The Canadian Air Force's Future

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Beat me to the punch Matt!

FLYBOYJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Butters said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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,"

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.

Click to expand...

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

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