FA-18 E/F gains 'new' electronic attack capabilities!

HEY EVERYONE!! "Rise and shine" the Super duper Hornet just became a 5th Gen fighter!

Dont you just love these guys in the USN. As soon as there is a little pressure on a program they wave a wand and hey presto! They announce some new capabilities, check out this link
www.aviationweek.com.../aw022607p2.xml&headline=Navy%20Details%20New%20Super%20Hornet%20Capabilities&channel=def ense

Of course it would have nothing to do with flogging this puppy to the RAAF and maybe India and Japan (distracting attention from the F-22 of course) Or to secure favour with congress in case the F-35 ends up in the can. And lets not forget the threat of UCAV's doing the EA job and stealing the fighter jock's thunder. And of course somebody woke up from their decade long end of cold war snooze and realised that without the F-14 around who protects the CBG's from all those shiny new anti ship missiles? SO "who ya gonna call?" AESA!

The irony is this sales pitch if sucessfull may not help the Joke Strike Fighter case much, because congress scrutinizers will ask a simple layman's clarity question. "If these new capabilities gives the FA-18E/F a similar 5th gen capabillity as the F-22 & F-35, (which it probably wont, but hey who am I to argue?) then what exactly do you need the F-35 for apart from stealth? which is gonna cost 'gulp' how much did you say?".

Then again maybe the USN knows something about the F-35 program not publicly revealed yet?

Could be a case of "bye, bye American tax payers pie" being whispered in the halls up on the hill.

Thoughts and comments people.

LEE.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by thebozeian]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by thebozeian]

Sorry, something went screwy with the posting. The subject line should read: "FA-18 E/F gains 'new' electronic attack capabilities!"
My apologies.

LEE

Psssfffttt - another avionics upgrade that doesn't disguise the fact the "Super" hornet is still a crap airframe.


The Navy have reduced the influence zone of their carriers, and no amount of fancy electronics are going to change that.

[edit on 26/2/07 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Psssfffttt - another avionics upgrade that doesn't disguise the fact the "Super" hornet is still a crap airframe.


The Navy have reduced the influence zone of their carriers, and no amount of fancy electronics are going to change that.

[edit on 26/2/07 by kilcoo316]

Exactly- when the A-12 was cancelled along with Super Tomcat variants, deep interdiction capabilities pretty much went away. Actually quite a number of capabilities have gone away(i.e. S-3B, removal of Harpoon anti ship missiles , among others).

[edit on 26-2-2007 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Psssfffttt - another avionics upgrade that doesn't disguise the fact the "Super" hornet is still a crap airframe.


The Navy have reduced the influence zone of their carriers, and no amount of fancy electronics are going to change that.

[edit on 26/2/07 by kilcoo316]

Exactly- when the A-12 was cancelled along with Super Tomcat variants, deep interdiction capabilities pretty much went away. Actually quite a number of capabilities have gone away(i.e. S-3B, removal of Harpoon anti ship missiles , among others).

[edit on 26-2-2007 by BlueRaja]

Deep interdiction is no longer a primary mission for the traditional CVBG, or not as much as it used to be. Currentl land-based asssets, cruise missiles, and other national assets now have sufficient range and response time to cover those area now inaccessable to carrier launched aircraft.

Control of SLOCs and littoral waters has always been the primary mission of the CVBG. Deep inland strikes was always a way to pump the Navy's budget while simultaneously sticking it to the USAF. Now that deep strike is going back to the USAF, maybe the USN will improve on it's traditional roles....

P

Originally posted by Pyros
Deep interdiction is no longer a primary mission for the traditional CVBG, or not as much as it used to be. Currentl land-based asssets, cruise missiles, and other national assets now have sufficient range and response time to cover those area now inaccessable to carrier launched aircraft.

So what happened in Afghanistan again?


You can never have enough range... never.

Originally posted by Pyros



Deep interdiction is no longer a primary mission for the traditional CVBG, or not as much as it used to be. Currentl land-based asssets, cruise missiles, and other national assets now have sufficient range and response time to cover those area now inaccessable to carrier launched aircraft.

Control of SLOCs and littoral waters has always been the primary mission of the CVBG. Deep inland strikes was always a way to pump the Navy's budget while simultaneously sticking it to the USAF. Now that deep strike is going back to the USAF, maybe the USN will improve on it's traditional roles....

P

The problem is that deep strike capabilities, one is dependant on availability of airbases and overflight rights. If a Carrier has that ability too, it increases:

A-Flexibility(increases the difficulty for air defenses if more ingress routes available, so that SAM/AAA belts are less concentrated, and increases the number of sorties that can be flown).
B-Quick reaction time in emergency situations for force projection
C-The psychological impact of a Carrier battle group

True the Hornet has always been under powered and has had short legs but so what? It all depends on what’s priority. Personally that's never been enough for me to discount the Hornet completely, as apparently some have. It has one of the best avionic, sensor and weapons package in the world (and IMO is the 3rd best fighter currently available), combine this with future LO features and a new engine on the Block III and it become that much better. In combination with the 700nm (is that enough?) F-35 it should be a good one-two for the Navy, the Tomcat wouldn't hold a candle to it except for range and speed. The Navy's primary role is anti ship and now anit aircraft the Super Hornet perfumes both of these roles better than the Tomcat.

However it is not now nor will it ever be a 5th Gen aircraft (like the F-22 and F-35).

Originally posted by WestPoint23
True the Hornet has always been under powered and has had short legs but so what? It all depends on what’s priority. Personally that's never been enough for me to discount the Hornet completely, as apparently some have. It has one of the best avionic, sensor and weapons package in the world (and IMO is the 3rd best fighter currently available), combine this with future LO features and a new engine on the Block III and it become that much better. In combination with the 700nm (is that enough?) F-35 it should be a good one-two for the Navy, the Tomcat wouldn't hold a candle to it except for range and speed. The Navy's primary role is anti ship and now anit aircraft the Super Hornet perfumes both of these roles better than the Tomcat.

However it is not now nor will it ever be a 5th Gen aircraft (like the F-22 and F-35).

So you compare something made in the 70s to a just updated airframe?


What would the Tomcat not be able to do better than the hornet if it had AESA, the fancy avionics, JHMCS?


Face it - all of the hornets strengths are equipment that can be placed inside any airframe - the airframe itself is dung, pure dung. About the only thing it has going for it is low maintenance hours - not that that is much comfort if you have all the planes on the carrier available to fly, but they aren't good enough to perform the missions.