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

[Weaver]

Is there any reason why a future "F-18H/I" couldn't be fitted with the F-35's data-sharing electronics? After all, however clever it is, it's still just screens, black boxes and aerials, and if they can fit a Prowler's capability into an F-18G, then I have a hard time believing that there isn't the room for it all...

[rickshaw]

Is there any reason why a future "F-18H/I" couldn't be fitted with the F-35's data-sharing electronics? After all, however clever it is, it's still just screens, black boxes and aerials, and if they can fit a Prowler's capability into an F-18G, then I have a hard time believing that there isn't the room for it all...

You could.  It would be expensive and then you wouldn't have the stealth...

[Maverick]

But isn't this whole aspect of 'stealth' a Day One scenario mainly?  After all, the F-35 (and F-22) are both expected to carry external ordnance on pylons to offset their rather meager warloads once the balloon has gone up and this particular requirement isn't as valid. 

BTW, that's not an opinion, both airframes have the ability to carry ordnance externally for just that reason.  It seems the tacticians see this whole stealth scenario being rather limited, otherwise why bother including the external stores capability?  The Super Hornet (and other aircraft of its ilk have that particular capability from minute one).

Regards,

Mav

[sideshowbob9]

I tend to agree with Maverick. I see a F-35's war going a bit like this:

Day 1: Hooooooooeeeee!!!! Isn't stealth the greatest!
Day 2: Ummmmm........
Day 3: Errrrrr......
Day 4: All this $$$$$$$$ and all I have is two lousy bombs..... where's that Hornet/Tornado/Insert Legacy aircraft here.
Day 5: TECH. Return to your nearest LockMart dealership at your earliest convenience.

If a Tonka or A-10 gets dinked you can patch it up. What can an average liney do when a bit of RAM gets chipped off that costs more than he will ever earn? For me it is ALL about combat persistence, both in terms of warload and maintenance. There's still a war to fight after Day 1!

[dy031101]

But isn't this whole aspect of 'stealth' a Day One scenario mainly?  After all, the F-35 (and F-22) are both expected to carry external ordnance on pylons to offset their rather meager warloads once the balloon has gone up and this particular requirement isn't as valid. 

BTW, that's not an opinion, both airframes have the ability to carry ordnance externally for just that reason.  It seems the tacticians see this whole stealth scenario being rather limited, otherwise why bother including the external stores capability?  The Super Hornet (and other aircraft of its ilk have that particular capability from minute one).

But isn't the F-35 supposed to spend that first-day-of-war taking out targets too dangerous for non-stealth aircraft?

[rickshaw]

But isn't this whole aspect of 'stealth' a Day One scenario mainly?  After all, the F-35 (and F-22) are both expected to carry external ordnance on pylons to offset their rather meager warloads once the balloon has gone up and this particular requirement isn't as valid. 

Stealth can be used at any time during a conflict, Mav.   Its not an ability that you can add after the aircraft is designed.   It is useful anytime when surprise is desired, not just one "Day One".   Also, the need for carrying massive quantities of ordnance is starting to reduce with improved accuracy conferred by smart of "brilliant" munitions.

BTW, that's not an opinion, both airframes have the ability to carry ordnance externally for just that reason.  It seems the tacticians see this whole stealth scenario being rather limited, otherwise why bother including the external stores capability?  The Super Hornet (and other aircraft of its ilk have that particular capability from minute one).

Regards,

Mav

You're making the assumption that simply because you choose to degrade your stealth capabilities by carrying external ordnance there is no point to having stealth.  Thats rather, if I may say it, simplistic thinking.  If stealth was of little or no value, it wouldn't be being designed into so many aircraft, now would it?  You can choose to degrade your stealth - usually in the situations where you don't need it but unless you actually have it designed into the airframe, you can't revert to it when you need it.  Do you think an aircraft tasked with air superiority would give up the advantages that stealth confers by carrying extra AAMs?  I don't.

[dy031101]

If a Tonka or A-10 gets dinked you can patch it up. What can an average liney do when a bit of RAM gets chipped off that costs more than he will ever earn? For me it is ALL about combat persistence, both in terms of warload and maintenance. There's still a war to fight after Day 1!

I can see everyone's war going a bit like this though:

Day 1:

F-35: Hooooooooeeeee!!!! Isn't stealth the greatest!

Everyone Else: Man am I glad there are those F-35s taking care of that sh!t so we don't have to.

Day 2:

F-35: Ummmmm........ (shooting up someone else)

Everyone Else: Hold the line! (With full support, including the F-35.)

Day 3:

F-35: Errrrrr...... (shooting up someone else)

Everyone Else: Hold the line! (With full support, including the F-35.)

Day 4:

F-35: All this $$$$$$$$ and all I have is two lousy bombs..... time to load up on the wing hardpoints now.

Everyone Else: The time has come to hit 'em with everything we've got- send the Hornets/Tornados/*Insert Legacy aircraft* on the offensive! (With full support, including the F-35.)

Day 5:

F-35: TECH. Return to your nearest LockMart dealership at your earliest convenience. Not that you really have to.

Everyone Else: Things are dying down now- no problems.

=======================================================

On a serious note, it seems like that there are some problems the F-35 has to overcome, but reliability doesn't seem to be one of them.

People can argue that no simulation beats combat experience, but shouldn't we also take into account that the modern day simulation does have decades of jet age combat experience to base upon?

Legacy aircraft are more easily-fixed when damaged...... maybe, but the assumption is that they do come back after taking the hit in the first place.

[Taiidantomcat]

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.

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

they sure did!! ... starting in 1989. its kind of an odd argument, Mav, you are pointing that the USMC can't wait to replace the aircraft you are promoting? Wouldn't the USMC wanting to replace the hornets validate my argument as well? That the USMC has been there, done that with the F-18 and now want something better? Its kind of like pointing out that a reformed alcoholic was once a a drunk. the USMC used to be a hornet/harrier/prowler bunch but they are done with that now. the future is here. It doesn't mean they stunk, it means their time has passed. Like how one day the F-22 and F-35s time will pass. Rickshaw the P-40 is probably more accurate, All I was trying to convey was that it will be limited.

No offense taken  

Is there any reason why a future "F-18H/I" couldn't be fitted with the F-35's data-sharing electronics? After all, however clever it is, it's still just screens, black boxes and aerials, and if they can fit a Prowler's capability into an F-18G, then I have a hard time believing that there isn't the room for it all...

Thats a valid question and the short answer is... no. First off the electronics are costly so the gap between the hornet and the F-35 price wise get much narrower. Secondly the electronics would not be integrated, you would have to fit them externally which would hurt the Super Bug's LO. Thirdly it would add weight, degrading performance and causing drag, hurting range as well. Fourthly, keep in mind that the  EF-18G has big old pods on the all the hardpoints save two (ironically it would only be able to carry two bombs, like the F-35 in stealth mode! but they couldn't be bombs, they would have to be HARMs. and without the stealth, and much less range) So it couldn't really do all those things at once... You would have a scenario with the F-18H, of every few aircraft having to do the jamming and HARM work, while others carried the weaponry for ground/air.  

Beyond that there are only two countries that use the super bug as it is. the US (USN specifically) and Australia. You have to convince the USMC, USAF, UK, and all the other F-35 costumers that the F-18H is the plane to buy. And it still won't be stealth or have the range of the F-35. I have to stress that the USMC doesn't just see the F-35 as the future of the air wing, its the future of the entire Marine Corps, they have F-18s themselves and have no interest in the super bug, because it can't do what the F-35 can.  


As for the first day of war scenario (they made my morning guys   ) all joking aside, in the first gulf war 44 allied aircraft were lost and only ONE was on the first day. near the end of vietnam, 1/4 of all sorties flown were SEAD. That was why the air force starting looking into stealth in the first place. It couldn't continue losing a full quarter of its firepower hunting SAMs that were never really neutralized. When aircraft were lost over vietnam, rescue attempts were difficult at best and years of captivity followed. we lost hundreds of aircraft. being a wild weasel wasn't exactly considered a safe occupation either. SAMs have only gotten better, MANPADs have improved, mobility is a built in feature with most missiles these days.

Western democracies are extremely casualty adverse-- to lose a dozen aircraft on the first day is relatively small in the big picture scheme, but not to the home front, where bad news is magnified immensely and usually about a third of the population that never wanted war in the first place starts shouting "quagmire" and pressuring the end of hostilities. lets say the same casualties persist so after five days you have lost 60 aircraft, and mobile SAMs are still lurking waiting to kill more. It all adds up in men, machines, and morale.

You're not passing on raw data and making the pilot the integrator.  You're taking the sensor data from mutually supportive sensors, the architecture is integrating the data, and you're presenting actionable information to the F-35 pilot.

During my combat missions over Iraq, the enemy was constantly shooting at me from the ground. I spent 90 percent of my time staring outside, scanning the ground and horizon for SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery, and 10 percent doing the F-15 air-to-air radar mission.  That's about all I could process.

The F-35 is going to do that scanning and processing for you, so you can determine how to most effectively employ or position the aircraft and create the battlefield effects you're looking for.

In Iraq, it sure would have been better to have the aircraft just tell me if and when someone was shooting at me, from where, and with what type of weapon.  Better still would be to have fed the threat coordinates directly to my weapons or offboard to my wingman to enable the immediate return of fire, like the F-35 will be able to do.

More here:

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

[GTX]

The Australian Ministers' words are simply meant to put media/press pressure on lock mart.

Correct - that and to show the Australian media/public that he's acting tough/responsible.

I have in the last week spoken directly to the people who are advising the Australian Defence Minister on this and they confirm that the comments are aimed at applying pressure to LM (just as every other country seems to be doing) and should not be construed as a lack of faith in the F-35.

For those unaware, the Australian Labor Party (who are the basis of the current Govt) came into power back in 2007.  One of their focus points when they did was to look at cancelling the F-35 and going with something else.  However, once in Govt they conducted a review of it and then decided that it was still the best option by far - so for them now to changing their mind would be quite embarrassing to say the least.

I do sometimes lament though that forcing so many reviews/enquiries etc on LM for the F-35 is distracting people from actually being able to focus on the technical issues and actually producing what will be a stellar platform that is a real game-changer!  Mind you, there are currently some 75+ F-35s either flying or in assembly, with long lead items for many more already being manufactured - any cancelling of this will be a tad more than something like the TSR.2 with a couple of airframes!


Moving on to another point that most here seem to be forgetting.  Most comments seem to be looking at the aircraft's performance (some saying it's too much and others saying it's too little ).  Whilst I vehemently believe it is outstanding, that isn't really the deciding factor for most, if not all countries involved in the program.  Like it or not, but the real clincher for most of the countries involved is the work (be that design/engineering/manufacturing or sustainment related) this generates for their domestic industries.  This work means money into the countries, voters citizens employed and thus Govt's kept in power!  This is also one of the deft moves by both the US Armed services and the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney (the four primes - remember this is more than a just LM show).  For the US Govt to try to cancel the F-35 means pissing off a lot of their allies.  These would then mostly go to the Non-US competitors: Typhoon, Rafale etc.  Boeing might pick up a couple with Super Hornet, but most would be too pissed off with the USA to give them anything.  What would the US be left to do then:

USAF:

   Buy more F-22s? - Well that will go down nicely for the budget!  Anyway, the F-22 is actually a less capable platform than the F-35 when it comes to the full spectrum of roles as well as range.
   Keep existing or even buy more F-15s/F-16s? - sure that will go down well.  Whilst everyone else is getting 4+ and 5th gen platforms, they have 30+ yr old aircraft!
   Super Hornets? - yeah, like hell the USAF will ever by another Navy jet.  Anyone who thinks that has never experienced USAF/USN rivalry!
   Buy Typhoons or Rafales? - again, like hell that will happen outside the realm of whiffing!
   Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - What, reset the JSF clock to Day 1?  Well that makes sense...NOT!!!  What makes anyone think the same supposed issues won't raise themselves.  What's more, you just pushed back the in-service date another 10yrs at least.

USN:

   Keep with the Super Hornet? Whilst a possible, as Ben rightly pointed out that the USN would fight this due to it almost making them a second rate player, and would start to therefore put their carriers at risk from budget cuts etc.
   Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move!

USMC:

   Keep the Harriers going? - Same issue as the USAF with F15s/F-16s.  In fact, possibly even worse given the platform's capabilities.  I doubt anyone could squeeze anymore development out of the old bird.
   Accept Super Hornets - possible, but an extreme compromise that is totally at odds with years of tactics/concepts of operation and extremely limiting.  I would also hasten to add that this would risk seeing the USMC AirWings simply being re-absorbed into the USN.  Of course, then we might also see some of the same anti-F-35 people decrying the ending of the USMC!
   Start a new 5th Gen, VTOL Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move and one unlikely to ever get support.

Anyway, I think some of these threads are quite useless except for letting people have a rant - we are not the debating floor of the HASC or US Congress or any other body that is actually responsible for the future of the F-35 program.  Why waste valuable modelling time getting all worked up over something you can't change!

Regards,

Greg


BTW - should this thread be in the Everyday Chat area rather than here?

[Thorvic]

USN:

    Keep with the Super Hornet? Whilst a possible, as Ben rightly pointed out that the USN would fight this due to it almost making them a second rate player, and would start to therefore put their carriers at risk from budget cuts etc.
    Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move!

You may want to read this first :-

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-of-the-navy-robert-works-july-tac-air-memo/

They are already working on carrier based unmanned recon & strike systems and developing the concept for the next generation air dominance system, thats why the USN only want 200+ of the F-35C and why its not as critical to them as it is to the USAF & USMC as they are only replacing their legacy Hornets.

[GTX]

And yet at the same time they are also looking at the F-35 as an option to replace all of their Super Hornets as well.  I note you have 200+ in your post - want to wager that that '+' will turn out to be quite significant?

The various military forces are always looking into different options just as companies are looking at the next platform - trust me, just as Boeing have been banding about their F/A-XX type ideas of late, LM and others are already looking beyond the F-35 as well.  This still doesn't mean that the F-35 is in any danger of being cancelled, despite the desires of many uneducated it would seem.

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

They are already working on carrier based unmanned recon & strike systems and developing the concept for the next generation air dominance system, thats why the USN only want 200+ of the F-35C and why its not as critical to them as it is to the USAF & USMC as they are only replacing their legacy Hornets.

Here is an article where the USN talks about replacing the super bugs with F-35Cs:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/02/357450/lockheed-f-35c-emerges-as-candidate-for-future-us-navy.html

Why do you need a super carrier to launch a UAV anyway? How big are these UAVs? and how long will they take to develop?

Lets not forget that fewer aircraft mean fewer carriers. I have friends that have told me more than a few times that the only reason the USN is bought so many Super hornets in the first place was to keep the need for the carriers to put them on. 500 so far, and then Only buying 200 JSFs?

Lets think about this:

for examle the 8th air wing has two super bug squadrons, and two legacy. each squadron is about 15 aircraft, if you replace the legacy bugs with JSFs thats a need for 30 aircraft.

Thats about enough F-35s for six carriers assuming each carries 33 or so. SIX. The USN has eleven aircraft carriers. It would also mean that once again the USN has fewer top of the line aircraft than the USMC which plans on 240-320 . So yeah that "+" is going to get a lot bigger or the big carriers are going to get trimmed badly. This also brings up the legacy bug issue, they can only take so many shots and traps and will need to be retired in droves. Aren't they filling the decks of the other carriers still since they can't be full replaced? they have to be replaced by something -- The navy would have to make a decision. Make no mistake, if the navy decides to buy 200+  super bugs thats it the store is closed, they can't change their mind in 2020 and decide they want the F-35 now, sorry about the mix up. They can't have the F-35 at all in that case, there isn't enough money. So the Navy will be an all super bug force save for the 60 F-35Cs of the USMC attached to navy wings. They would have to make the Supers work until the 2030-2035 time frame, at which point they would SUPPLEMENTED but not replaced by the next gen navy fighter.


I also don't understand the US Navy's motive to not want the F-35. Lots of people in the navy want the F-35 and I don't know when it became a given that they didn't. not wanting it now but also not wanting it for another two decades? Why would they want to do that to themselves?

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-of-the-navy-robert-works-july-tac-air-memo/

Oh my god! Its a memo about cost cutting! that changes everything!! Whats to say that the the alternatives they come up with are not curtailing super bug purchases, stopping service life extensions on all legacy aircraft and saving money for the F-35? Because the Marines have pretty much put all other stuff on hold to do exactly that themselves, including standing down squadrons until the the F-35 arrives. That memo just says that all the TACAIR assets must be looked at in order to save money with the minimal amount of risk to aircraft and combat potential.  I don't read that as a direct threat to the F-35.

[MilitaryAircraft101]

Had LM developed a separate VSTOL aircraft and made the F-35 that we know with 2 engines, it would save many production costs, as a twin engined F-35 would be up to Raptor speeds and we could have a separate VSTOL, even if it is the same as the current F-35B... The F-35B is dragging the whole project down, and if it weren't one of the requirements, the F-35 probably could have been developed more... Oh well, one day, one day.... 

[Taiidantomcat]

Had LM developed a separate VSTOL aircraft and made the F-35 that we know with 2 engines, it would save many production costs, as a twin engined F-35 would be up to Raptor speeds and we could have a separate VSTOL, even if it is the same as the current F-35B... The F-35B is dragging the whole project down, and if it weren't one of the requirements, the F-35 probably could have been developed more... Oh well, one day, one day....  

Its not dragging the program down, because all of them are being developed concurrently. Its not like the A and C are waiting for the B. A separate STOVL plane means you are still making a whole separate program that could have its own cost overruns and delays, since there is so much talk of canceling the B right now, I don't think the program would stand a chance on its own anyway. Two engines means double the expense, it means less range as well because you have to feed two engines instead of one. its double the logistics, double the parts, double the admin, double the everything, Speed is not one of the F-35s virtues anyway and it was never supposed to be.  The hornet has two engines and its not at "raptor speeds" whatsoever itself. The combat radius of the F-22 is 759 km the F-35As is over 1,000KM the F-35C is nearly 1200KM, so to get that same range you would need an aircraft even bigger and heavier than the F-22, which is the exact opposite of what you want, plus you have to figure out how to make an aircraft of such size and weight land safely on a carrier at all. So essentially you would have a larger, more complicated, more expensive F-22. And you enter a "cost spiral" if the USAF could only acquire 187 F-22s, the Navy would be hard pressed to get the 200+ aircraft it needs for its carriers. Imagine if they were only able to get 120 or so...

[rallymodeller]

The entire debate is interesting because Canada shares many of the same requirements as Australia, and yet we're still trooping along with partially upgraded A-model Legacy Hornets, and Super Bugs have never really been part of the debate. The sad thing is our Hornets (the first export models) are nearing the end of their useful service lives and life-extension programs are already in place (including rotating the active fleet to extend hours). Since the JSF is being delayed again and again, there is a real chance that our Hornets will run out of airframe life before the JSFs are ready.

In Canada, whether or not the JSF will do everything including make breakfast is beside the point. We have been stuck by successive governments with a developmental aircraft that doesn't actually replace what we have now, and whose in-service date is basically a big open question. Once again, our forces have been shafted in the interest of politics and huge LockMart "marketing" (read graft).

We use our fighters as interceptors much more often than as ground-pounders. The F-35 is basically a strike aircraft with a secondary A2A capability. And more baffling, one of the reasons often cited as to why we chose the Hornet over the F-16 was the Hornet's twin engines, something we're giving up with the F-35.