It is nice of Boeing and the U.S. government to offer Japan an aircraft with some really great avionics.
It is not so nice that from brake-release to intercept the Super is the slowest thing on the market.
Note where its pedigree is on this chart.
The history of the Super Hornet's weak performance should be well known to anyone who spends just a little bit of time looking for other things besides press releases.
.
10 comments:
Super Hornet is not a point defence interceptor...
Rex
Eric makes a fair argument that the Super Hornet option would not exactly enable classic 'Interceptor' like capabilities (e.g., needing to get from brake release to 200 nm range as quickly as possible - or chasing a target heading down the coast, flying away from you, etc).
A couple arguments I'd make:
If one would want a Super Hornet, it would fill a transonic strike-fighter role, not a true multi-role. If one however wanted to convert it artificially to a multi-role, then it would need to be armed with specially developed asymmetrical stand-off AAM munitions to compensate for lack of intercept speed and true air-superiority performance. The avionics alone on the Super, while excellent, just won't cut it.
I'd advocate developing an air-launched SM-6 variant, tipped with dual-seeker (possibly including the existing IIR seeker from the SM-2 IIIB). It could be eventually updated to counter rogue short-range TBM threats, as well certain cm threats, etc. This rumor about an air-launched Stunner variant from Rafael (or something equivalent) might also be something to contemplate for compensating air-air capability. i.e., Let the high-end weapon system provide the quick-response intercept deterrence, not the Super bug.
Another point I'd advocate w/ respect to the Super is this: Write off the fact the thing is draggy and under-powered in relation to the drag. Go with the EPE engine and tune it for fuel efficiency and improved reliability. Furthermore, develop a Thrust-Reverse nozzle for the EPE engine. That would be a justified extra 300-400 lbs of weight on a fighter which won't be going supersonic anyway. But over-night, it would force-multiply the Super two-fold as a remote-operating capable fighter, optimal for Short-landing road-way operation. One could argue such a capability even for a transonic fighter, would give it overall game-changing potential.
-geo
If you altered the F18 profile to be more aerodynamic, lost one of the draggy tails, added heaps more thrust and added canards, you could have a Eurofighter.
Or you save yourself some hassle and have a Eurofighter instead.
It'll be easier to add a dual mode seeker to Meteor.
Ask yourself what Japan needs?
Eurofighter is fast interceptor, with load of very long ranged AtoA missile.
F35 is designed as an attacking aircraft, optimised for AtoG.
And the F18E just isn't in the running for Japan
Er guys, Japan isn't buying an interceptor. It's buying a replacement for it's multi-role F-4EJs.
It's interceptor force uses the F-15J/DJ, of which they still operate more than 150 aircraft.
Surely you don't have any great issues with the performance of the F-15s performance?
And no, I don't work for the Japanese version of the DMO before you ask...
Good to bring up the F-4. That is another aircraft that would beat the Super from brake release to intercept.
To anonymous,
FWIW, I did ask a fairly active Japanese aviation enthusiast (with top-notch You tube vids if you want the link) that very question: "What exactly does Japan need?"
In his opinion, he thinks it's best to 'rent' Super Hornets as he called it in the short-term and buy F-35 once they are mature and more advanced.
With no F-22 or F-15SE in the picture, I personally wouldn't disagree with that strategy.
But alternatively, the Typhoon is an excellent platform with plenty of growth potential despite what anyone says. No doubt. Any customer of an upgradeable, modern Typhoon would get their investment's worth as part of a next-gen 'mix'.
- geo
Lucky they're not buying it as an interceptor then!
The question is though, is the Super Hornet a good enough replacement for the role the F-4EJ undertakes within the Japanese Air Self Defence force?
Throwing up red herrings about how comparatively slow it is, doesn't say much about how well it will perform in it's intended role. It isn't as good at vertical landings as a CH-47 Chinook either. Should it be critiqued for that?
Seems to me as geo has alluded to, the Super will make a great short term replacement for the F-4 and the other types are the better longer term option.
I'm not sure "renting" them is the best idea in the world though, who is going to front up the cash to buy them in the first place for instance?
Of the major renters of fighter aircraft in the world (Czech Republic and Hungary with Gripen leases) these leases were only available because Sweden had already purchased more aircraft then they could afford to operate and these aircraft were surplus to requirements, making them available to sell or lease to others.
The situation is not the same with Super Hornet. Indeed the USN isn't authorised to purchase enough as it is, given it's often touted "fighter gap". It certainly hasn't got 50-60 spare Super Hornets lying around to lease out to another user, nor has Australia with only 24 purchased so far.
So who is it, who is purchasing these Super Hornet aircraft as "surplus" to requirements and thus making them available for lease?
Very odd comment
"Er guys, Japan isn't buying an interceptor", I would think that that is what they need, re J10 and J20, er.Bonzaaaa.er.
Anon,
Are 150+ upgraded F-15's not enough to serve as interceptors?
Okay, what about 150+ F-15's + the new ATD-X LO fighter project Japan intends to replace it's 80odd lethargic F-2's?
I would advocate Japan looking at continuing to upgrade it's F-15's along the lines of the F-15SE proposed by Boeing for it's long term interceptor solution, investing heavily in the ATD-X LO aircraft to take on the strike, maritime strike, recon and LO fighter capability and looking for the cheapest and quickest option available to it, to replace it's 60 odd F-4's within the next 3 to 4 years, with outer year ATD-X fighters as long term F-4 replacements.
Replacing the F-4, F-2's and oldest F-15's in the longer term with a common indigenous type to maximise the economic return on a type due to local policies, unlikely ever to be exported. Sweden managed an economic return on somewhere around 200 Gripen airframes. Properly managed, I would expect Japan to be able to as well.
Is that enough yet? How many is enough? Japan needs something quickly to replace 60 or so F-4EJ's that are running out of hours. It wants something that can do air defence, maritime strike, recon and basic air to ground tasks and has Eric's "new car smell".
As it's not looking for an interceptor and has better long term prospects than short term, I'm just not certain an expensive type like the Typhoon or F-35 is worth it, compared to local prospects.
I would say for once that a Gripen might be the perfect choice here, but as SAAB hasn't bid for the contract, I'd say the Super Hornet is the next best option for a short term acquisition.
Post a Comment