RAAF may acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets
-
So the author is suggesting the Aussies should wait and see, while trying for the F-22s and JSF? JSFs aren't ready, and the F-22s are not for sale yet. So how?
And what is gonna be of the RAAF until these new spanking stealth toys arrive? The gap filler is needed, but its just a question of the selection. So the question is back to, "what were the other choices?"
The F-15SG/K/Es? -
I'm for the Aussies getting the Superbug, all things considered... it's a good thing for Singapore to have a credible RAAF to balance things out around here.
Of course all the options need to be considered as well. -
Superbug is beautiful only in slow motion however itÂ’s totally outclassed by F15 when it comes to high speed and high altitude interception role.
The latest F15 got more powerful engine( F110 vs F414) and Radar ( APG 63 V3 vs APG79)
In a mid range engagement, the latest F15 will nail down the bugs with no doubt for its superior energy state and “see 1st, shoot 1st capability”.
Navalized fighter jets usually carry higher price tag even the performance is the same or inferior than their land based counterparts.
So itÂ’s odd to see why Aussies pay top notch money for a fighter being expensive partially for its navalized features while other more capable choice is there. -
Well, a strong RAAF is a stabilising force for SEA.
I'd rather they got these than not replace the F-111s. -
in way of getting super BUgs so that they can "save" their expenses on training...but still i dont really like their idea of getting such an expensive interim before JSF
-
IMO, the Super bug is virtually a new plane from F-18A/B, Engine wise, F414 vs F404, Radar vise, AESA vs PD, Size is different, Aerodynamic features are different, and flight control is virtually re-written for F-18 E/F, I donÂ’t see too much the Aussies can save in a way.
-
I wouldn't agree with that. The Super Hornet is a much better, more deadly version of the old bug. They still fly the same way.
-Doesn't like to be too high or too fast.
-Can't break the sound barrier with external stores
-Turns very well despite low airspeed
-High Alpha tolerance
-Can't do 9gs unless clean.
-Energy efficient design, doesn't bleed so much.
-Disliked by the Tomcat (or ex-tomcat) drivers.
Toyota Camry ( F/A -18 A/B/C)
Lexus ES300 (F/A -18E/F/G) More high tech goodies. =) -
not entirely true.....is the avioinics that is given the upgrade while the aircraft performance is being degraded....with exception of given high AoAOriginally posted by Shotgun:I wouldn't agree with that. The Super Hornet is a much better, more deadly version of the old bug. They still fly the same way.
-Doesn't like to be too high or too fast.
-Can't break the sound barrier with external stores
-Turns very well despite low airspeed
-High Alpha tolerance
-Can't do 9gs unless clean.
-Energy efficient design, doesn't bleed so much.
-Disliked by the Tomcat (or ex-tomcat) drivers.
Toyota Camry ( F/A -18 A/B/C)
Lexus ES300 (F/A -18E/F/G) More high tech goodies. =) -
I didn't say the performance of the aircraft was improved. The clean F/A-18C is still more agile than the F/A-18E IIRC. Maybe i implied so, sorry about that. I didnt' mean it.
The bigger E/F may lose out to the C/D in a race to break the sound barrier, but the E/F will still be able to perform better than the C/D in subsonic speeds. The bigger E/F will have increased range, weapons and endurance over the C/D.
Logistically, though the E/F has little parts in common with the C/D or A/B, the E/F has 42% LESS parts than the hornet. Isn't that better than having parts in common in some cases?
6B may be a rather steep initial cost, but I think it'll pay off at the end of the day. -
pl read my post on 30.12.2006
The bad news is that the Super Hornet is not competitive against the latest Russian Sukhoi Su-30MK fighters, operated or being acquired by China, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, and it is also not competitive against the Boeing F-15 models being acquired by Singapore, South Korea, and flown by Japan
-
according toOriginally posted by Shotgun:I didn't say the performance of the aircraft was improved. The clean F/A-18C is still more agile than the F/A-18E IIRC. Maybe i implied so, sorry about that. I didnt' mean it.
The bigger E/F may lose out to the C/D in a race to break the sound barrier, but the E/F will still be able to perform better than the C/D in subsonic speeds. The bigger E/F will have increased range, weapons and endurance over the C/D.
Logistically, though the E/F has little parts in common with the C/D or A/B, the E/F has 42% LESS parts than the hornet. Isn't that better than having parts in common in some cases?
6B may be a rather steep initial cost, but I think it'll pay off at the end of the day.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
Features of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet:
90% Common F/A-18C/D Avionics: Avionics and software have a 90 percent commonality with current F/A-18C/Ds. However, the F/A-18E/F cockpit features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display; a larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color display; and a new engine fuel display.
34 in. Fuselage Extension: The fuselage is slightly longer - the result of a 34-inch extension.
Two Additional Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: Super Hornet has two additional weapons stations, bringing the total to 11. For aircraft carrier operations, about three times more payload can be brought back to the ship.
25% Larger Wing: A full 25 percent bigger than its predecessor, Super Hornet has nearly half as many parts.
35% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the F414-GE-400, an advanced derivative of the Hornet's current F404 engine family. The F414 produces 35 percent more thrust and improves overall mission performance. Enlarged air inlets provide increased airflow to the engines.
33% Additional Internal Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe increase internal fuel capacity by 3,600 pounds, or about 33 percent. This extends the Hornet's mission radius by up to 40 percent.
still the range is still shortlegged by F-111 Ardvark is RAAF wants strategic strike capability which can only be replace by Strike Eagle or FB-22? -
Originally posted by duotiga83:
Sorry bro, don't quite get your point. But yeah, according to your website, the Super bug does have less physical parts as well.
according to
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
Features of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet:
90% Common F/A-18C/D Avionics: [b]Avionics and software have a 90 percent commonality with current F/A-18C/Ds. However, the F/A-18E/F cockpit features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display; a larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color display; and a new engine fuel display.
34 in. Fuselage Extension: The fuselage is slightly longer - the result of a 34-inch extension.
Two Additional Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: Super Hornet has two additional weapons stations, bringing the total to 11. For aircraft carrier operations, about three times more payload can be brought back to the ship.
25% Larger Wing: A full 25 percent bigger than its predecessor, Super Hornet has nearly half as many parts.
35% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the F414-GE-400, an advanced derivative of the Hornet's current F404 engine family. The F414 produces 35 percent more thrust and improves overall mission performance. Enlarged air inlets provide increased airflow to the engines.
33% Additional Internal Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe increase internal fuel capacity by 3,600 pounds, or about 33 percent. This extends the Hornet's mission radius by up to 40 percent.
still the range is still shortlegged by F-111 Ardvark is RAAF wants strategic strike capability which can only be replace by Strike Eagle or FB-22?[/b]
Also, the similar avionics and software is what makes transition from the Hornet to Super hornet easy.
Appending to my above post, the larger aircraft does carry more fuel hence greater endurance and / or range compared to the original hornet. A larger aircraft naturally needs a more powerful engine, in the form of the F414. However, notice that no one said the Super Hornet is gonna out perform the Hornet in all regimes. The requirement for the super hornet was simply NOT to compromise the turning capability of the hornet.
Here is a very interesting point indeed. What does Australia REALLY want? A deep strike capability, or an Air to Air capability to match up with the region's flankers (that has been brought up sooo many times.) The nearest Flankers to Aussie belong to the Indons are still far and few. Indon's not gonna be able to threaten Australia's sovereignty with a few Flankers, esp with the Indons flying them.
And by the time the Indons do get a sizable and hopefully fully armed flankers, the Aussies would probably start receiving their JSFs and perhaps even the Raptors?
The way I see it, 24 multi mission aircraft like the Super bugs, with easy transition and familiarity isn't that bad for Aussie as an interim solution. It seems to me that the Aussies have already set their mind on the JSF, and are more than keen to acquire the F/A-22 should they become available. Perhaps it is wise to acquire an interim solution like the Super Bug. Once they do acquire the Raptors and JSFs, they'd have a qualitative lead in regional air power.
In other words, Deep Strike and First rate A2A capabilities may not be what the RAAF is gunning for in an interim solution. Those are capabilities that they want tier 1 5th gen aircraft to fill. Its likely that the Super Hornets could be the basis of forming a 2nd tier multi mission aircraft for RAAF's own modernization plans.
Tier 1 Air Superiority : Raptor
Tier 1 Strike : JSF
Tier 2 Multi Mission : Super Hornet
Just looking from another point of view. =) -
If Super bug is the 1200cc car, then latest F-15 is like 2000cc car
IÂ’m not saying 1200cc car canÂ’t run up to 160kms, but itÂ’s 2000cc carÂ’s domain in expressway where you need consistent running over 120kms. 24 superbugs will be stretched extremely thin considering how big the Australia is. I stand by my point F15s like those RSAF is getting are better suited for RAAF. Only F15 has the speed and determination to keep pace with Flankers. You donÂ’t want a 1200cc car to chase a 2000cc one, do you?
For air superiority, F15SG alike is better than Superbug, the reason is simple, if one day, some countryÂ’s Su30 intrudes into AussieÂ’s vast airspace, IÂ’ll lovely to see how a slow moving Superbug to catch a Flanker with a maximum speed over M2.3.
For deep strike, F15 is still better than superbug.
For money value, F-15 is still more cost effective as by adopting a new Superbug over bug, the saving is not too much.
The only clue I can get is Aussies are paying USN service in their nearby waters in a smart way.
By adopting F-18E/F, they are able to integrate their Air defense with the USN which is the most likely US force presenting in the Oceania.
And of course, when itÂ’s a fight, you can expect more superbugs than the mere 24 pieces. -
1. That is what i believe too. That the F-15SG is a boom and zoom, while the F/A-18E/Fs are great level turners.Originally posted by coolant:If Super bug is the 1200cc car, then latest F-15 is like 2000cc car
IÂ’m not saying 1200cc car canÂ’t run up to 160kms, but itÂ’s 2000cc carÂ’s domain in expressway where you need consistent running over 120kms. 24 superbugs will be stretched extremely thin considering how big the Australia is. I stand by my point F15s like those RSAF is getting are better suited for RAAF. Only F15 has the speed and determination to keep pace with Flankers. You donÂ’t want a 1200cc car to chase a 2000cc one, do you?
For air superiority, F15SG alike is better than Superbug, the reason is simple, if one day, some countryÂ’s Su30 intrudes into AussieÂ’s vast airspace, IÂ’ll lovely to see how a slow moving Superbug to catch a Flanker with a maximum speed over M2.3.
For deep strike, F15 is still better than superbug.
For money value, F-15 is still more cost effective as by adopting a new Superbug over bug, the saving is not too much.
The only clue I can get is Aussies are paying USN service in their nearby waters in a smart way.
By adopting F-18E/F, they are able to integrate their Air defense with the USN which is the most likely US force presenting in the Oceania.
And of course, when itÂ’s a fight, you can expect more superbugs than the mere 24 pieces.
2. The aircraft don't need to be the ones who do the chasing. Its the missiles, thats what they were made for. With a good AEW, thats precisely what the F/A-18E/Fs can do. Controllers can put them in the best positions for intercept. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Super Hornets can get airborne pretty fast and on pretty short runways too.
3. A large country like Australia, is not defended by fighter jets alone. Intruding jets would have to contend with Land based systems, Anti Air Warfare ships and finally Fighter jets. Throw in the Wedge tail, and the enemy will find that they are gonna burn too much fuel trying to fly anything to Australia. You don't have to shoot down planes to defend airspace, you just have to make them realize what they are gonna do isn't cost efficient.
4. Don't quote me on this, but I really doubt that the RAAF intended to hand the deep strike role over to the Super Bugs. I sincerely believe that its gonna be inherited by the JSF, and Air Superiority, the Raptor. Should the Raptor still be unavailable, then you might see the RAAF look for something else... maybe Typhoons?
5. How is the F-15E/K/SG more cost effective? They will be acquiring brand new aircraft, along with a full set of spare parts inventory, engines they've never worked with nor have technicians worked on. Pilots who have never flow in similar aircraft before would require extensive training in with the Yanks also mean more $ spent on training and basing personnel overseas for an extended period.
OTOH, a brand new F/A-18E/F would be familiar with existing A/B pilots and require less training and conversion. Its parts and inventory though new, would be considerably reduced (Half as many parts as the old hornet), and the technicians would probably find it easier to handle an evolved F404, rather than a brand new F110.
6. And yes, you are definitely right that the Australians want to be able to ensure interoperability with the US Navy folks around them.
So why not the F/A-18E/F?
Oh yeah, I'd like to see the Flanker break Mach 2 with external stores too. Then I'd like to time how long it spends in the hangar after that flight. -
The Superhornet is actually cheaper than the F15SG, the combined price of just the 24 aircraft is just over $1.6bil (US).
The price of $6B AUD is a package over ten years.
Remember the cost of all the extras is when the costs start to build up.
For instance Australia recently ordered 250 JASSM,s for the old Hornets, the price? $450M
And the Superhornet order is believed to include over 500 JSOW"S -
RAAF SUPER HORNET DEAL CONFIRMED:
Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson confirmed today (March 6) that the RAAF will acquire 24 BoeingF/A-18F Super Hornets as a bridging air combat capability for the next decade and a half.
The Super Hornet will, along with the RAAF's upgraded 'Classic' Hornets, fill the capability gap between the retirement of the F-111 in 2010 and the full operational capability of the F-35 Lightning II, expected from around 2018.
Many in industry and the media have questioned the merits of the acquisition despite reported looming delays to the RAAF's anointed New Air Combat Capability (NACC) solution, the F-35 JSF. But the Super Hornet has always been the stated fallback or 'Plan B' option for the RAAF to replace its F-111s and F/A-18A/B Hornets should the F-35 experience substantial delays or cost increases.
"The JSF is the most suitable aircraft for Australia's future combat and strike needs," the Minister said. "Australia remains fully committed to the JSF. But the government is not prepared to accept any risk to air combat and strike capability during the transition to the JSF."
The Minister said Australia's first JSFs would be delivered in 2013, with an IOC achieved in 2015, and that "the Super Hornets will support the transition of Air Force and industry from 1960s technology to the latest 21st century technology."
Minister Nelson also confirmed the F-111 force would be retired in 2010. "The next generation Block II Super Hornets will provide a more flexible operational capability than currently exists with the F-111."
The aircraft are being acquired through US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) channels under the newly established Air 5349 Bridging Air Combat Capability (or BACC) project. They will be based at Amberley and operated by current F-111C unit 1 Squadron. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is slated for late 2010, with Australian crews expected to begin training on the aircraft in 2009. The first four aircraft will arrive in Australia in early 2010 with the final aircraft delivered by the end of 2011.
As it is intended to be a "bridging" capability, Minister Nelson said that a future government would make the decision in 2014 whether or not to acquire a fourth operational squadron of JSFs to replace the Super Hornets at the end of the next decade, and that it was his view that that should happen.
Australia's F/A-18Fs will be built to the latest Block 2 standard with Raytheon's APG-79 AESA radar; the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM Block 2) system which comprises theALR-67(v)3 RWR, ALQ-214(v)2 jammer and ALE-50 towed decoy systems; the latest Advanced Crew Station (ACS) which has a 20x25cm direct high resolution colour display directly interfaced with the AESA radar for more precise targeting; and the ability to transmit precise targeting coordinates to the RAAF's 'Classic' Hornets and other strike platforms via a MIDS Link-16 datalink.
The cost of the 24 aircraft package will be $6 billion over 10 years, which will come from supplemental defence funding, which the Minister says will not "impact on the current level of funding for the JSF project, nor (involve) deferrals/deletions from the Defence Capability Plan".
The $6 billion amount includes support costs and the usual non-recurring costs associated with the introduction of any new type into service, with items such as type-specific ground support and test equipment; a Super Hornet simulator which will be located at Amberley and able to be networked to the RAAF's Classic Hornet simulators; pilot and maintenance training courseware and hardware; electronic technical manuals; six spare GE F414 engines; deployment kits and common spares; basic flight test instrumentation of the RAAF's first jet; and an initial three year training support plus 10 year sustainment agreement with Boeing and the US Navy.
Also incorporated in the package will be a comprehensive weapons and sensor suite which, in RAAF service, will likely be unique to the Super Hornet. This will likely include the AGM-154C JSOW GPS guided glide bomb, the advanced AIM-9X air-to-air missile, the ATFLIR targeting pod, and additional Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) helmets for the pilots and backseat weapons system operators (WSO).
Meanwhile Boeing, rather than take the RAAF's F/A-18Fs straight out of US Navy production, may instead look at increasing its Super Hornet production during 2009 and 2010. The company is said to be looking to ramp up production at St Louis to meet potential additional US Navy orders, as well as all the RAAF's deliveries in just two production lots so they're as close to a common configuration as possible.
Initial training for RAAF Super Hornet crews, to be drawn from both F-111 and Classic Hornet ranks, will be conducted with the US Navy at NAS Lemoore in California. "Deliveries will start in 2009, and the first four aircraft are scheduled to arrive in Australia in the first quarter of 2010," a Boeing spokesman said. "The talking plan at this time is that the jets will be dragged back to Australia four at a time, hopefully using the RAAF's new (KC-30B) tankers, but it's not yet a firm plan. They'll come down the line just like a US Navy jet; only we'll paint a kangaroo on it at the end of the line."
"The support agreement is for a fully integrated performance based logistics system, meaning the RAAF will plug direct into the US Navy's logistics contracts," the spokesman added. "The advantage of that is, instead of ordering spares and components for just 24 unique airplanes, you're in a system for 540 airplanes or whatever the final USN number will be. The difference here is that the local off-flightline support will be contractor owned and operated. We'll provide all the support for the aircraft other than that on the flightline.
"This turned out to be the lowest risk and most cost-effective solution." -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Your AEW can give you the position but end of the day, itÂ’s still up to the interceptor to catch the position in time. Not say you can ID the best position then your fighter will cover the position in time. F15, born to be an interceptor, in any given time, can cover much large air area then Superbug, itÂ’s extremely valuable for a vast country like Australia.
2. The aircraft don't need to be the ones who do the chasing. Its the missiles, thats what they were made for. With a good AEW, thats precisely what the F/A-18E/Fs can do. Controllers can put them in the best positions for intercept. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Super Hornets can get airborne pretty fast and on pretty short runways too.3. A large country like Australia, is not defended by fighter jets alone. Intruding jets would have to contend with Land based systems, Anti Air Warfare ships and finally Fighter jets. Throw in the Wedge tail, and the enemy will find that they are gonna burn too much fuel trying to fly anything to Australia. You don't have to shoot down planes to defend airspace, you just have to make them realize what they are gonna do isn't cost efficient.
No need to complicate a simple comparison by involving more stuff. A better, cheaper fighter isnÂ’t adverse to your existing surface air defense.4. Don't quote me on this, but I really doubt that the RAAF intended to hand the deep strike role over to the Super Bugs. I sincerely believe that its gonna be inherited by the JSF, and Air Superiority, the Raptor. Should the Raptor still be unavailable, then you might see the RAAF look for something else... maybe Typhoons?
Well, same money, you want to buy a 2000cc car or 1200cc? F15 covers the SuperbugÂ’s role more than enough yet cheaper.Oh yeah, I'd like to see the Flanker break Mach 2 with external stores too. Then I'd like to time how long it spends in the hangar after that flight
I donÂ’t know who you refer to, I never say Flanks can fly over M2 with much external load. But Flankers definitely have better supersonic and transonic performance is non-deniable. F15 can cover the most Su27/30Â’s supersonic/transonic flight envelops but not F-18. -
Coolant,
As I've mentioned, fighters are not the sole components of an integrated air defense system. There would layers of Naval and Land based AD components. To rely on fighters to "catch" the positions reveals serious flaws in the Air Defense plan. If you ask me, can the F/A-18E/F be able to intercept its targets, I'd say, it can if the plans are done right. Not every CAP would see its fighters dropping off its external takes, pushing into afterburners to make the intercept. Thats when the shiit hits the fan and or happens in Hollywood Movies.
As pointed out to me by an RSAF officer, today's air war is really about who is able to keep their planes in the air the longest. On a micro-level, the Super Hornet has really good loiter capability.
I'm not complicating the matter by throwing in all these components. What I was trying to point out is that the Super Hornet CAN fit well into a proper Air Defense plans which consists of multiple component.
Is the modernized F-15s REALLY cheaper? Like what digger mentioned, the SuperHornet deal is cheaper compared to our deal for the F-15SG. -
Emmm, Say a Aussie maritime asserts being attacked by fighters, do you need to send in fighters to cover ?
My point is why F15 canÂ’t fit as well, if not better into the overall air-defense?
F15 performs equally well in sub-sonic regime, if not say better than Superbugs.
Well, about cost, before the more detailed breakdown cost of that hefty 4 billion USD becomes available. I will treat it as expensive.
-
Well I think we need to look at it the big picture way.
Unlike lionniosy, most of us do not have much reason to think that the Aussies lack common sense. If the F-15 is really better suited for the needs and cheaper to boot, they would most certainly get their hands on it.
There are a lot of things we do not know, namely the way the RAAF operates, the happy meals the Yanks are willing to give them for the Super Bugs and what other have you nots.
So all in all it's tough to call. Are they really getting a defective aircraft? I don't think so... the rest is politics and cash. -
I believe that the Australian involvement in the JSF is deeper than ours, and perhaps they will be getting a substantial discount for those planes, with a large order, as an offset. Perhaps this Bug purchase has much more hidden details beyond the mere purchase of the planes.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Well I think we need to look at it the big picture way.
Unlike lionniosy, most of us do not have much reason to think that the Aussies lack common sense. If the F-15 is really better suited for the needs and cheaper to boot, they would most certainly get their hands on it.
There are a lot of things we do not know, namely the way the RAAF operates, the happy meals the Yanks are willing to give them for the Super Bugs and what other have you nots.
So all in all it's tough to call. Are they really getting a defective aircraft? I don't think so... the rest is politics and cash.
"The support agreement is for a fully integrated performance based logistics system, meaning the RAAF will plug direct into the US Navy's logistics contracts," the spokesman added. "The advantage of that is, instead of ordering spares and components for just 24 unique airplanes, you're in a system for 540 airplanes or whatever the final USN number will be. The difference here is that the local off-flightline support will be contractor owned and operated. We'll provide all the support for the aircraft other than that on the flightline.
"This turned out to be the lowest risk and most cost-effective solution."
Remember, the superbug is rated as capable enough to replace the Tomcat. -
Exactly. The F/A-18F replaced the TOMCAT, arguably the best fleet interceptor of all time.
Why is it able to do despite its lack in supersonic performance? It has to do with the technological advancement in information warfare, and increased situation awareness. You don't need to sprint all over the place when you just need to look at the map to look at a the best point to take a quick stroll to.
Sure, I can fully agree with the point that the F-15Es are equally capable aircraft and if not better in both sub and supersonic regimes. But, I've also speculated and explained my reasons why I too felt the Super Hornets were a better choice due to the logistic support, shorter logistic tail as well as easy transition. These are equally important aspects when it comes to selecting a new plane. -
yes is being replace by the Tomcat, but the roles now is being superseded by hornets/s-3 viking(tanker) and soon to be EA-6B fir EA roles. I am not talking abt supersonic, i am talking abt ACCERALATION. The straight wings + wing buffer issue though temp solve the prob but that doesnt really help a lot in the Air superiority role though nw the main concern is 1st lock 1st kill. Even now the APG-79 AESA have some issue on it. A great MULTIROLE but not AIR SUPERORITY.Originally posted by Shotgun:Exactly. The F/A-18F replaced the TOMCAT, arguably the best fleet interceptor of all time.
Why is it able to do despite its lack in supersonic performance? It has to do with the technological advancement in information warfare, and increased situation awareness. You don't need to sprint all over the place when you just need to look at the map to look at a the best point to take a quick stroll to.
Sure, I can fully agree with the point that the F-15Es are equally capable aircraft and if not better in both sub and supersonic regimes. But, I've also speculated and explained my reasons why I too felt the Super Hornets were a better choice due to the logistic support, shorter logistic tail as well as easy transition. These are equally important aspects when it comes to selecting a new plane. -
ItÂ’s a pity to see guys are talking F14 was retired because superbug is as capable as it. If US retire one weapon only because the substitute is as capable as the retired one, then your guys can also draw the same conclusion as B-52 is as capable as B-1 and FB111. Both are retired or retiring, as a consequence of the ending of Cold war, which is the same reason the Tomcat was forced to retired though Grumman & Navy appealed to the congress.
The F-18 came as a low end supplement to the F-14, 20 years ago it’s like that, 20 years after, even Bug evolves to become superbug, it still not up to the tier of F-14, One day if you see USSR rerising and Su34/ Tu-22/Tu-160 re-deployed with aim at Sam’s, you will see swiftly reviving of Tomcat or its equivalent, Not a Superbug or its evolution, no matter how much cost USN can save from streamlining the air wing operation or how high the maintenance of F-14 fleet will be. Just like US is still relying on F-15 “eagles” for its territory air defense, not Superbugs. -
When u said “You don't need to sprint all over the place” is as u are endorsing “ You don’t need supercruise “ because Supercruise is about to let you get the freedom of “sprint all over the place”. Hey, once has to wonder why Supercruise is so important as 1 of 4S benchmark.Originally posted by Shotgun:...Why is it able to do despite its lack in supersonic performance? It has to do with the technological advancement in information warfare, and increased situation awareness. You don't need to sprint all over the place when you just need to look at the map to look at a the best point to take a quick stroll to.
Speed is the single most important factor involved in the BVR battle provided both sides Radar and BVR AAMs are similar. F-22 can extended AIM-120CÂ’s range by a hefty 30% when it launches at Mach1.6, an F-15 launches Aim-120C or Su-27/30 launches R-77 @ up to Mach1.5 is definitely in a superior state than your AIM-120C launched by Superbug near Mach 1. An estimated 15%-20% boost in range.
2ndly will be ACCERALATION, you are about to speed up fast enough from cruise speed to maximum AAM launching speed. Again, Superbug is outclassed by the likes of F-15 and Su27/30. Here comes again 1200cc/2000cc car scenario: 2000CC car can “zoom” up from 0 to 100kms in mere 8seconds while it may take 1200CC car 12 seconds to do the same.
3rdly I will put climbing rate, the better climber will shout you down from up while the poor climber will have to shoot the target up from down. ThisÂ’s especially important as most todayÂ’s BVR AAM are launched in parabolic trajectory in order to increase range.
All the 3, F-18 is outclassed by F-14/15 or Flankers