alive and effective through 2029? 

Apples and apples are needed. This slide is apples and oranges."

I bet David E. Burgess never turned a wrench or managed a NAVAIR budget.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

Indeed an expensive sport, that airforce...

So, some 50 F-15E would require 5 bn USD. Canada is to invest some 5-6 bn in F-35, plus another 2-3 bn for 50 Super Bugs*(guess those would be purchased as interim fighters), plus purchase of those 60-70 F-35s for 7-8 bn (price estimate in 2006 was 115 m USD). All in all 14-17bn. That would be some 80-90 F-22, in same 2006 (firm) price. Available NOW.

*When people say: "we have F-18A-D, so let's buy F-18E now since it's about the same pane", it makes me laugh. Engine, radar whole avionics suite, hull, wings, LERX, tail, even missiles it uses are different. It's same as if someone says that MiG-25 and MiG-31 are about the same planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> *When people say: "we have F-18A-D, so let's buy F-18E now since it's about the same pane", it makes me laugh. Engine, radar whole avionics suite, hull, wings, LERX, tail, even missiles it uses are different. It's same as if someone says that MiG-25 and MiG-31 are about the same planes.



While that is true, the things on the aircraft that "wear out" are kept common. I could tell you that you're not normally replacing large airframe components at the squadron level. 71% common airframe components, 90% avionics and electrical components are advertised.


----------



## Butters (Feb 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ok, I have to laugh - good find Butters but some of the comments posted from that article sum it up...
> 
> "As presented, it looks like FY2008 $/flying hours are compared to dollars in the 2020s. 40% higher would be the same as less than 2% annual inflation over 20 years."
> 
> ...



Well, it you feel that those commenters are more credible than the USN's own cost manager, that's up to you. Interestingly enough, LM's Crowley pooh-pohed it as being no more credible than the JET report. Who was right in that case...?

All our LM differences aside, what did you think of the paper on AC prices?

BTW, here's the NAVAIR report:

http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Butters said:


> Well, it you feel that those commenters are more credible than the USN's own cost manager, that's up to you. Interestingly enough, LM's Crowley pooh-pohed it as being no more credible than the JET report. Who was right in that case...?


"The one who actually operates the aircraft and knows what maintenance and operating costs are REALLY going to be."


Butters said:


> All our LM differences aside, what did you think of the paper on AC prices?
> 
> BTW, here's the NAVAIR report:
> 
> ...



What is being shown is the disconnect between acquisition and sustainment. Right now I'm working with the USAF on a similar situation. What this is boiling down to is being able to come up with a crystal ball that could predict operating costs so when the Navy fights for budget dollars, they could justify their dollars. All this is fine but as I eluded to earlier, many of there folks are bean counters and have no real concept on aircraft operation and maintenance. They are trying to forecast based on current trends which is kind of difficult because F-35 is several years away from giving real and accurate operating trend data that could really provide sustainment costs.

My 2 cents...


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While that is true, the things on the aircraft that "wear out" are kept common. I could tell you that you're not normally replacing large airframe components at the squadron level. 71% common airframe components, 90% avionics and electrical components are advertised.



Are those 71% and 90% numbers for F-18E vs. F-18C?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Are those 71% and 90% numbers for F-18E vs. F-18C?


From what I understand, yes


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

Thanks for the info, FLYBOYJ. 

So despite having longer hull, broader wings, new intakes, bigger LERX, stronger U/C..., the difference is only 29%? And despite having new radar FLIR (fact, that no-one now produces many of processors stuff that were used back in 1980s, is nowhere stated by Boeing sales people), it yields only 10% difference? Man, this is unbelivable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for the info, FLYBOYJ.
> 
> So despite having longer hull, broader wings, new intakes, bigger LERX, stronger U/C..., the difference is only 29%? And despite having new radar FLIR (fact, that no-one now produces many of processors stuff that were used back in 1980s, is nowhere stated by Boeing sales people), it yields only 10% difference? Man, this is unbelivable.



It seems that way but the things that were kept common were the things that counted. 

There are 3 levels of maintenance in the US Navy. The Squadrons are responsible for the day to day maintenance and its those guys whose job has to be made easy. "I" level maintenance usually involves a shop that overhauls engines and builds QEC (Quick Engine Change) units for C-130s, E-3s and P-3s. At depo level maintenance is where the major aircraft components are inspected, repaired or even changed. Sometimes an aircraft won't see depo for years.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

> It seems that way but the things that were kept common were the things that counted.



I'd say they were cheating. Lying actually.



> There are 3 levels of maintenance in the US Navy. The Squadrons are responsible for the day to day maintenance and its those guys whose job has to be made easy. "I" level maintenance usually involves a shop that overhauls engines and builds QEC (Quick Engine Change) units for C-130s, E-3s and P-3s. At depo level maintenance is where the major aircraft components are inspected, repaired or even changed. Sometimes an aircraft won't see depo for years.



That's your "territory"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd say they were cheating. Lying actually.


Why would you say that? When you look at the common components between the "C" and "E" it actually came out to be 71% for the airframe components and they were intentionally designed that way, and I bet the main operator actually had a major role in determining some of this



tomo pauk said:


> That's your "territory"



But it points out what is done at the squadron level.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why would you say that? When you look at the common components between the "C" and "E" it actually came out to be 71% for the airframe components and they were intentionally designed that way, and I bet the main operator actually had a major role in determining some of this



I've stated twice what major components are changed from "C" to "E". If the fins the nose of the airframe represent 71% of all the airframe, I wouldn't wrote that. Since it does not, I wrote what I wrote. 

Main operator has a curious choice: either Super Bug, or nothing. For some 15 years. So I guess we would not hear any disturbing voice from them. Same choice have Russian, French, UK, German and Italian airforces - so we'd hear nothing but praise for their newest hardware.



> But it points out what is done at the squadron level.



I was agreeing with your description of the levels of maintenance


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> I've stated twice what major components are changed from "C" to "E". If the fins the nose of the airframe represent 71% of all the airframe, I wouldn't wrote that. Since it does not, I wrote what I wrote.


That's if you look at the aircraft visually. The fins and the nose are basically fixed and rarely if not ever changed (unless you're talking about the radome). The components that make the aircraft work is why we're looking at that 71% number. Its like saying your skin makes up 90% of your body.


tomo pauk said:


> Main operator has a curious choice: either Super Bug, or nothing. For some 15 years. So I guess we would not hear any disturbing voice from them. Same choice have Russian, French, UK, German and Italian airforces - so we'd hear nothing but praise for their newest hardware.


True, but has their aircraft seen the same amout of flight hours and combat during the same time?


tomo pauk said:


> I was agreeing with your description of the levels of maintenance



Ok...


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 28, 2010)

Did find this if it's of any interest


----------



## Waynos (Feb 28, 2010)

The Super Hornet is virtually an all-new design compared with the earlier F/A-18C. The forward nacelle is relatively unchanged but the rest of the design, and of necessity the structure, is completely new. 

The aircraft was 25% bigger than the previous model yet designed with 42% LESS structural components, so the claim that it has '71% commonality by parts weight' and the retention of the F/A-18 type number was really nothing more than politicking to make the aircraft more easily acceptable to congress frollowing the loss of the A-12 and the realistaion that the F-14 had to go.

One way to look at it would be to say the Super Hornet has the same sort of relationship with the F/A-18C that the F-4 Phantom has with the F-3H Demon.

Although I cannot quantify the following assesment myself, and I add the following only as a point of interest having had it said to me SOOO MANY times, an Aerospace engineer of my acquaintance told me that the Super Bug is a collection of fantastic systems shoehorned into a half-witted airframe design with horrible aerodynamics, made that way just to be quick and cheap enough not to be cancelled. 

He is Irish though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The Super Hornet is virtually an all-new design compared with the earlier F/A-18C. The forward nacelle is relatively unchanged but the rest of the design, and of necessity the structure, is completely new.
> 
> The aircraft was 25% bigger than the previous model yet designed with 42% LESS structural components, so *the claim that it has '71% commonality by parts weight' and the retention of the F/A-18 type number was really nothing more than politicking to make the aircraft more easily acceptable to congress frollowing the loss of the A-12 and the realistaion that the F-14 had to go.*


Sorry Waynos, facts are facts - as the saying goes, beauty is skin deep but looking beyond the skin reveals a whole bunch of components and systems are are common between the two aircraft and this was conformed by the bean counters when it was decided to put this aircraft into production.


Waynos said:


> One way to look at it would be to say the Super Hornet has the same sort of relationship with the F/A-18C that the F-4 Phantom has with the F-3H Demon.


Horrible analysis - the F-3H was a step behind the F-4 and was not really a successful aircraft. No one could argue the operational success of both "C" and "E."


Waynos said:


> Although I cannot quantify the following assesment myself, and I add the following only as a point of interest having had it said to me SOOO MANY times, an Aerospace engineer of my acquaintance told me that the Super Bug is a collection of fantastic systems shoehorned into a half-witted airframe design with horrible aerodynamics, made that way just to be quick and cheap enough not to be cancelled.
> 
> He is Irish though



I bet he really knows how efficient the aerodynamic really are..  And I also bet he would of given his left nut to design the relief tube!


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

The success or otherwise of the F3H has nothing to do with it, I was only talking about the similarity of the process of evolution involved, the F-4 grew out of the F3H (albeit more dramatically) not the actual products themselves.

I'm not denying there is a commonality between the two (F-18 variants) , only that the degree of that commonality was exaggerated, for the reasons I gave. This was a particularly sensitive time (look at the cancellations of the E-8, RAH-66, A-12 etc, Boeing NEEDED to show that this was virtually an 'improvement' to an existing aircraft if they weren't to risk having the whole thing axed in favour of a ' simple' (if inappropriate) SLEP on the F/A-18C.

It is true that looking at the general arrangement drawing above tells you nothing of what lies beneath. However all that outer skin relies on an internal structure. The fact that it is outwardly completely different means that it must also be different internally too. How can you possibly remove 42% of the structural components from a legacy F-18, shove it into an airframe that is 25% bigger and still have 71% commonality (and an airframe that doesn't collapse in a heap when the engines are fired up)? These are all Boeings own figures and they simply do not add up. Unless you look at what Boeing actually say.

That is why, when you read the actual blurb, it does not say '71% common structure', but the rather more obfuscational '71 % commonality by parts weight'. This is because the relativedly heavy items retained are being compared with the much lighter composite structures that the SH introduced. The real level of commonality - component for component - is really about 33-35%, but the newer items are much lighter.

That is a standard inustrial ruse to make something more acceptable than it otherwise would be, the initial brief was to have the SH stand at 90% commonality with the existing model, which was never going to be achievable, if the SH really was going to deliver the capability that the USN needed. Which I believe it does.

As for the aerodynamics argument, like I said, it was not mine, but it does come from an aerodynamiscist, Maybe its time I asked why instead of just going 'yeah, whatever'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The success or otherwise of the F3H has nothing to do with it, I was only talking about the similarity of the process of evolution involved, the F-4 grew out of the F3H (albeit more dramatically) not the actual products themselves.


Well the same aircraft were still miles apart


Waynos said:


> I'm not denying there is a commonality between the two (F-18 variants) , only that the degree of that commonality was exaggerated, for the reasons I gave. This was a particularly sensitive time (look at the cancellations of the E-8, RAH-66, A-12 etc, Boeing NEEDED to show that this was virtually an 'improvement' to an existing aircraft if they weren't to risk having the whole thing axed in favour of a ' simple' (if inappropriate) SLEP on the F/A-18C.
> 
> It is true that looking at the general arrangement drawing above tells you nothing of what lies beneath. However all that outer skin relies on an internal structure. The fact that it is outwardly completely different means that it must also be different internally too. How can you possibly remove 42% of the structural components from a legacy F-18, shove it into an airframe that is 25% bigger and still have 71% commonality (and an airframe that doesn't collapse in a heap when the engines are fired up)?
> These are all Boeings own figures and they simply do not add up. Unless you look at what Boeing actually say.


And I'll bet dollars to donuts that before any contract was signed any and all Boeing propaganda claims were verified by NAVAIR as well as other elements of the DoD. When a contractor comes up with a proposal, there claims have to be substantiated and if they are not, no award is given and this is especially true through out the contract implementation stage - (you seen an example of this as the USAF recently withheld a 600 million dollar plus progress payment from Lockheed on the F-35). In addition to this we have civilian watchdog groups verifying this as well.


Waynos said:


> That is why, when you read the actual blurb, it does not say '71% common structure', but the rather more obfuscational '71 % commonality by parts weight'. This is because the relativedly heavy items retained are being compared with the much lighter composite structures that the SH introduced. The real level of commonality - component for component - is really about 33-35%, but the newer items are much lighter.


They probably are, but again one has to detach himself from the outward appearance and address the major structural components that are interchangeable. Again, Boeing would not make that claim if there was any chance they could be proven wrong


Waynos said:


> That is a standard inustrial ruse to make something more acceptable than it otherwise would be, the initial brief was to have the SH stand at 90% commonality with the existing model, which was never going to be achievable, if the SH really was going to deliver the capability that the USN needed. Which I believe it does.


Agree..


Waynos said:


> As for the aerodynamics argument, like I said, it was not mine, but it does come from an aerodynamiscist, Maybe its time I asked why instead of just going 'yeah, whatever'.



You should have because for being an aerodynamic pig, it flies pretty fast and considering what it does is also pretty fuel efficient.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

The fight between the engineers and the bean counters is an eternal one. Obvously Boeing had to make their case very compelling but there are no guarantees that just because the arguments are compelling, they are absolutely true .Boeing simply promoted the most favourable argument. Promoting the type as 'largely brand new' would not have been in their favour, or the USN's favour, at that time . This is not the same thing as lying. 

A well known example over here is how, as part of the wider campaign to get the TSR 2 cancelled, the govt was given a very disturbing report on how the TSR 2 wing structure had failed under test, what was left out was that the entire point of the test in question was not to see if it failed, but at what point it would. 

That is not to say that Boeing lied about the commonality of the F/A-18E, only that they presented the truthful data in the most favourable way.

And so 71% of the structure by WEIGHT is common, that is correct. But not 71% of the airframe components. So this strand of the discussion may have stemmed from your choice of phrase at that moment, rather than any real difference of opinion, after all "71% common airframe components" is not something that Boeing themselves have ever claimed .

Oh, and I have emailed for clarification on the Aerodynamics question, I'll update this thread with the reply, if it comes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> And so 71% of the structure by WEIGHT is common, that is correct. But not 71% of the airframe components. So this strand of the discussion may have stemmed from your choice of phrase at that moment, rather than any real difference of opinion, after all "71% common airframe components" is not something that Boeing themselves have ever claimed .


I guess the real way to prove this is to attain a consumable parts list (parts and components that would used at the squadron level) of both aircraft. If the list is 71% in common with each other I would say there is no argument.


Waynos said:


> Oh, and I have emailed for clarification on the Aerodynamics question, I'll update this thread with the reply, if it comes.


Would love to see it...


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm quite keen myself. Now I'm wondering why I never asked before. I think I just dismissed it.

I'm curious about the definition of 'consumable parts list', this seems different, to my unnacustomed eyes, from an airframe components list?

I have been trawling for info on the Super Hornet since joining this discussion and I beleive I have found the definitive reference that is readily avaialble, and from reading it I can report that not only were you wrong, FBJ, so was I !

The reference in question is an in depth analysis of the entire programme spread over two issues of Flight International from January 1999. There is no need for me to scan these issues as they are readily viewable in full in Flight's online archive at flightglobal.com.

Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite for the article which includes, in part one, the delta canard 'configuration IV' which was favoured for a time until 'affordability' dictated otherwise. For example, this was an eye opener;

"Although externally it is a scaled-up C/D, the
E/F is different internally to previous F/A- 18s.
*Structural commonality is only 10%*, the E/F
airframe having been redesigned extensively to
reduce weight and cost."

There is also this;

"While the E/F's structural concept is based
on the C/D's, the manufacturing execution has
changed substantially. The focus has been on
reducing parts count to simplify assembly and
save money. "Our philosophy was that we
would combine parts if they didn't move,
weren't of different materials and didn't need to
be removable," Young says.
The result is 42 % fewer parts than the C/D,
with savings in fabrication, tooling and assembly
costs. The E/F has 8,100 parts against the
14,100 in the C/D structure. Parts count in the
wing and tails is more than halved, from 4,100 to
1,800. The nose barrel bulkhead has gone from
90 parts to just one, which is lighter as well as
quicker and cheaper to produce, and similar savings
are repeated throughout the aircraft."

Which means there simply *cannot* be 71% parts commonality, even by weight, which was my earlier position.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999 - 0104.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I'm curious about the definition of 'consumable parts list', this seems different, to my unnacustomed eyes, from an *airframe components list*?


It's basically the same. It's everything and anything that could be ordered to support the aircraft in the field. There will always be some components that the operator will not be able to get for their aircraft (raw forgings and larger airframe assemblies come to mind) and if needed then you're looking at sending the aircraft to depo for major repairs (see my earlier post about the 3 levels of maintenance the US Navy operates to). I'd bet that's where the 71% common parts arguement is made, or at least a good portion of it.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

Yes, that makes a lot more sense, that they were talking about consumables. If you have had the chance to read the article I linked to the Super Hornet is shown to have even less actual commonality with the legacy Hornet than I thought.

The 'configuration IV' looks interesting doesn't it? And yet it also looks wrong with the obvious Hornet fuselage and canards that are clearly F-18 tailplanes stuck on the front, the amazing thing is that back in about 1980 I converted an F-18 model kit by doing exactly the same


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Yes, that makes a lot more sense, that they were talking about consumables. If you have had the chance to read the article I linked to the Super Hornet is shown to have even less actual commonality with the legacy Hornet than I thought.
> 
> The 'configuration IV' looks interesting doesn't it? And yet it also looks wrong with the obvious Hornet fuselage and canards that are clearly F-18 tailplanes stuck on the front



All interesting and a great article - I still think many structural components may be common to both aircraft. A lot of the components are made with production tooling and I would bet that rather than build new tooling from scratch, many production tools were modified to build this larger airframe.

So if the sources for that article are correct, 10% plus the common system parts and consumables and you probably have that 71% common airframe to those operating it.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

Lol, you're persistent FBJ, I'll give you that  However I don't see that at all. An 'agree to differ' might be in order here.

The Article was written by Graham Warwick with the direct sources for the infoprmation being Rear Admiral Craig Steidle, vice commander at Naval Air Systems Command, Mike Sears, president of Boeing military aircraft,Pat Finneran, Boeing, v-p F/A-18 programme and several other people who really would know, and the overall message given out is how so very different the SH is from its predecessor, not only in appearance, but in structure and in the way it is all put together.


----------



## Butters (Mar 1, 2010)

Here's link to a US govt evaluation of the SuperSlug. It concerns the early block, but little has changed in regard to performance metrics between then and now. Performance wise, it is inferior to the 'C in everything but range (and not by much) and payload. The new block does have a nice radar and cockpit display, tho...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-7521.html

The link takes you directly to the Govt doc, not the f-16net site

BTW, the USN payed approx $117 million a pop for the last batch (I don't think these were Growlers, but I may be wrong)

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2010)

Butters said:


> Here's link to a US govt evaluation of the SuperSlug. It concerns the early block, but little has changed in regard to performance metrics between then and now. Performance wise, it is inferior to the 'C in everything but range (and not by much) and payload.



First off that report is over 10 years old. Second that is not what the report concluded



Butters said:


> The new block does have a nice radar and cockpit display, tho...



A nice radar. You mean a nice AESA radar that effectively doubles detection range, is capable of high bandwidth data exchanges and potentially can serve as a non-kinetic weapon. Yeah it's a nice radar alright. Even Eurofighter aint got one of them nice radars.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Lol, you're persistent FBJ, I'll give you that  However I don't see that at all. An 'agree to differ' might be in order here.
> 
> The Article was written by Graham Warwick with the direct sources for the infoprmation being Rear Admiral Craig Steidle, vice commander at Naval Air Systems Command, Mike Sears, president of Boeing military aircraft,Pat Finneran, Boeing, v-p F/A-18 programme and several other people who really would know, and the overall message given out is how so very different the SH is from its predecessor, not only in appearance, but in structure and in the way it is all put together.


And also the same bunch who either came up or agreed upon the "71%" number!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2010)

Beat me to the punch Matt!


----------



## Waynos (Mar 1, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And also the same bunch who either came up or agreed upon the "71%" number!



And believe me I scoured the piece for the number, or at least an explanation that made sense.


----------



## Butters (Mar 1, 2010)

I've seen a 2009 report that compares all performance metrics (acceleration, climb, sustained turn rate, top speed in CAP configuration, etc) of the two Hornets, and the C is superior in nearly every respect. As for the AESA, those radars will be a standard fit in all major contenders very shortly. Certainly before Canada is ready to replace our CF-18s.

And yes, the report is old, but altho some problems have been fixed, notably the pylon-induced vibration problem, the jet's performance remains essentially the same. If I can locate the new report again, I'll post it. BTW, the conclusion just says that the plane is suitable for operations.

If we want to spend that kind of money, we'd do better with Eurocanards or advanced Eagles. Both are far superior to the SuperHornet. We don't need to bring bombs back onto carrier decks...

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2010)

Butters said:


> And yes, the report is old, but altho some problems have been fixed, notably the pylon-induced vibration problem, the jet's performance remains essentially the same. If I can locate the new report again, I'll post it. BTW, the conclusion just says that the plane is suitable for operations.
> 
> 
> JL



The report does not include the details of the 18 "missions" that served as the basis for the report. The report concluded that the C was "operationally equivalent" to the E/F ranked based upon supportability. But even you noted above that the f-18E/F was superior in range and payload.

Now combine that with a expedient need to replace aging A-6 and F-14 airframes and one could argue that the Navy made a sound purchase. Certainly the export of the F-18E/F in competitions with other airframes that are claimed to be Gen 4+ says something. For I don't believe that other countries are just buying US propoganda.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 2, 2010)

I would agree that the USN made the right choice, except that it was not really all that much of a choice, as such. They had already had the A-12 and NATF pulled from under them and the Horent upgrade was all that was left. To counter this though, they did get a much better Super Hornet than was originally planned when it was just going to be a stop-gap upgrade, intended to maintain capability until these two types were available. Once it became the central programme a lot more was naturally invested in it.

It does have known issues though that will not simply go away, and this relates to it having 'allegedly' poor aerodynamics (still waiting, fbj). For instance, this is from Flight magazine dated 3rd April 2000 and features an interview with Capt Robert Rutherford, commanding officer of the VX-9 test squadron which conducted the Opeval for the F/A-18;

"Compared with the
C/D, "the aircraft has a lower maximum
velocity, particularly
through the transonic zone," says
Rutherford. In air combat, this
means the aircraft lacks the ability
to escape a dogfight. Low top speed has been highlighted
as an issue"

This directly ties in with what I have been told, that it bleeds energy far too rapidly and is a lot draggier than the earlier model. A lot of the Hornets deficiencies are covered by operationla doctrine and equipment, for instance AESA and HMCS combined with missiles like the AIM-9X and forthcoming AIM-120D means that it *should* be able to avoid being exposed in a turning fight. Only time will tell the correctness of that approach, we could argue it amongst ourselves all day long.

The major advances that the SH does bring to the USN are that it stay in the fight for much longer than the C/D could and can deliver more ordnance on attack missions. It is harder to detect due to the LO considerations in the redesign and it is much easier and cheaper to maintain and operate than the F-14, all very worthy achievements.

The SH has, so far, won only one export order, to Australia, though it is in competition for several others. We cannot say, just because the Aussies bought it, that this proves it to be a better aircraft than its competitors. Only that the 'deal' was better, whatever it entailed. 

An example here is that India wants 50% local content in its MMRCA, one of those requirements the SH is currently fighting for, Any competitor that will not offer this will not win. Simple as.

Regarding Canada, well, the SH would be a better aircraft for them than the F-18A ever was, but can they afford to buy it and then the F-35? If they get the SH they may end up keeping it. There are some in Australia who are now thinking towards an extended SH buy instread of getting the F-35.


----------



## Butters (Mar 2, 2010)

As Wayno has said, the USN was between a rock and a hard place, and the SH was their best, if not only, option. Because it was put together so quickly (commendably so, in fact), and because increased range/loiter, and bring-back ability were the leading priorities, some aerodynamic flaws were overlooked.

The limiting aerodynamic feature of the SH is the wing. It was highly modified in the interest of increased fuel fraction, and ended up being much more draggy than expected. And because substantial aerodynamic changes would have required significant and time-consuming changes in the flight control software, Boeing and the Navy accepted the reduced perfomance rather than spend possibly hundreds of millions (or more)on new wings and code. 

The listed top speed of M 1.8 may apply to stripped down test model, but a fully loaded SH in CAP configuration can hardly bust Mach 1. The SH is primarily a bomb truck, and one well suited to the USN's needs, but those needs are not the RCAF's.

Canada could do better for less money. As Wayno says, only Oz has opted for the SH (I see Gates and Hilary are moonlighting as Boeing shills in Brazil right now ), and their recent record in defence procurement choices speaks for itself. Not that I'm saying that Canada's is any better...

Gripen NGs or SuperVipers would serve our needs just fine. So there ain't a snowball's chance in hell we'll get them.

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 2, 2010)

The more I read about the Gripen NG, the more I like it. It's almost becoming the modern equivalent to the F-5 in being an inexpensive plane (vs the others) with good performance.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Butters said:


> Gripen NGs or SuperVipers would serve our needs just fine. So there ain't a snowball's chance in hell we'll get them.
> 
> JL


Gripen just what we need another aircraft like the F5 that was hard pressed to go from Chatham to Bagtown


----------



## Butters (Mar 2, 2010)

The Gripen NG is no bare-bones bargain fighter like the F-5. It has all the modern avionics, datalinks, and other bells and whistles of the top Western jets. And as far as range, it's ferry range is 4000 km versus the SuperSlug's 3300 km*

The JSFubar is doomed. The Brits can't afford it, the USN doesn't want it, the USMC doesn't need it ( Regardless of how addicted they may be to their inane 'Vertical Vision'...) and as the USAF numbers (see QDR) keep on dropping, the unit price will keep climbing. The only thing spinning faster than that thing is Kelly Johnson.

It doesn't matter how stealthy, net-centric, 'manouverability is irrelevant'ized, and sensor-fusioned something is if you can't afford to buy and operate it.

JL

*Pulled the SH spec from Wik


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Butters said:


> The Gripen NG is no bare-bones bargain fighter like the F-5. It has all the modern avionics, datalinks, and other bells and whistles of the top Western jets. And as far as range, it's ferry range is 4000 km versus the SuperSlug's 3300 km*
> 
> The JSFubar is doomed. The Brits can't afford it, *the USN doesn't want it*, the USMC doesn't need it ( Regardless of how addicted they may be to their inane 'Vertical Vision'...) and as the USAF numbers (see QDR) keep on dropping, the unit price will keep climbing. The only thing spinning faster than that thing is Kelly Johnson.
> 
> ...



I'll post this again when the 100th F-35 is delivered to the Navy...


----------



## Butters (Mar 2, 2010)

You must think that I'm a teen ager. Sorry, but I don't figger on being around that long.

BTW, have you seen this?

Internal Pentagon memo predicts that F-35 testing won't be complete until 2016 | Business ...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Butters said:


> You must think that I'm a teen ager. Sorry, but I don't figger on being around that long.


So you're gonna die in 5 years?


Butters said:


> BTW, have you seen this?
> 
> Internal Pentagon memo predicts that F-35 testing won't be complete until 2016 | Business ...
> 
> JL


 Interesting, but Lockheed hasn't gone into default YET! 

And this...

DoD Memo Formalizes F-35 Program Overhaul - Defense News

"No fundamental technology or manufacturing problems were discovered in the Review,"


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Butters said:


> The Gripen NG is no bare-bones bargain fighter like the F-5. It has all the modern avionics, datalinks, and other bells and whistles of the top Western jets.


Good can it get from Greenwood to Bagtown with weapons , alternate aerodromes are far and few between . Canada needs a twin engined aircraft with reasonable range with weapons . Its a long trek to Inuvik or Frobisher from Bagtown or Cool Pool. Its a point I'm fairly familiar with as I've worked in the ATC enviroment at all the CAF fighter bases save Bagotville


----------



## Waynos (Mar 2, 2010)

Ironically, Canada's best option would probably be the Sukhoi T-50


----------

