Brazil and the Super Hornet
Here is a good look of what is involved in a traditional arms sales proposal that uses offsets of various kinds to make the deal more politically friendly. While not mentioned, notice that some of the aircraft in this competition are carrier capable.
-“A big portion of the F-18 will be built here,” Albaugh, 58, said today in an interview in Brasilia. “For every dollar that goes toward that airplane, that money will come back to Brazil as manufacturing, software, avionics, and electronics.”-
,,,
Bjørnar Bolsøy, and 
RSF are discussing. 
Mike Burleson 11:12 am on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
I am beginning to think the Hornet will be the “last manned fighter”, and not a bad deal either!
RSF 5:30 pm on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
The Super Hornet is dependable with good avionics, that about it! Their are serious issues with the under wing hardpoints canted out inducing unwanted drag and stress on the airframe which ELP has covered at this blog in the past. The IRST has to be mounted in the centerline fuel tank meaning it will have to be jettisoned at the beginning of a dog fight. Due to its 20+ year old wing design which places emphasis on transonic maneuverability, it can not supercruise meaning using the afterburners more often thereby shortening the operational range. Comparing the Super Hornet vs. SU-30/35 shows that in many critical areas – range, speed, supercruise ability, supersonic maneuverability, missile load out etc, it is inferior.
Due to jamming, hacking, EMP weapons, etc there will be many more manned fighters in the future. I am not ready to regurgitate the new standard line from Mr. Gates and his leadership which have proven with the F-35 how far they are removed from reality.
Mike Burleson 6:51 pm on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
Trying to find the perfect fighter is what has gotten us a hollow air force with our older, so-called obsolete fighters holding the line for decades, and winning I might add. Superior avionics, stealth features, supercruise and maneuverability requirements aren’t necessary for planes meant to be bomb trucks and missile carriers. It is in the weapons based on micro-chip technology that is the real revolution in warfare, that just need a ride to the target. proof of this can be seen in the robot drones currently dominating warfare on land, in performance little better than the 1st generation of fighters from the Great War. Their attributes are being fairly cheap, and perfect platforms for the new precision guided munitions that have combat generals thinking in terms of individual strikes rather than waves of very costly fighter and bomber sorties.
Clearly the UAVs are the future, and until they reach their full potential, our older legacy planes are more than adequate to take up the slack. I just wish we had more off the shelf versions of our F/A-18s and F-16s to replace well-used and worn out planes from the 1980s.
RSF 8:00 pm on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
Mike:
Lets look at your arguments one at a time.
1. I would argue that the search for a perfect fighter is the natural process of building new aircraft in response to developing technologies, weapons, and tactics. Would it be appropriate to fly a F-86 from the Korean war, or a F-4 from the Vietnam conflict against today’s threats? Looking at fighter technology, a new series of fighters are usually required every 10-20 years.
2. The statement that our legacy fighters are winning or doing well is just inaccurate. The performance in Cope India of the USAF is a reflection of just how good the Russian fighters have gotten. The technology gap between us and the Russian and Chinese fighters continues to shrink.
3. You have not addressed the issue of the huge numbers of legacy fighters that will need to be replaced by the Air National Guard and USAF in the next few years.
4. Supercruising is a critical ability that allows fighters to quickly get to the battle field, and have enough fuel to fight and get out. It is important, and will become more important as more foreign fighters gain this ability (like the Gripen NG).
5.Stealth remains a critical factor when faced with advanced SAM’s and Russian and Chinese fighters flying with PESA/AESA radar systems. There are now large areas of the globe were our legacy fighters will be denied access by these evolving threats. This will profoundly impact US Naval fighter operations in the future.
6. Robot drones/UCAV’s only dominate in our present conflicts fighting nomadic herdsman/insurgents armed with MANPADS and AK-47’s. Is has been proven over and over that using drones against technological nations results in the drones being shot down!
7. While I support building new build improved versions of existing legacy fighters, its not going to happen under Mr. Gates.
Bjørnar Bolsøy 8:54 pm on July 12, 2009 Permalink |
If they could buy the Foch from the French in practicly notime, then my bet’s on the Rafale.
RSF. Drop an empty centerline? I would assume the SH enjoys pretty much a full envelope with it. If it means dropping your best bet for a succesfull outcome of the fight, I sure know what *I* would do.
Mike. In that case, AMARC? Here’s the recipe: You take the worn out airframe with all the gadgets and gizmos and put it into the not-so worn out airframe.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
RSF 3:46 am on July 13, 2009 Permalink |
B. Bolsøy:
My point about the IRST in the tank is that you are taking an airframe with existing engineering compromises that impact performance and adding another. If you were in a high g knife fight would you want another source of drag on your plane? What about all the work done to reduce the radar return for the Super Hornet? It all goes down the tube with a centerline tank in place.
Bjørnar Bolsøy 8:29 am on July 13, 2009 Permalink |
RSF. Granted on the compromise, not at least that it’s hung underneath the fuselage – hardly an ideal spot for BFM. OTOH pylons and weapons would ruin the signature any way. It’s going to be interesting to see what the future brings in terms of stealthy weapons carriage, cocoons, conformal bays etc.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Mike Burleson 11:02 am on July 13, 2009 Permalink |
RSF, in answer to your points:
1) Times change and the revolution is no longer in advanced avionics but sensors and software. Computer technology can often be obsolete in months, In no way can you build platforms to keep up with the changes. This is why it now takes up to 2 decades to field a new fighter, and why such an approach is obsolete. We can get by with the platforms we have, but keep updating the computers and weapons.
2) I think our fighters are doing quite well, fighting on the frontlines from the 1980s to today, they are winning all our wars. Just the idea that their avionics must be replaced is silly, with the old adage “if it ate broke why fix it”. Glaring proof is the venerable B-52 which we haven’t found an adequate replacement for in 60 years. We need to start thinking this way about fighters as well, or we go bankrupt, keeping the hollow force we now have.
3) Replace the Guard fighters with like planes. New build F-16s.
4) Since we have got along without supercruise throughout the age of flight and all our wars including the ones we are fighting today, why is it suddenly so critical? Because industry and the military say so? I can’t imagine supercruise will fair much against a hypersonic SAM, which is much easier to build and deploy. The point is, we keep adding so much capabilities to our platforms that are wonderful but not necessary, then we can only afford a handful of wonderplanes, and then critical funds are taken away from equally important air functions such as close support, UAVs, tankers, maritime patrol, ect. It is a death spiral even superpowers can’t afford.
5) I agree stealth is important when facing SAM systems, but it is much cheaper to place such expensive add-ons on a UAV in high threat areas, or using stand off missiles, which the Israeli’s seem to get by with quite nicely. Again stealth is wonderful, but a budget drainer of epic proportions.
6) Again the Israelis helped pioneer UAVs in high threat areas, and earlier the US used them in Vietnam. Given time I think they will manage the bigger threats as well and I disagree that this has been “proven over and over”. I don’t recall any major air conflict where this was so. Manned jets get shot down as well, which has been well proven in all wars. A fact of life. the problem with the superfighter advocates, they think their handful of fighters won’t ever face attrition, which is a disastrous idea in war.
7) Here you are probably correct, but I keep hoping…