F/A-18 Super Hornet

[Loke]

Actually i see pretty good chances in all those countries deciding to probably opt out of F-35. Canada in particular, Denmark might be more open to European solutions. Those that do not opt out are those with major financial offsets involved in the program. It's by no means a "default" choice anymore, especially since in recent months heavy doubts about delivery schedules and costs have risen in possible additional procurement countries (see Singapore and South Korea).

IF Canada opts out of F-35 then I think the SH would be the natural choice however I don't see that happening. F-35 will most likely be more expensive than the SH, but the difference may not be that big.

And that is part of the point I am trying to make; the SH is quite capable but it is also quite expensive. Keep in mind that to keep the SH relevant it needs a substantial MLU in the near future that will push the price up; it would need the EPE engines, CFTs, RCS reductions, low-RCS weapons pod, upgrade in avionics, IRST system, etc. Without those things (or most of them) it is difficult to see how the SH can remain relevant over the next 40 years.

With those things, the price will go up...

This is why I think that high-end operators that currently consider the F-35 for the most part will go for F-35. In particular partners have a strong incentive to do so, and both Canada and Denmark are partners.

[Jimmy]

Anything more than mach 1.5 is of limited utility... With an F-15, it takes nearly the entire internal fuel load to accelerate to M2.0+

High speed is useful for dash intercept, but not much else. Bragging rights maybe? A better option is to install detection systems with the capability to early-warn, permitting those slow-poke M1.5 platforms to get there in time.

Dash intercept is about all a lot of countries need.

[kato]

Despite Boeing marketing, high end operators with defined need for fifth generation will default to F-35.

Actually i see pretty good chances in all those countries deciding to probably opt out of F-35. Canada in particular, Denmark might be more open to European solutions. Those that do not opt out are those with major financial offsets involved in the program. It's by no means a "default" choice anymore, especially since in recent months heavy doubts about delivery schedules and costs have risen in possible additional procurement countries (see Singapore and South Korea).

[Chogy]

Anything more than mach 1.5 is of limited utility... With an F-15, it takes nearly the entire internal fuel load to accelerate to M2.0+

High speed is useful for dash intercept, but not much else. Bragging rights maybe? A better option is to install detection systems with the capability to early-warn, permitting those slow-poke M1.5 platforms to get there in time.

[Steven Jaime]

What do other people think about the SH sales prospects, and the reasons why it has failed on the export markets so far, in spite of being such a capable aircraft?

It might be its top speed and kinetic performance. #1 reason why it's losing. It's not Mach 2 capable while country's buy planes with mach 2. Mabye not able to intercept the airspace, which most country's like intercepting undetified planes.

[citanon]

Low end operators without need for two engines probably default to F-16.

Despite Boeing marketing, high end operators with defined need for fifth generation will default to F-35.

The middle tier will look to F-18 for compatibility with Western forces, but there is also the Rafale and the Eurofighter or even the F-15. If they don't care or don't want Western compatibility, then Su-35 enters the picture.

There's also the fact that the F-18 is optimized for the unique requirements of the US Navy, where as in most parts of the world it's the Air Forces doing the shopping and the planes will never take off or land on a ship.

[Versus]

My guess would be the money. Price of aircraft is one thing, but the price of maintenance is a different ball game. Also you have to look from the strategic perspective, which airframes would be likely opponent to the Super Hornet in at least 10 to 20 years together with upgrades, training etc. Than there is a geopolitics involved, for how long some countries can remain allied to US interests without compromising their interests etc. Airplane itself and its performance are at the bottom regardless how good/bad they are. From the history of aircraft procurement it is clear that some mysterious forces are at work, that defy common sense.

[Loke]

One thing I always found a bit puzzling about the SH is the lack of international sales.

Apart from Australia, it has so far failed on the export market.

Political aspects is often mentioned as an important element; however this should play in the SH favor since a large number of countries do prefer (or don't mind) buying US fighter planes.

I suggest the following explanations:

1. Although it is much more capable than e.g. the F-16, it is also more expensive. Most countries look at their requirements and decide that the F-16 is good enough, and cheaper.

2. It is very capable but sometimes "not capable enough"; e.g., it lacks the capacity of the F-15, and therefore was not considered (or lost) when countries like Singapore, SK, Saudi Arabia decided to buy the F-15.


Unlike the F-16 and F-15 the SH seems not to have found its market.

It lost in India, and if we are to trust the Indians the reason was that too many of the requirements were not met (as was also the case for the F-16).

It lost in Japan, to the F-35.

Boieng withdrew from the Swiss competition; in spite of Switzerland already operating the Hornet, and in spite of the demanding requirements that seem to have eliminated the F-16.

It may still score a few sales; Countries like Malaysia and Brazil have shortlisted the SH (but not the F-16!). It competes with the F-35 in Canada and Denmark but IMHO is doomed to lose in those countries.

What do other people think about the SH sales prospects, and the reasons why it has failed on the export markets so far, in spite of being such a capable aircraft?

[surfgun]

Boeing is to begin flight-testing its Advanced Super Hornet combat aircraft towards the end of the third quarter of this year, a company official said on 20 May.


Boeing is shortly to begin flight trials of the Advanced Super Hornet to demonstrate the aircraft's various features. (IHS/Gareth Jennings)
Speaking at Boeing's St Louis production facility in Missouri, Mike Gibbons, VP F/A-18 and EA-18G Programs, said an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fitted with conformal fuel tanks and an enclosed weapons pod will undertake flight trials in August and September.

"We are going to fly with non-function conformal tanks and the weapons pod to demonstrate the aircraft's flight characteristics and radar cross section [RCS] reduction [properties], and to verify wind tunnel data regarding the aircraft's drag count," he stated.

According to Gibbons, these flights will take place in conjunction with the US Navy (USN) in the Atlantic Test Range. RCS measurements will mostly be taken from air-to-ground, but some air-to-air tests will also be carried out. Another official added that some 15-20 flights will be conducted in different configurations.

Gibbons said the conformal tanks provide 135 n miles of additional combat radius at the same time as freeing up stores pylons for more weaponry. "The navy has taken a great interest in this," he revealed.

The enclosed weapons pod is designed to allow the Super Hornet to reduce its RCS while carrying a meaningful munitions load. One pod is able to carry either six small diameter bombs and two advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs); two 500 lb paveways and two AMRAAMs; or an equivalent load up to 2,600 lb (1,179 kg).

The conformal fuel tanks and enclosed weapon pod are just two of a number of enhancements for the Super Hornet that Boeing launched as the 'International Roadmap' in 2010. Other upgrades include the fitting of an integrated infrared search-and-track (IRST) system made by Lockheed Martin, an Elbit Systems large area display (LAD) 'glass' cockpit and next-generation avionics, an internal missile and laser warning system, and new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced engines.
Boeing poised to begin flight-testing Advanced Super Hornet features - IHS Jane's 360

Aero India: Boeing's advanced Super Hornet upgrade options - YouTube

[Gun Grape]

Got it...I didn't know if they cross-trained on Hornets to be certified for CATOBAR as well.

They got CATOBAR certified when they earned their wings. But once they moved to the dark side its not needed.

If they transition to a 18 squadron they will have to get the check in the box again

[Gun Grape]

Are the pilots in the F/A-18D night attack squadrons carrier qualified? I don't think those jets ever deploy to carriers do they? Only the A+/C squadrons.

Depends on what you mean. Yes the pilots are qualified to land on carriers. But, just like navy squadrons that are not in the work up/deployment phase of the training cycle, their "certification" is not current.

During the work-up phase of a CSG deployment all pilots update their certification. It requires a certain number of traps both day and night.

When the pilots go to a 18A or C squadron that is in the deployment cycle they will renew their certification like the rest of the squadron.

On the ground side, its like saying that an Infantry Battalion is capable of doing the various SOC skill set. (TRAP. NEO...). Its a true statement but an individual Bn doesn't maintain their certification unless they are deploying.

[TopHatter]

They are Vert landing not trap. They maintain their certification on the LHDs

Got it...I didn't know if they cross-trained on Hornets to be certified for CATOBAR as well.

[Gun Grape]

GG, how do the Harrier aviators stay current on carrier quals?

They are Vert landing not trap. They maintain their certification on the LHDs

[JA Boomer]

Yes.

Marines are trained Naval Aviators.
Marine Squadrons are in the CVW rotation.

Are the pilots in the F/A-18D night attack sqaudrons carrier qualified? I don't think those jets ever deploy to carriers do they? Only the A+/C squadrons.

[TopHatter]

Yes.

Marines are trained Naval Aviators.
Marine Squadrons are in the CVW rotation.

GG, how do the Harrier aviators stay current on carrier quals?