Australia looking at doubling its Super Hornet fleet to cover F-35 delays

[Thorvic]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/08/24/02.xml&headline=Australia%20Mulls%20Additional%20Super%20Hornet%20Buy&prev=10

Looks like Australia is following the USN in looking to order additional F-18 E/F's to cover the capability gap brought about by the delayed F-35A being unable to replace the legacy F-18 Hornets on schedule.

The interesting aspect is that some will be single seat F-18E models and will they replace existing RAAF Hornet squadrons or will they use a decommissioned squadron no ?.

From a Whif point of view you could do them in RAN 805 sqdn markings and have them used off friendly carriers the same way the  Argentine Navy operates its Super Etendards 

BTW JackJack who comments on the Aviation Week articles is now stating to remind me of Comical Ali by his utter denial of any article that casts doubt or questions his precious LM F-35 program, so the fact he's an Aussie and now even his government is looking for alternatives or stopgaps due to the failure of the F-35 program to meet the requirement to replace the RAAF F-18 Hornet fleet in time must have left him chewing the carpet when he read it ! I dread to think what would happen if they did next year order the Super Hornets at the expense of part of the intended F-35 order 

[rickshaw]

While the delays in the F-35 programme represent a problem, the F-35 is still the only real game in town which is more capable than the various Su-27 variants in our region and the rapidly improving J-10/J-20 fighters that the Chinese are starting to build.  Something the detractors of the F-35 invariably miss when criticising it.   More F/A-18E/F/G are useful in the short-term but the longer-term prospects suggest that the F-35 is what we need.

[MilitaryAircraft101]

Well TBH, I love the F-35. Now don't ask me why, because well, just don't. Supers are BRILLIANT aircraft, and would serve Aus well, but as the F-35s are intended to replace current F/A-18A squadrons (3,75,77) using F/A-18Es would be impractical, if only to replace them in 5-10 years time. But recommissioning 78,80 Sqn may be practical, even if it meant to cull the F-35 numbers, but definately not by 48! Especially if they only purchase 24 -Es... But with orders for RAAF for F-35 being nearly 100 (lets say 96), To replace 71 Hornets and 24 Super Hornets would mean 95 F-35s... If we needed to, buying 24 more supers, in the form of -Es, and bringing F-35 numbers down to 72 to replace only F/A-18A/Bs, would be the most practical solution, providing we buy more supers. And when the time comes to replace the SHs, 15-20 years down the track, 1 Sqn is destined to re equip with UCAVs, with 6 Sqn transitioning to some other stealth craft, mabye Boeing F/A-XX for example... Then with "75 & 80" Squadrons re equipping with the F/A-XX later, with the 3 (3,75&77) Sqn F-35s. That would mean not much of a capability gap. A timeline to explain for those who are thinkin'  ... I will use 78 and 80 squadrons as the possible recommission sqns...
           CURRENT       FUTURE (2020-2025)         FUTURE (2025+)
1 Sqn - F/A-18F      -         UCAV               -           UCAV
3 Sqn - F/A-18A      -         F-35A              -           F-35A
6 Sqn - F/A-18F      -         F/A-18F            -          F/A-XX
75 Sqn - F/A-18A    -         F-35A              -           F-35A
77 Sqn - F/A-18A    -         F-35A               -          F-35A
78 Sqn - NIL          -          F/A-18E           -           F/A-XX  
80 Sqn - NIL           -        F/A-18E             -          F/A-XX

With this timeline (F/A-XX standing in as a 6th Gen fighter) There is not much of a capability gap with this, taking the F-35A FOC of around 2020, and the F/A-18Es around 2015-2020... We could have a very capable force, with enough to belt the jeebers out of any likely threat like the pacific nations that surround is immediately.

Rock on..  

[Thorvic]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/08/25/01.xml&headline=Navy Official Questions Need For JSF Variants

Looks like the USN F-35C or F-35B may be targeted as part of the US DoD budget prunning with either choosing between the B or C variants or purging numbers down which will increase unit costs.

Technically the USN could get by without the F-35C as it can use Super Hornets which are still in active production as part replacement and make greater use of the UCAV systems, plus they starting to investigate the Super Hornet replacement program scheduled for the end of the next decade. The USMC are a little hard to compromise as they have to replace Harrier & Hornet so it would either be a an all F-35C program or a mixed F-35C/F-18E/F group and loose their STOVL capability to the rotary wing.

At least they are only being asked to look at loosing one of the variants rather than both as some rumour mongers had predicted, but it does leave the UK waiting to see what future the F-35C has and may result in having to reassess our JCA requirement

[Taiidantomcat]

Technically the USN could get by without the F-35C as it can use Super Hornets which are still in active production as part replacement and make greater use of the UCAV systems, plus they starting to investigate the Super Hornet replacement program scheduled for the end of the next decade. The USMC are a little hard to compromise as they have to replace Harrier & Hornet so it would either be a an all F-35C program or a mixed F-35C/F-18E/F group and loose their STOVL capability to the rotary wing.

Again that is not true. "Technically" The USN could get by with the Hellcat, it just won't have any serious capability worth the price you pay to have the carriers that hold them. and its survivability in a modern hostile environment will be extremely limited. In other words you will have a multi billion dollar battle group that can't attack. The Super Hornets would have to stretch into 2035 at least as well, and do not have the avionics, sensors, or stealth that the F-35 does. With the development of rival fifth generation aircraft like the J-20 and PAK-FA, and improved air defences, the Super Hornets' days are numbered, and the number will probably come up long before 2035. asking the navy to stretch an aircraft that is a rehashed version of 1970's design for another 23 years is unrealistic and a recipe for obsolesce or insignificance . the above scenario would leave the USAF as the only service with stealth, 5th gen aircraft. which would make naval air the equivalent of polish cavalry-- an expensive anachronism. For this reason the Navy won't allow it to happen. If they wait until 2035 to be effective in a modern environment, always waiting for the USAF to help, there won't be any reason to remain a separate force. You might as well absorb them into the USAF... and that would be downright nutty wouldn't it?

The USMC will not accept super hornets, as it will destroy any independence Marine Air Wings enjoy. they have only taken 60 F-35Cs to take some pressure off of the navy. The Future of USMC air is the F-35B.

And finally why on earth would you fund a "joint strike fighter" that only one service got to use?  

The F-35C won't be canceled and neither will the B. The whole program is nearly bulletproof, whether you like the aircraft or not, agree with the concept or not, it isn't going anywhere. Anyone who talks about cancellation of the JSF is showing ignorance as to exactly how important it is to the future of US Aerial warfare. The Navy Needs it, the Marine Corps wants it, and the USAF has to take it because the F-22 production is closing out. The above articles are all about dotting the i's and crossing the t's to look like they are cost cutting. The Australian Ministers' words are simply meant to put media/press pressure on lock mart.



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/19/361019/australia-may-decide-on-additional-super-hornets-in.html

FTFA:

"But I'm confident that the joint strike fighter project will get up."

We're still expecting to receive our first two planes in the United States in 2014-15 for training purposes. We've committed ourselves to 14. Our Defence White Paper and our Defence Capability Plan talks in terms of around or up to 100,

Smith, commenting on delays to the F-35 programme, said he did not "want people to run or leap to a conclusion that [more Super Hornets] is the path we'll go down."

[sandiego89]

Good comments all.  I do think more super hornets for Australia is a good idea to buy some time and explore options.  Perhaps they can skip the JSF or wait until the dust settles. The US purchace is much more complicated.  Something has to give with the budget and the JSF is one of the most obvious targets.  I agree that all out cancelleation is unlikely, but perhaps one variant will be axed.  I think if anyone gets caught out it will be the USMC B version- it has the highest risk and they may be forced into the F-18E/F which as stated below would be a huge compromise and threat to their exisitance and expeditionary doctrine- but you do have to ask has V/STOL been essential? A cynical conclusion is a jack of all trades replacement for the F16, early F18, AV8B/GR/Sea/Harrier and A-10 with first day of war survivabilty/stealth was too much to even dream of.  Nothing learned from the F-111?     

[Taiidantomcat]

but you do have to ask has V/STOL been essential?

Absolutely. unless you can think of a way to land a jet on an aircraft carrier without a catapult or arresting wires. We make the mistake that since it isn't used in combat routinely, it isn't used EVERYDAY to operate at all. I often hear that VSTOL is an "airshow trick" its not:



Its allowed the USMC to keep fixed wing assets with its light carriers, The navy is disgusted at the harrier which is something the USMC loves-- It means the navy won't hijack them like they do hornets (the USMC isn't even allowed to do major maintenance on hornets without Navy authorization) Its not just important tactically, but as an inter service buffer. Hornet Marines who work aboard the super carriers are often called "sailors in Marine uniforms" by the harrier folks. its an insult that shows mindset. I do agree the B is more in danger... but its still nothing compared to the hell storm that was the V-22 and the USMC managed to get it despite much tougher opposition, (and crashes and 30 dead).  The Marines will pull every favor they can, every vote and they will get the B. I don't think its out of reach personally. Despite delays none have crashed, the VSTOL variant has done well save for the overheating issue. the F-35 can do it... it just can't do it cheaply, and thats where things get dicey. 

[dy031101]

A cynical conclusion is a jack of all trades replacement for the F16, early F18, AV8B/GR/Sea/Harrier and A-10 with first day of war survivabilty/stealth was too much to even dream of.  Nothing learned from the F-111?    

But isn't the F-111 a design forced to do two different kinds of jobs (low-level attack v.s. high-altitude air combat) whereas the F-35 is a design serving pretty much the same role, just from different launch platforms (airfields v.s. CVN v.s. LHD/LHA)?

[rickshaw]

Nothing learned from the F-111?     

Perhaps to reverse that point, I believe the US learnt a great deal from the F-14.  "No pound for ground" was how it was billed when it was first designed - it was intended to be a pure fighter, not a compromise like that of the F-111B - a strike aircraft which was tried to be turned into a fighter.   The F-14 ended its days hauling bombs.  It did it quite well, too, as I understand it.

I think the chief lesson from both the F-111 and the F-14 is that you can make compromises in aircraft design to make the plane fit the role it has to fulfil but it depends on what the aircraft starts out in life as, as to whether or not it will ever change roles successfully.  Turning a strike aircraft into a fighter is harder than turning a fighter into a strike aircraft.    Another good example of that is the Tornado ADV.   Excellent strike aircraft - reasonable interceptor - poor fighter.   In otherwords you can downgrade but you can't upgrade.  Performance must be designed in, from the start, it can't be added later.

[PR19_Kit]

Another good example of that is the Tornado ADV.   Excellent strike aircraft - reasonable interceptor - poor fighter.   In otherwords you can downgrade but you can't upgrade.  Performance must be designed in, from the start, it can't be added later.

But the Tornado wasn't intended to be a 'fighter' per se.

The UK's requirement at the time was for a BVR interceptor that could get out over the North Sea in a hurry with a large enough load of longer range missiles to knock out Soviet bombers coming down via the northern route. Dogfighting was never part of the deal, the 'limited war' scenario that developed over Iraq and Bosnia etc hadn't been forseen. Now that such a situation has changed we've got the Typhoon, and that IS a 'fighter', no question.

[Taiidantomcat]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/08/24/02.xml&headline=Australia%20Mulls%20Additional%20Super%20Hornet%20Buy&prev=10

BTW JackJack who comments on the Aviation Week articles is now stating to remind me of Comical Ali by his utter denial of any article that casts doubt or questions his precious LM F-35 program, so the fact he's an Aussie and now even his government is looking for alternatives or stopgaps due to the failure of the F-35 program to meet the requirement to replace the RAAF F-18 Hornet fleet in time must have left him chewing the carpet when he read it ! I dread to think what would happen if they did next year order the Super Hornets at the expense of part of the intended F-35 order 

Yeah his government is "looking into alternatives" will the madness never end?! Truly all is lost for the F-35 fans. its looking... actually talking about looking really. If you see the article i posted the Defense Minister seems to already be clarifying that they still fully intend to buy the F-35. If you think the F-35 is a disaster why would the government looking into alternatives suddenly translate into instant victory against it?

  The F-14 ended its days hauling bombs.  It did it quite well, too, as I understand it.

It did indeed and it came with the realization that if they didn't find something worthwhile to contribute to the grand campaign of the next war, rather than flying over the carrier for hours on end they were going to have to make themselves relevant in the next fight, or there was no point in having them at all. So they adapted, very well in fact.

I would never say that F-18E/F isn't a good airplane because it is... but its kind of like the Stuka. any major opposition air or ground  if it doesn't have friends to take out threats its in real danger, its still effective but it is limited. And no amount of upgrades are going to solve the problems. Remember when people use to get into shouting matches about which was better the F-14 or F-15? Yeah no one even bothers to compare an F-18E/F to an F-22. The Navy needs to get back in the game and they know it. an F-35 still won't be as good as an F-22 but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction. The navy is getting its first stealth aircraft only 30 years after the USAF. trying to stretch the Hornets into 2035 would mean 50 years!  Way to go navy! It only took ya half a century! Welcome aboard! 

The Marine Corps on the other hand is thinking BIG:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-projected-impact-of-f-35b-on-usmc-operational-costs/

FTFA:

Direct military manpower will be reduced by 30%; approximately 340 officers and 2600 enlisted.

    Within the Naval Aviation Enterprise we will reduce the technical management requirements the systems requiring support by 60%.

    Peculiar Support Equipment will be reduced by 60%; down from 1,400 to 400 line items.

    Simulators and training support systems will be reduced by 80%; five different training systems will neck down to one.

    Electronic Attack WRA's will be reduced by 40% and replaced with easier to support state of the art digital electronics.

    The Performance Based Logistics construct will nearly eliminate macro and micro avionics repair, and intermediate propulsion support functions.

    Airborne Armament Equipment (AAE) will be reduced by over 80% with the incorporation of a multi-use bomb rack.

    Compared to historical parametrics we expect our overall O&S costs to decrease by 30%.


The key to enabling these reductions is to evolve our supportability concepts, processes and procedures instead of shackling ourselves to a support infrastructure built for legacy aircraft.

So the airplane costs more but you still have serious net savings. And you don't need an F-18, AV-8, EA-6B -- you just need one F-35. Imagine a super hornet, with the electronic capability of the Growler, that can hover... All in one.


http://www.sldinfo.com/looking-beyond-the-libyan-airpower-moment-shaping-coalition-coherence/

FTFA:

So a good Libyan War lesson learned is simple—current modern war, especially war in the air requires considerable planning, and high level coordination, and extensive high end airborne assets for command and control to be effective.

Now imagine all combat pilots, from all allied countries having the same intelligence and situational awareness about the Battle Space in their individual cockpit. It gets even better — all pilots will have uniformly  understood symbols and cockpit display icons that are not language specific. Much like the emerging universal road and other signage that are understood regardless of language.

The F-35 (T/M/S) "Z-Axis" putting "C4ISR-D"  (D is for Decision) in the individual  cockpit has the potential to revolutionize the ability of an alliance fighting force.  All Fighter Pilots flying the F-35 across US services and allied Air Forces will concurrently operate from the same base line of evolving battle intelligence. The possibilities for new combat tactics for a decentralized yet unified air campaign are only limited by the operator's imagination.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-emergence-of-the-z-axis-changing-the-way-airpower-enables-combat-operations/

The achievable vision is that a USMC F-35B afloat will have the same SA as an airborne or strip alert USAF or allied F-35 pitching into the fight. The agility of such an Airpower force is unlimited compared to stove-pipe technology-even fighting an air battle with emerging 5th Gen stealth being developed by Russians and Chinese.

At least in the future if the Nations have trouble with something as basic as to what to call the war-the combat pilots will fight as one.  That is if the US keeps the F-35 promise, especially the strategic value of basing for the F-35B.

The Super Hornet can't do these things. Even if you coerce the USMC into using the big bug, its still won't be used by the USAF or other allies besides Australia and maybe the UK. And we aren't talking about spare parts, we are talking about the ability to communicate real time intelligence with the same universal system to all aircraft in a combat environment from all over the world. Fratricide would be nearly nonexistent too.

[Maverick]

Ben, whilst all these complex systems and their resultant euphamisms are quite wonderful, the proof will only be in the pudding as they say.  Until the F-22 or F-35 are fighting a war, one can't say that one is better than the other or better than anything else for that matter.  There's also the issue of tactics and training, but that's another matter.  One could also suggest that the chances of fighting against a first-world enemy is rather remote (unless a rather serious balloon goes up) and the more likely scenario would be against a non-conventional enemy like today's environment.

Suggesting the Super Hornet is like a Stuka is rather insulting however.  The aircraft is still a capable a-a platform whilst the Ju-87 never could attempt air to air combat except perhaps against a C-47!

Regards,

Mav

[Taiidantomcat]

Ben, whilst all these complex systems and their resultant euphamisms are quite wonderful, the proof will only be in the pudding as they say.  

In other words, "All the wonderful things that make the F-35 better than its competitors, contain too much jargon and may not work, so we will wait until after the war is over to buy F-35s." lets not forget that the Hornets that the RAAF bought were unproven at the time as well. The top article is all about saving money and reducing cost/personnel thanks to only needing one airplane... I don't think that's a complex system-- Its more of an accounting/budget/logistics demonstration. The F-35 (T/M/S) "Z-Axis" putting "C4ISR-D"  is about gathering battlefield info and sharing it with other aircraft. Even if you kill the F-35, the need to save money and use aircraft in concert is essential.

 One could also suggest that the chances of fighting against a first-world enemy is rather remote (unless a rather serious balloon goes up) and the more likely scenario would be against a non-conventional enemy like today's environment.

Suggesting the Super Hornet is like a Stuka is rather insulting however.  The aircraft is still a capable a-a platform whilst the Ju-87 never could attempt air to air combat except perhaps against a C-47!

Then why would you need A-A capability to fight unconventional forces as it is? By your prediction even the F-18s you have now are overkill. If you are so confident that you are going to fight unconventional forces devoid of any ability to kill an aircraft, the Stuka would be the smarter, cheaper solution.  

[rickshaw]

Suggesting the Super Hornet is like a Stuka is rather insulting however.  The aircraft is still a capable a-a platform whilst the Ju-87 never could attempt air to air combat except perhaps against a C-47!

Regards,

Mav

I agree the simile of comparing the F/A-18E to a "Stuka" is a bit harsh.  I would suggest perhaps it might be better to compare it, at this stage of its life to the Hurricane or the P-40.  Both excellent fighters but not really in the top league.  They were outclassed by others such as the Spitfire, the Bf109E and the Zero for example.  They did their job and they did it, for the most part adequately.  In the hands of a skilled pilot they could even often beat those top league fighters, particularly if those fighters were flown by novice or just work-a-day pilots.   The JSF is near the top of today's top league.  Its clearly superior in so many ways to other top league, conventional fighters at the moment, such as the Typhoon or the Su-27.

[Maverick]

Ben, I'm attempting to be polite, etc with regards to this issue whilst still putting a valid point across.  I hope the purile bickering that has been the norm here of late won't raise its ugly head again.  People have differing opinions.  If this thread (or others) were to be purely F-35 fanboy threads, I wouldn't find the need to give an opinion.  I had felt that discussions regarding the Super Hornet or F-35 would be just that.  Discussions, rather than simply shoulder patting exercises.

Anyhoo, I don't believe I said that the F-35 wouldn't be bought & used, I simply stated that whether its much vaunted capabilities will be a war-winner or not remains to be seen.  That is perhaps obvious, sorry if stating it caused offence.

As to whether a Stuka would be a good option against the current crop of belligerents, I guess you'd reduce the MANPAD threat somewhat with a piston engine.  Whether a couple of unguided bombs and two rifle calibre machine guns would be an effective enough warload is another matter.

Regarding the Hornet's capabilities in that regard, didn't the USMC replace their A-6s with -18Ds?

Regards,

Mav