F-18 Advanced Hornet

[the road runner]

True, the SH upgrades don't make it a real LO jet but the improvements are still worthwhile as the USN and Australia will be using their Superhornets and Growlers for quite awhile yet.

I would rather see the money spent on JSF than upgrading a 4th gen fighter to make it semi competitive against a 5th generation air craft.

@ Toptob i was just pointing that these 4th generation upgraded aircraft are not a true LO/VLO aircraft.

Cheers

 

[King Wally]

I wasn't even born at the time but I imagine the debate regarding the F-35 today is similar to what was going on back around the 70's when there were tried and tested upgraded versions of the F-4's and F-5's on the market vs getting on board the teen series fighters that were in development (F-15/16/18 in particular).

Difference being the cold war was raging back then and the next gen options at the time were wider compared to the take it or leave it F-35 situation.

Where there lessons learnt back then we can carry forward today? Or is the situation just too entirely different.

 

[John Newman]

True, the SH upgrades don't make it a real LO jet but the improvements are still worthwhile as the USN and Australia will be using their Superhornets and Growlers for quite awhile yet.

Unless Boeing receives more Super Hornet orders very soon and specifically for the Advanced Super Hornet, the ASH will remain a concept and nothing more, if there are no further orders for new airframes, then it will be up to the USN to decide if the Super Hornet becomes a reality or not.

Yes there is always the possibility, regardless of how remote, that the USN might decide to upgrade the SH to ASH or probably more likely take components of the proposed ASH upgrade an apply them to the SH fleet.

It maybe for example, that the conformal tanks and upgrades to more powerful engines could flow through, but again it would be up to the USN to be convinced of the value of doing such an upgrade and of course taking into account the development costs too.

And that brings me to the RAAF, the SH that we purchased are exactly the same spec as the USN SHornets, and as I understand it, the RAAF has been very clear about the upgrade path it will follow for the SH, and that is to follow the USN.

So unless the USN adopts some or all of the ASH enhancements, then I don't see anytime soon that the RAAF would go to Boeing and pay the development costs associated with upgrading such a relatively small fleet without the USN also going down that same path.

The ASH may well prove be a leap in capability above the standard SH, but without orders, or the USN deciding to upgrade it's existing fleet, then I'm not going to hold my breath that the ASH will ever become a reality.

 

[ngatimozart]

I wasn't even born at the time but I imagine the debate regarding the F-35 today is similar to what was going on back around the 70's when there were tried and tested upgraded versions of the F-4's and F-5's on the market vs getting on board the teen series fighters that were in development (F-15/16/18 in particular).

Difference being the cold war was raging back then and the next gen options at the time were wider compared to the take it or leave it F-35 situation.

Where there lessons learnt back then we can carry forward today? Or is the situation just too entirely different.

The situation was quite different in that you had two very different opposing coalitions with quite different world and political views, NATO & the Warsaw Pact; or to turn it around a bit, Soviet style communism Vs the "free world". Maoist communism was less of a threat and Nixon started the process of reaching out to China. The two major communist powers the Soviet Union and the PRC had a major philosophical difference of opinion in the 1960s which resulted in the trading of high explosive projectiles across their mutual borders in 1968.

Western powers feared Soviet tank armies rampaging through the Fulda Gap and hence across Western Europe to the Channel. Therefore in those days, I would argue, it easier to obtain funding and public support for new weapons systems because a common enemy existed, one upon whom the public and national will could be focussed. In the east behind the Iron Curtain the Soviets and the elites within their satellite states (Warsaw Pact) feared an invasion from the decadent west, not just militarily, but also ideologically which would "infect" their populations with impure and decidely anti-socialist ideals that could cause actions, such as demands for democracy etc., that would question the ruling elites legitimacy, which in turn threatened the elits hold on power. As a result of these two ideologically opposite and competing political systems, a nuclear and convential arms race, between the two superpowers existed and both blocs played upon the fears of their populace and politicians.

Today it is much different with only one superpower left and some say that it is now in a period of decline. It has financial and political problems that it doesn't have the will to deal with and it doesn't have an enemy as powerful or as fearful as the Soviet Union to face. So it becomes harder for it and other western govts to justify large weapons expenditure on defence budgets in times of tight economic climates and perceived low external threats.

There is an axiom that those who don't learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat them and methinks that at this particular point in time that is the major lesson to be understood. I would argue if one looks at Europe in 1937 and 1938, there are some parallels between then what and is occuring now vis a vis the PRC actions with its neighbours and how the rest of the world reacts to it.

 

[the concerned]

Why would you buy the Shornet its going to be out of production within the next couple of years.

 

[StobieWan]

Effectively, from more or less now on, the fighter market will be split into "those who can obtain the F35" and the people who have to make a tough decision. as to what else they can fill in with instead.

 

[John Fedup]

The situation was quite different in that you had two very different opposing coalitions with quite different world and political views, NATO & the Warsaw Pact; or to turn it around a bit, Soviet style communism Vs the "free world". Maoist communism was less of a threat and Nixon started the process of reaching out to China. The two major communist powers the Soviet Union and the PRC had a major philosophical difference of opinion in the 1960s which resulted in the trading of high explosive projectiles across their mutual borders in 1968.

Western powers feared Soviet tank armies rampaging through the Fulda Gap and hence across Western Europe to the Channel. Therefore in those days, I would argue, it easier to obtain funding and public support for new weapons systems because a common enemy existed, one upon whom the public and national will could be focussed. In the east behind the Iron Curtain the Soviets and the elites within their satellite states (Warsaw Pact) feared an invasion from the decadent west, not just militarily, but also ideologically which would "infect" their populations with impure and decidely anti-socialist ideals that could cause actions, such as demands for democracy etc., that would question the ruling elites legitimacy, which in turn threatened the elits hold on power. As a result of these two ideologically opposite and competing political systems, a nuclear and convential arms race, between the two superpowers existed and both blocs played upon the fears of their populace and politicians.

Today it is much different with only one superpower left and some say that it is now in a period of decline. It has financial and political problems that it doesn't have the will to deal with and it doesn't have an enemy as powerful or as fearful as the Soviet Union to face. So it becomes harder for it and other western govts to justify large weapons expenditure on defence budgets in times of tight economic climates and perceived low external threats.

There is an axiom that those who don't learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat them and methinks that at this particular point in time that is the major lesson to be understood. I would argue if one looks at Europe in 1937 and 1938, there are some parallels between then what and is occuring now vis a vis the PRC actions with its neighbours and how the rest of the world reacts to it.

One huge difference between now and then is the internet. One or more of the "Teen" jets may never have gotten off the ground if the ability to spread mis-information using the internet had existed back then.

 

[John Fedup]

Effectively, from more or less now on, the fighter market will be split into "those who can obtain the F35" and the people who have to make a tough decision. as to what else they can fill in with instead.

Given the level of leftard whining in Canada we will be lucky to get a few dozen SHs let alone F-35s. Of course this assumes SHs are still in production by the time our political morons make a decision.

 

[ngatimozart]

One huge difference between now and then is the internet. One or more of the "Teen" jets may never have gotten off the ground if the ability to spread mis-information using the internet had existed back then.

You are right, the internet and mass communication is a major difference. However I have noted that the quality and quantity of the news in the news media has significantly deteriorated. If the internet had existed back then I don't think the misinformation would've made much difference.

 

[RobWilliams]

One huge difference between now and then is the internet. One or more of the "Teen" jets may never have gotten off the ground if the ability to spread mis-information using the internet had existed back then.

ngatimozart's on the button, the ability to spread correct information on the internet is just as easy as it is to spread false information so that's not the issue.

The issue being the quality of the journalists writing it which - at least I know is true to the UK anyway - isn't particularly great and 9/10 times is based on a few BS facts taken out of context.

 

[StobieWan]

Unfortunately it's easier to propagate negative views with simple rhetoric, often appealing to uncertainty and doubt - rebuttals often require a more considered and technically qualified approach.

I tripped over someone just last year who was still under the impression that the WAH-64's were still sitting around waiting for air crew for instance, despite the fact that we've had 8 cabs in Afghanistan doing very good work for years now.

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately it's easier to propagate negative views with simple rhetoric, often appealing to uncertainty and doubt - rebuttals often require a more considered and technically qualified approach.

I tripped over someone just last year who was still under the impression that the WAH-64's were still sitting around waiting for air crew for instance, despite the fact that we've had 8 cabs in Afghanistan doing very good work for years now.

I read something, that for the life of me I can not find now, a while ago that detailed the techniques used by "denialists" be they environmental, economic, vaccination, tobacco, evolution etc to hijack debates and discredit experts, it was both eye opening and frightening.

It was a form of spin that starts off by attacking everything that everyone they disagree with says as spin! It relies on convincing people that they are being lied to and tricked and that the "other side" has a secret agenda. It relies, not on convincing experts and informed individuals that they are wrong (as they usually are not) but rather aims to discredit them and convince the uninformed that the experts and informed are part of a conspiracy through either being bought off or conned.

Their premise is that the other side knows they are wrong but are "deliberately twisting the truth" to get their secret agenda across the line. This effectively stifles constructive debate as instead of free and open discussion permitting the examination and analysis of evidence leading to a greater understanding, every glitch and piece that isn't quite understood is used as a bludgeon to shut down debate and bring into question the whole direction being taken.

The scary thing is it leads to intelligent informed people being shut down and sidelined by uneducated morons who have read or more likely listened to (reading is too hard) the relevant left/right/religious/whatever mouthpiece that morning so know all the answers and all the slogans needed to shut down reasonable discussion.

 

[StobieWan]

All conspiracy theories rely on a raft of evidence built from inconsistencies and they all rely on simply moving on to the next piece inconsistency -and at no point will a conspiracy theorist reveal what they stand for.

A friend ambushed me at home over the 9/11 thing and almost in one sentence suggested that the towers had been remote piloted aircraft, missiles, and internal demolition, all at the same time - you can't argue with folk like that.

I famously offered to stab a model in the eye if she persisted in talking to me about 9/11 conspiracy theories


Ian

 

[Volkodav]

You cant effectively argue with them so don't which leaves them the only ones talking hence the only voice the uninformed hear.

 

[John Fedup]

The F-18 Superhornet production will cease in 2016 if no new USN or export orders happen. The only positive outcome of this fact is it will force our useless politicians in Canada to decide on on something to replace the CF-18s with.

 

[John Newman]

The F-18 Superhornet production will cease in 2016 if no new USN or export orders happen. The only positive outcome of this fact is it will force our useless politicians in Canada to decide on on something to replace the CF-18s with.

I'm sure Boeing will hold off making any announcements about the eventual Shornet line closure for as long as it can, (especially till Canada makes its decision), but you would suspect that if there are no further new orders in the next year or so, it will eventually have to bite the bullet and make an announcement, as it has done recently with the C-17 production winding up at the end of 2015.

So yes there probably is still some time for your Government to make the 'wrong' decision, but let's hope they see the light and go with the F-35!!

 

[colay]

I'm sure Boeing will hold off making any announcements about the eventual Shornet line closure for as long as it can, (especially till Canada makes its decision), but you would suspect that if there are no further new orders in the next year or so, it will eventually have to bite the bullet and make an announcement, as it has done recently with the C-17 production winding up at the end of 2015.

So yes there probably is still some time for your Government to make the 'wrong' decision, but let's hope they see the light and go with the F-35!!

The US Congress has just agreed on,a 2014 defense budget. It includes a provision for,additional F-18SHs so this will ensure the production line stays open a bit longer.

 

[King Wally]

When were the 12 Aussie Growlers being produced? I heard 2017 delivery at one stage? I can only assume they are planning to toss that order at the back of the SH production line soon if not already.

 

[John Newman]

The US Congress has just agreed on,a 2014 defense budget. It includes a provision for,additional F-18SHs so this will ensure the production line stays open a bit longer.

Thanks, didn't know that the US Congress had agreed, last I read (31 October), was this:

US Navy cancels Super Hornet pre-solicitation order

The main point being:

The US Navy has backpedaled on its intention of acquiring more Boeing F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2015, cancelling a 17 October pre-solicitation order for up to 36 of the aircraft.

The navy issued a cancellation notice on the federal procurement website FedBizOpps.gov today, putting the brakes on the earlier notice, which was for both F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft.

The navy also cancelled a 17 October pre-solicitation notice to procure up to 84 General Electric F414 engines, which power both the Super Hornet and Growler, according to FedBizOpps.gov.

But further on in the article was this:

The Senate appropriations committee also recommended that the FY2014 budget include $75 million for procurement of Super Hornets, noting concerns about delays of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

Seventy five million dollars is not a lot, but I suppose it's there to keep the door open for the component suppliers, would that be correct?

The little I know about US procurement is that Congress can add or delete from the various services wish lists, as I understand happened with the extra C-17's that were added.

Still, if no extra airframes are ordered for the USN (or export) beyond the current orders, sooner or later Boeing will have no choice but to start winding down production.

 

[colay]

Seventy five million dollars is not a lot, but I suppose it's there to keep the door open for the component suppliers, would that be correct?

The little I know about US procurement is that Congress can add or delete from the various services wish lists, as I understand happened with the extra C-17's that were added.

Still, if no extra airframes are ordered for the USN (or export) beyond the current orders, sooner or later Boeing will have no choice but to start winding down production.

If the line were to close in 2016, suppliers likely start switching to building other things as,early as 2014 with no orders in the pipeline. The money should keep suppliers of long lead-time components in the mix.
It's a reprieve for Boeing until the F-35C production ramps up.