ELPIts no use crying over spilt milk, the deal is done & I think it is the right one. At $6bill AUD or $4.6bill USD it is a lot of our hard earned for 24 planes admittedly we get quite a bit extra for that price BUT how much more would we have had to pay for the F22 it doesnt bear thinking about, even the US can hardly afford many of them ,forget it, the EF is a good airshow performer & one day may eventually in tranche 3 be a good fighter bomber but we cant hang around for that long awaited day out here, thats if it ever comes at all.
As for the old hat story of the Standard crew saying -“We out flew……ran them out of gas ” was just macho nonsense,probably bar room talk, the Classic hornet was/is notorious for its short legs & carries 4000lbs.less internal fuel than the SH., its never going to run it out of gas,the above report is now 8 years old & the SH , now in block2 is a far different beast to the one they derided all those years ago. [ ****,where did those years go to]
As for “spilt milk”. Being an election year and all everything should be done to delay this decision by the opposition party until they can have a wack at after the election. SH is nice but being stuck with a complete inventory of short range small airframes doesn’t sound too good.
To be fair the “ran them out of gas” statement could be anything. A one off event where maybe the SH flyer used too much burner as opposed to what is known now by many of how to fly it. Avionics aside though, there is no way it will be running from a big SU if needed or cut one off very well. A good strike aircraft, a good carrier aircraft. RAAF is going down a road with having an all shorter range pack of jets that will to be, quite seriously mean that for any kind of sustained long range strike, they better get a lot more tankers. I like the SH a lot as a striker. Even if it isn’t going to be carrying the weapon load that much further than a legacy Hornet when you look over the ocean it might have to cover.
I just saw this today. So many errors in statement on technology they might want to consider getting a bit smarter on the topic.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21342853-31477,00.html
“SH has a lot more capability than F-111.” True… The same thing holds though: “F-111 has a lot more capability than SH” That being range.
ELPInteresting proposition on “who sees who first”. The Flaker can’t hide against a modern radar like that as it is so damn big. However What the Flanker has like, an F-14, or F-15 is contempt of engagement. The SH does not have any dramatic speed when loaded with a few weapons and a tanks. It is a good strike aircraft. It is not an offensive air superiority machine by a long shot. As for “range”, you may want to review ALL the air to air weapons that hang off of a Flanker today and into the future. Jamming is not an absolute, especially considering that this doesn’t take into account all situations like a silent attack from the side/rear quarter for one. SH is slow. An F-4 could contempt of engage it and decide to go around it if it detects it and press on with it’s mission. Where the SH has an advantage is when the attacker has no choice but to come to it, for example when SH is carrying A2G weapons on the way to a strike. Even then the SH is going to be like a redcoat and is going to have to stand and take it. While some things in this article have changed, the raw performance hasn’t. Lets hope for electronic attack with AESA to make great leaps. I think it is a good strike aircraft. But it won’t be going into an airspace and shoving too many Flankers aside in the traditional sense. Consider that Australia has to buy something not just for today, but for the next 20, 30 years. It may be a huge non-issue and the things never ever get used. Which of course is the best of all solutions. Buying all of these small tactial jets is a mistake. Macho Flanker/F-15/EF2000/ and F-22 are the way to go. And F-22 is not an absolute closed solution. Nelson would hope so but it’s not.
—-
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
Virginian-Pilot, The (Norfolk, VA)
December 15, 1999
THE NAVY’S SUPER FIGHTER IS A SUPER FAILURE
Author: JAY A. STOUT
Index Terms:
OPINION
I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service – I am a Marine – doesn’t have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy’s new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
Billed as the Navy’s strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure – a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to overcome any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the aircraft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational aircraft – including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet.
The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a replacement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s – the A-12 – but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars.
Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 – a combat-proven performer, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to “put one over” on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft – the Super Hornet – as simply a modification of the original Hornet.
The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was – a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger – built that way to carry more fuel and bombs – is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance.
Though the deception worked, the new aircraft – the Super Hornet – does not. Because it was never prototyped – at the Navy’s insistence – its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of “wing drop” – a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the aircraft’s performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a “band-aid” fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well.
And the Super Hornet’s wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the aircraft is slow – slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft-uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that “Speed is Life,” this deficiency is alarming.
But the Super Hornet’w wheezing performance against the speed clock isn’t its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dogfight, superior maneuverability allows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won’t win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today.
“But the Super Hornet isn’t just a fighter,” its proponents will counter, “It is a bomber as well.” True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 – but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don’t change for anyone – certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it.
The Navy doesn’t appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, expensive fighters – the most sophisticated in the world – started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict.
Further drawing into question the Navy’s position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the aircraft, are the Air Forces’ specifications for its new – albeit expensive – fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no rivals in the foreseeable future.
The Super Hornet’s shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: “We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots.” These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the “Super-Slow Hornet.”
What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet’s shortcomings? The standard reply is, “Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you’re going to make it work.” Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy’s leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers?
Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy’s current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the current aircraft – what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess.
Our military’s aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of man billions of dollars, should be an easy one.
Memo:
Lt. Col. Jay Stout is a Marine fighter pilot, combat veteran, and the author of Hornets Over Kuwait. These views are his own opinions and do not represent the views of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the United States government.
Copyright (c) 1999 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9912150005
ELPEnergy weapons… I knew it. Lucky the shooter just grazed him. :p
Not everything is in google. If it is just a small flight safety thing it doesn’t always go out to the news. That is probably universal in most air forces.
ELPI see this as a great regional destabilizer. Turkey will see this awesome piece of macho hardware known as Super Hornet, and demand some too. 😀
ELPHmmm, I would disagree. Here are a few of my thoughts on the topic:
ELPWow. A bold faced lie from defence… here from the defence page….
Were other aircraft such as the F-15 considered?
Yes. Defence has maintained a watching brief on other 4th generation aircraft like the F-15. The Super Hornet is the most capable 4.5 generation fighter for Australia, with many 5th generation attributes – particularly the new radar and low-observable technology. The F-15 is not in US production, is not capable in all air combat roles and does not provide an adequate maritime strike capability.
Bzzzzz wrong…
still in production …
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070306/610000000020070306095033E5.html
Anti-ship? try Korea…. Harpoon…. and SLAM
F-15E beats SH in ALL combat ability except aircraft carrier ops. Pretty sad. Not that our sec defs have ever been a gift, but hey, the above is what you get with a medical doctor. Doctors have a hard time admitting they are wrong.
ELPWasn’t there some funding allocated to do testing so as to make this a light attack aircraft also in hopes of selling it to DOD ?
ELPDassault Falcon for the Coast Guard.
Edit: Oops, sorry, Ed already mentioned that ( HU-25 ).
ELPWhy are you so keen on high Mach numbers? They are insignificant. Nobody asks for them any more. A design even for M2 is silly, better design for M1.6 and have reserves to reach M2 or 2.2 with engine overspeed. That’s it! The rest is dead weight flown around and taken into combat.
Imagine how many high-Mach airframes (including all this funny technology necessary for that) have left a black hole in the North Vietnam soil, shot down by lousy crap-tech Soviet fighters.
More times than not, Mach is meaningless with a legacy jet that burns up a lot of gas trying to do it. However F-22 has proven that moving around the battlespace in bursts of mach 1.5 or so is useful. While not using the afterburner. It burns less gas doing this. This is one of it’s useful tools. Being able to move around the battlespace in ways most bingo-fuel-legacys can’t.
ELPSeriously. And that was a freighter. I wonder if anyone can sink the Repulse and Prince of Wales today. Probably a lost skill.
That class of warship is hardly in existence. Mission killing them wouldn’t be hard….umm… just more expensive given todays weapons. I assume you mean air to ground munitions? There are a few different sub torpedo’s that would break the back of anything out there by running the torpedo under the keel.
Belgrano was sunk by low tech sub torpedos…. old Mk8’s and not even keel shots but contact shots.
ELPOK, but if few clouds render the hi-tech equipment useless, then why bother developing and buying them at all? Let us wait for the clear sky and use dumbs made in mid 40s. BTW, practically all current products wear a label *all-weather*, if you have not noticed yet.. So, where is the all weather capability? Looks like PGMs are nothing but pretty exaggerated overpriced junk..
Interesting theory but not correct. LGBs have always been weather limited. Fixed targets get hit in almost any weather with something like JDAM and similar. That has already been proven.
That was a hulk that was for all purposes… already mission killed. Most of todays medium sized and smaller “warships” are easily mission killed with an Exocet or two. And that is not a big warhead. Another thing about mission killing as opposed to sinking, with the right digital fuse, a MK-84 can be set to air burst. That would rattle/shut down a lot of fancy equipment on todays medium to small sized “warships” that are nothing but easy prey. That one hit would mission kill whole categories of warships.
The article is all about nothing. Some moron wrote it that assumes warships have to be sunk to be put out of action. Where as this is a commercial ship of ( how many tons? ). If it is a tanker those are a real bitch to sink assuming they don’t carry something like avgas/propane.
ELPFound this interesting…
Boeing certainly sees the value of AESA radar; the firm is retrofitting one on Super Hornets. But the company’s AESA program manager says there are limits to the radar’s electronic-attack abilities. For one thing, it can only zap electronic systems within a limited frequency range. “We don’t get out of the bandwidth where the radar operates,” said Roger Besancenez.
http://www.house.gov/pitts/initiatives/ew/Library/Press/050823clip-defensenews.htm
ELPJust curious why you put that JDAM thing in this thread. The article is about NCW ( netcentric warfare ) targeting hand-offs. Where the topic of the thread is electronic attack which would mean anything from supressing a cell phone tower, radar sensor, sensor in the nose of an aircraft, sensor in the nose of a missile, attempting to attack or even cook part of a network node by ruining the equipment via the enemy antenna etc.
ELPWatching slashdotters comment on military stuff is always good for a laugh or two.
ELPReliability and maintenance metrics don’t show E/F to be any better or worse than other airplanes of similar technology level (Typhoon, Rafale, Su or MiG). It is SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable and easier to maintain than the F-14 and F-4 it replaced on the flight deck. That is why the USN is in love with it. It can generate more sorties and is cheaper to maintain than old school naval airplanes.
F-18E/F and Rafale are close to the top in maintenance where electronic T.O.s and more modern diagnostics were built into the original design. And of course being new airframes.
SU and Mig. Different makers of course but also lower hours on engines before changes. We had a look at early MiG maintenance process with the Germans. Good for them as the maintainers there were mostly ex F-4 guys. If you can fix an F-4 you can fix anything. On the MiG-29 you have a lot of panels and things and access methods a western maintainer has to deal with. Again if you have worked on an F-4 no big deal but a MiG-29 is not in the same league as an F-18, F-16, or Rafale to work on.
Su-27/30. The best answer here is the Indians as they actually fly their’s and spend money on them. Force structure in Russia is still in a mess and you won’t see many maintenance metrics from the PLAAF.
F-14 and F-111. Any swinger requires more maintenance simply because of the extra wing things. I would rate ease of maintenance on the ones you mentioned as follows.
Rafale
F-18E/F
Eurofighter
F-16
F-18 legacy… although when these things go in for a refirb they are pretty thrashed from lots of use ( USN )
SU-27 ( while not a new teen with fancy electronic T.O.s an the latest of onboard diagnostics… a merge aircraft where closed line maintainer tasks work more. The engine autostart system is probably the best there is. Reliable farm tractor. While I think most of the avionics suck on it in man/machine interface, they are simple proven tech and from what little I have been able to learn fail less. Where today with totally integrated maintenance in newer tech jets…. if one system fails it can drop all of the connected systems…. SU-27….. like the A-7…. and some older aircraft, is easier to trouble shoot. X doesn’t work it must be Y. Newer gen supposed maintenance friendly jets like F-18E/F Rafale need the electronic diagnostics as what legacy F-18 and older F-16s show us is that integrated systems are harder to trouble shoot. X doesn’t work…. it could be Y Z or W. Different ways of looking at things. SU-27 means dragging along less things of one quantity (less computer test stuff) and potentially even less spares… and maybe dragging along other things that need more changes… ( lower engine life means more changing of engines. A different trade off in cost of ownership… ) A simple SU-27 isn’t a bad thing.
SU-30 ( usually more avionics and fancy stuff )… getting away a tad from the simplicity of concept of the SU-27. Can’t be helped I guess… more systems etc…etc…
F-15C ( getting more and more thrashed )
F-15E ( lots of systems on here… including nuke capable ones require more paperwork and PRP qualified maintainers )
Mig-29 ( A’s just suck to work on…. no metrics but new gen ones especially new build MiG-35 should be better than a used legacy F-18 ). Mig-29 is important though as it gave more versatility to the line maintainer. Where older Ru-tech thinking in the MiG-21 era meant a lot of things were just sealed off and need you to pull the aircraft apart in a hanger where a simple access door is the way today… The SU-27 uses a bit of this in small ways but the concept works. MiG-21 is a throw away fighter after 2000 hours. And why not? Bison and Lancer are cool but it still doesn’t address a unfriendly airframe line maintenance concept which is the way to go. )
SU-20-22 family. Never heard anything bad about this. The few things I have heard is that it just works. Not bad for a swinger.
SU-24 ??
Mig-23/ Mig-27. A mixed bag but I have never heard anything that was positive.
F-14 ( now gone for us )
F-111 … where each airframe is different….( assuming the avionics work on that air frame on a particular day….. less work per day than an…
F-4 ( had some maintainers tell me that )… F-4 isn’t hard to get your head around things it is just a lot of periodic daily tasks to do. ) cost per flying hour on this like the F-111 would kill us today. And as DJ mentioned this is what killed the F-14.
Sign In
