A better look of what Canada has to consider as a CF-18 replacement, based on existing needs, can be seen here.
---
Last week, we compared two very similar "Eurocanards". This week will look at two American designs. While they fulfill similar roles, they are quite different. One is a updated version of an old favorite, while the other is completely new. These aircraft will be serving alongside each other in both the US Navy and the RAAF. For this match-up, we are going to compare more common variants of each, the F-35A and the F/A-18E.
How does the old workhorse stand up compared to the new kid on the block? Let's find out.
Air-to-Ground:
Interdiction: The Super Hornet is no slouch here, especially when supported by its EA-18G Growler variant. The F-35 has the advantage of stealth, however, enabling it to sneak through an enemy's radar defenses. While it may not match the B-2 in stealthiness, the F-35 is the sneakiest strike aircraft in existence right now. Advantage: F-35. (This shows a lack of program knowledge. The F-35 is not proven. It has not passed the USN 'OPEVAL' or USAF readiness inspection. It is years from development. "Existence". That would be the F-22 with 8 small diameter bombs (SDB). More on the 'stealth' capability of the F-35 here. )
Deep Strike: The Super Hornet has a lot more options when it comes to extending its range. Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are being developed, but in the meantime it still has the option of mounted external tanks. The F-35 goes further on internal fuel, but external tanks are still a ways off. Advantage: Super Hornet, at least until the F-35 gets external tanks. (There won't be any external tanks for the F-35. This will killed off in a US DOD contract when it was decided to stop this effort because of too much risk. The F-35 team was unable to come up with a solution. The original assumption was that legacy F-18 tanks would be used. Studies showed problems with external stores (like JDAM and CBU-105) bumping into the tank. 3 new design drop tank candidates didn't pan out either. Studies showed when they were punched off, that they would clear the leading edge of the wing by an unsafe margin. The F-35 probably does not go further with internal fuel than either the F-22, Super Hornet or even F-16 with conformals and tanks. Because of their limits vs. emerging threats, both the Super Hornet and F-35 (if it ever works) will need JASSM to execute what anyone would consider 'deep strike'. )
Payload: Despite the Super Hornet being larger, with two engines, both aircraft carry similar amounts of ordinance. The Super Hornet has the advantage of one extra pylon, but it has to sacrifice that advantage in order to carry a targeting pod. Advantage: Tie. (Depends. If the F-35 works, it could carry more JDAMs. 2 internal, BRU-55/57 twin smart racks for 2ea. 500lb class JDAMs external. It would be a true Vietnam War F-105 trip on a hot day but if one has the tankers.... Well this might work if it proves it. Super is limited on BRU-55/57 because it has its own stores problems inherent in the design (stores bumping into each other in certain load outs)....What is important here is the variety of weapons and stores. Super can buddy-refuel. It can carry the SHARP recon pod. Also it always leaves the deck with a gun. Super is HARM qualified. It is working on Harpoon qualifications; where SLAM-ER may come with that. It started on JASSM clearance years ago but was stopped when USN didn't want to be joint... at that price point with something that was still far from proven. Up to this point. Harpoon and SLAM-ER has been the responsibility of the legacy Hornet. Many stores are not qualified on the Super because money had to be spent on Afghanistan and Iraq.)
Close Air Support: Both aircraft carry nearly identical weaponry, and operate from similar altitudes. The F/A-18F's extra seat could be a slight advantage, but so could the F-35's more advanced HMD and sensors. Advantage: Tie. (Negative. None of the F-35 systems are proven and some are in an area of hard trouble. Also as above, the gun. The Super always leaves the deck with the gun, the B and C...not always. Two aircrew in the back does matter for CAS help. One two-seat Super can act like a fast FAC and call in all kinds of platforms (B-52, F-16, F-18 whatever) and also acquire other targets in a kill box environment (interdiction mentioned above) and pass those to incoming strikers. Finally, the Super can take more damage from enemy fire. Development reports on the F-35 show it to be a fire bug.)
Air-to-air:
First look, first kill: Both aircraft use similarly sized AESA radars. The F-35's is slightly more advanced, however. The F-35 also has its EOTS and DAS giving it a 360 degree view of the area around it. On top of all this, the F-35 is a much stealthier aircraft than the Super Hornet. Even with the proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrades, the Super Hornet will never be as stealthy as the F-35. Advantage: F-35. Clear winner. (Not a clear winner).
Beyond Visual Range: Seeing the enemy is one thing, knocking them down is another. Both aircraft use the AIM-120D AMRAAM BVR missile, which has a maximum range of about 180km. The actual "no escape zone" is significantly less (and very classified). The closer the F-35 gets, the better chance of a missile hit. Unfortunately, getting closer increases the chance of detection. The F-35 pilot will have to tread a fine line, but ultimately has the advantage if they don't get too close. The Super Hornet's best strategy here is to bring the get to the merge a quickly as possible, negating the F-35's stealthy advantage. Advantage: F-35. (Interesting as the AIM-120D has quality control problems and is admitted by DOD and industry as being the "achille's heel" in future battles. Also it only has a 50 percent probability of kill vs. easy targets. Expect that to be much less against targets that can defend themselves. If the F-35's situational awareness works, it will have outstanding information of what is about to kill it.)
Within Visual Range: Once the Super Hornet pilot is able to utilize the "Mark One Eyeball", things start to change dramatically. Once things start to turn into turning match, the Super Hornet's superior thrust-to-weight and wing loading win the day. While the F-35 has its fancy EOTS and DAS to give a clear view all around it, they are pretty much moot at this point unless it is carrying AIM-9X Sidewinders on external pylons, greatly reducing its stealth advantage. Advantage: Super Hornet (As explained at the link above... although I would not brag about the Super Hornet's "superior thrust to weight" and wing loading. Interesting is that a late-block legacy F-18C has better performance than a Super.)
Dogfight: If the F-35 pilot finds himself in a dogfight, then something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. While the F-35A does have an impressive 25mm cannon, it might as well be for decoration at this point. The low-and-slow flight regime is where the Super Hornet lives. Its legendary high AoA performance give it the proper "nose authority" to point its gun at a target easily. If that wasn't bad enough for the F-35, itslack of visibility and fire suppression is enough to put its pilot into a cold sweat. The delicate F-35 simply does not have the chops to stand up to the much sturdier Super Hornet. Advantage: Super Hornet, Clear winner. (The Super Hornet is one of the lowest performance aircraft in air-to-air re: kinematics. Which should be of interest when considering the SU-3x, SU-35, PAK-FA and others If the Super Hornet is the 'clear winner', the F-35 is doomed).
Each aircraft is clearly superior in its particular regime. The F-35 is clearly the sniper, taking out its enemies before even being seen. The Super Hornet is more of a knife fighter, simply wrecking anything that gets too close. Unfortunately for the Super Hornet, the F-35 has no need to get that close. A smart JSF pilot will simply let its AMRAAMs do the talking, then slink back into the darkness. Winner: F-35. ( "letting AMRAAMsdo the talking" with a 12-13 PK vs kinematic performers that will detect the F-35 at range and be able to detect AMRAAM launches including jamming same, will be an interesting trick).Versatility/Logistics:Versatility: The F-35 comes in three flavors, the F-35A CTOL, the F-35B STOVL, and the F-35C carrier version. While it is always nice to have options, the B suffers from a decreased payload and range, while the C suffers from decreased performance compared to the A. They are also a great deal pricer. It is also strictly a single seater, so the F-35 pilot has nobody to share the workload. Then again, the F-35's stealthiness and sensors make it a fantastic reconnaissance platform, no matter what the variant.
As for the carrier-capable Super Hornet, it would be hard to find a more versatile workhorse of a fighter. It is available in single-seat F/A-18E, two-seat F/A-18F, or two-seat electronic warfare EA-18G "Growler" versions. The Growler variant is capable of wreaking havoc on an enemy's radar and communication systems. If that wasn't enough, the Super Hornet is also capable of mounting "buddy refueling" tanks, giving it the ability to refuel other aircraft.
Both aircraft were designed with a penchant for strike over air-superiority. Neither aircraft is optimized for air-superiority, however. Oddly enough, the best way to get the optimum "bang for the buck" with both aircraft is to buy multiple variants of each. Despite this, both aircraft work much better when they have a true air-superiority fighter backing them up. Advantage: Tie. (This is difficult to gauge since most medium-to-low threat environments can be handled by the Super. The F-35's problem is that it is too weak to take on emerging threats and too expensive to own and operate for lessor threats handled by existing platforms.)
Logistics: Currently, the Super Hornet sees service with the US Navy and the RAAF. While Boeing likes to play up its commonality with the legacy F/A-18 Hornet, it is almost an entirely different, and much larger, aircraft. That being said, it is still a relatively simple, straightforward aircraft to maintain and has proven to be reliable aircraft.
If all goes as planned, the F-35 will see well over 3,000 units in the hands of at least a dozen or more operators, making it the preeminent fighter of the western world. Parts for it will be built all over the world, and spares should be plentiful. Then again, the F-35 development has been plagued with reliability issues and software glitches. Such is the case when you have an aircraft composed of exotic new technologies. Stealthy aircraft also have a habit of becoming "hangar queens" since their radar absorbent skins tend to not hold up well to bad weather.
If the JSF sold in fewer numbers, the Super Hornet would likely run away with this one. But its numbers are impossible to ignore. No matter where you find yourself in the world, there is likely to be a parts supply chain and other infrastructure nearby. Advantage: Tie. (ALIS, the prime element of which F-35 maintenance assumptions were based on, has failed. F-35 will have to prove that it is competitive. The USN has already shown concern about this with cost per flying hour figures for the F-35 which are not pleasant. There is no credible proof given the current F-35 program history, that there will be thousands of them made.)
So what is a value judgement for an intelligent buyer of military equipment? Fly before you buy. The F-35 is not at that point. And as for the alleged lethality of the F-35, it would be best if when it is ready, there is a fly-off between it and the F-22 and Typhoon. The F-22 representing the PAK/FA and the Typhoon representing the SU-35. If the F-35 can beat those in practice combat, we have something. Also red air planners who made the PAK/FA and SU-35 are designing it to kill the F-22. Do that, and the F-35 is a given.
The F-35 is the wrong aircraft for Canada for many reasons. For now though, because it is not complete and there is no fly-before-you-buy, it should be disqualified on that alone.
The F-35 is not ready.
---
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
---
No comments:
Post a Comment