F-18 E/F vs. F-35?
Aviation Week and Defense News, are buzzing this week about a suggestion made by Boeing to buy F-18 E/F Super Hornets instead of Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and fly the Hornets while waiting for something better than the JSF.
It could be argued that this is just Boeing trying to steal business from their biggest rival in the lucrative fighter market: Lockheed. Although the Super Hornet lacks some of the stealth and proposed systems of the F-35, it has several strong points:
- The F-18 E/F is a proven aircraft already in production/service
- Australia already decided to do this, and several other countries are considering Super Hornet purchases in the near future
- For all it's strengths, the F-35 will only slightly outperform the F-16 it's intended to replace and it probably can't fill the role of the A-10
- The Super Hornet can perform about the same as the F-35 with some system upgrades
- By at least one estimate, an F-35 costs at least twice as much as an F-18 E/F
Along with these facts is a very important one: production of the F-35 has already been delayed several years and things aren't getting much better. Boeing seems to be asking, "Why wait another 8+ years for initial operating capability when you can have the F-18 (A realistic and effective solution) now? In the meantime you can be working on the next generation of fighter aircraft."
If the F-22 is current generation what could be next? Well, the Air Force fielded the MQ-9 Reaper with little fanfare, but I think it suggests the direction that tactical fighter and attack aircraft are going. The rumors only involve the Navy buying more F-18's, but the Air Force could certainly consider them as well.
So, what do you think? Should the military wait years for a more expensive aircraft, or buy F-18's now? What would the F-35 bring to a fight 10 years from now that would make it so much better than the F-18? (And if there is anything, is it enough to justify waiting 10 years for an effective replacement?)
- 15728 reads
-
Comments
F-18 E/F vs. F-35
I've heard conflicting range and payload figures, so I'm not sure about that aspect. F-35 IS stealthier. F-18 is proven, very capable, and twin engines are generally preferred for over water ops.
My real question is what avionic capabilities are available in the F-35. I've read about ASEA ECM, all-aspect IRST(even to the point of not needing NVG),sensor fusing and situational awareness(the cockpit certainly looks different). Thus, I wonder to what degree this technology could be used on the F-18? Further,cost wise, would putting such technology on the proven F-18 be cheaper then the F-35?
Nazi vs soviets
This Reminds me of the tanks in WW2. Nazi germany by far had the better designed tank but it was overly designed to produce enough in numbers to match the soviets. The soviets produced in massive numbers which over powered the nazi. Nazi tanks were also difficult to repair during combat due to compilcated design. We wouldnt know which is superior unless theres a war. M4 vs ak47 ? If you study history you might make better decision on the better plane.
pilots are the ones you need to listen to
There is nothing wrong speculating about the differences between these planes, however do you really think our proud nations would entertain an inferior plane to one that is already available ?
no !!
the F35 is a quantum leap in technolgy , fully 360 degree awareness and defensive capability, " look at and destroy" weapons , and despite uninformed comments, its manouverability will only be matched by the f22 , , this plane is brand new , its years ahead of anything out there including the f22.
engines will always be upgraded to more powerful ones, and judging by the testimonies of the f35 pilots, they are blown away by the planes characteristics and performance.
dont beleive the hype people, this plane will be the crux of a manned plane , it will provide the uk as usa with unparralled air power.be proud !!
First off the F-35 is not
First off the F-35 is not stealth. It has already been down graded twice on it's stealth and there is a very good report out showing that it Cannot be used for penetration mission over hostile air defenses.
90% of stealth has to be achieved by shape and it does not have it.
2nd it can not go into place where air superiority is not already established. It will have to be protected by F-22 (which there are only 187) This is against what is flying right now.
3rd It cost more then the F-22
So you have a plane that will work fine for missions like Iraq, Libya Afghanistan but will not be of use against china, Russia or north Korea. That is fine except you could do the same thing with planes that cost 1/4-1/3 of the price and are available today.
That said they will be bought regardless and since it is unlikely that there is going to be a major war between the powerful nations maybe no one will die because of it. That fact that it will cost four times what it has to, well what do you want it is the military industrial complex.
quantity of jets
lets be clear that the two planes are somewhat equivalent. I would rather buy 2 superhornets over 1 jsf which is totally unproven, has one engine and is too heavy. Think about it, weight kills maneuverability. Common sense tells all. Quantity prevails over an unproven quality. The superhornet is better than most people think. To settle this, have a fly off between the superhornet and their best jsf test aircraft. This would settle it once and for all
quantity of jets
......i would like to add to what i have written....re : quantity of jets.....i have been researching military planes for about 25 years. After a while you get a feel for them. I have a passion for them as oppose to the people who have a passion for their paycheques who make these decisions. Lets put our common sense into gear and spend wisely. Peter, don't you spend your own money wisely ?.......from a real common sense canadian......a true hero
quantity of jets
lets be clear that the two planes are somewhat equivalent. I would rather buy 2 superhornets over 1 jsf which is totally unproven, has one engine and is too heavy. Think about it, weight kills maneuverability. Common sense tells all. Quantity prevails over an unproven quality. The superhornet is better than most people think. To settle this, have a fly off between the superhornet and their best jsf test aircraft. This would settle it once and for all
for peter mc kay defense minister for canada
i think peter should read this and re evaluate our possible fatal purchase of the j.s.f. .......lets defend canada with a real fighter not a test plane that is plagued with problems
Why do we need a new fighter?
Is it really the right time to spend 244 billion on a new fighter when the ones we have are wining wars? No one is building anything that is better than what we have now. The Chinese might have something to match the F22 in 10 years, the Russians aren't building anything they can't sell, and no one really wants to buy a 114 million dollar fighter. The concept of the joint fighter sounds good, but so far its price has doubled, it's VTOL version isn't very useful and all of the people who were going to buy them are backing down from their original orders.
The Israelis seem most interested in them, but I think that's because we promised them 20 for free. They plan to modify those to meet their specs, so how "joint" is that. The British were the biggest supporters of the JSF having VTOL capability and now they aren't buying any F-35's with VTOL. They like the US Navy version of the F-35 better. VTOL is most valuable to the US Marines and if we were to build a VTOL specifically for them, we wouldn't build the F-35 VTOL. We'd build them something that was better at ground attack.
There is also the thought that we don't need 2,300 JSF's. If we don't buy in bulk then they are no cheaper than F-22's, so why not buy more F-22's.
In all likelihood, the next generation fighter won't actually carry its pilot with it, so I guess there is the appeal of having one last manned fighter. If that is the reason, then let's build a fighter, not an almost good VTOL, slightly better interceptor and a mid-sized bomber. Meanwhile a sprinkling of F-22's and f-18's, actual spy aircraft and some black widows can carry us through our fights with the Taliban and others
F 35 vs F 18
To the guy who says that the F 18 has longer range and greater payld than the F 35-Sorry pal but you are wrong. The F 35 has a pld of 9,000 lbs vs the F 18 E/F pld of 7400 lbs. The F 35 has a combat radius of 590 nm vs the F 18 E/F combat radius of only 390 nm.
Someone here said it had the same radar. Not so, the F 35 has the AN/APG-81 Radar which is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77. The AN/APG-81 is a more capable and powerful successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77. The F 18 has the AN/APG-79 which is a less capable, less powerful version of the AN/APG-77 stripped down so that it would fit into the F 18 and be a cheaper exported version.
But the real differance isn te aircraft aside from the obvious stealth advantage is the F 35's other amazing avionics:
"Touted as the world’s next-generation stealthy jet fighter and attack aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) may also excel in another area: electronic eavesdropping. The aircrafts’ combination of powerful phased array AESA radars, passive electromagnetic antennas and sensors embedded throughout their frames, powerful onboard computer processing, and secure high-bandwidth communications will give them capabilities once available only to dedicated electronic attack aircraft."
Source: Defence Industry Daily
why not the f-35
The f-35 is a capable fighter. here is why i think they should go with the f-35.
The f-35 would be their first stealth fighter
The super hornets have been in service since the 1980s
The f-35 would be better a strike missions because the enemy radar would have a harder time spotting the f-35 and he strike would be unexpected.
I think the navy should start with the f-35 and if something is a disadvantage with it, THEN thats when the should go with super hornets or upgraded hornets.
VTOL is the name of the game for the jsf
I have to believe that to have a tool is to use a tool and an f18 falls short of the jsf in this area now as far as cost goes who knows but the difference between tools is quality. the f18 is a fine air craft and does its job well I have to think of the future and VTOL is a big consideration in my thinking
f-35 vs f-18
They need the f-35 for the first wave of attacks to knock out radars, SAMS. and russian AA guns but not everything the f-35 can and will do is told to the public. Also they are being mounted in the future with lasers to take out ground targets, so the f-35 wont probally be what it can be for 10 years or so.
Capability
They both have the same advanced radar, and if you look it up, the Super Hornet has radar reduction features similiar to the Typhoon and Rafale. The Hornet also has a longer range and greater payload. It also has a slightly higher top speed than the Lightning. I believe that when it becomes available, the F-35 should be used for intrusion and taking out of air defenses. (Note: the F-35C does have folding wings) and then use the longer range and harder hitting Hornet to destroy aircraft(which could also be done by Air Force Raptors) and destroy targets.
The Super Hornet may not have stealth, but does have counter measures. It has radar reduction, jamming, and a tow-pod that hangs out the back of the plane. This pod makes the Hornet look much bigger. SAM's aim at the center of the signature, which is mid-air and makes the missile miss. This is also incorporated in the Typhoon. I'm not saying it is better than stealth, but it gets the job done. That isn't saying it is fool proof, but it does decrease the probability of the plane. One advantage of the Hornet is that ti isn't made of RAM, so it has a stronger structure. This increases survivability( I've even heard that it could possibly survive a SAM hit)
I've been researching these, but if I'm wrong please tell me.
F-18 vs F-35
Does the F-35 have the folding wings for carrier missions like the f-18 so more can be stowed below deck? I wish they did'nt retire the A-6E as I still think its capable of its job.
F-18 vs F-35
*Edit* After a little extra digging, I've found a few references saying that the wings do fold. European-Defense.co.uk and GlobalSecurity.org both make mention of it, though I couldn't find a direct reference to it on a Lockheed Martin or USAF site.
If you like the A-6, be sure to read Angels of Attack by Peter Hunt. It's a first-hand account from an A-6 crew in Desert Storm.
F-18 E/F vs. F-35?
It all depends on the features of F-35. I know that F-22 is very much secretive and you can't know too much of its "features", but how about F-35? They say it is not as stealthy, what does this exactly mean? Is it impervious to the current air to air missiles? Who would be the most likely winner of a confrontation between an F-18 and F-35? Is an updated F-18 really capable of bringing down an F-35? I have the answer to none of these questions if you do have the answers to some of them, tell me and I can have an opinion as to which one I would choose if I were the head of a country.
Super Hornet will Survive more Intact than F-35 - Budget cuts
With AESA radar - The E/F is very close to the F-35 in overall capability. Guys - these aircraft are weapons delivery platforms. AA is going to depend on your sensors, passive and active - and how long and reliable a stick you have. As far maneuvering in the visual arena - they are probably very close - with the energy advantage going to the Hornet. With Helmet mounted cuing and AIM-9X giving enormous off foresight capability you don't even have to turn with the bandit. The displays are larger and more SA building on the F35 - so I'd give them an advantage there - but all the same toys - MIDS - etc - is all the same - plus you get two engines. I think a lot of bias is given to the fact that the E/F just looks like something out of the 1980's whereas the F35 looks current. And also people who really have no experience knowing what really matters to a fighter pilot giving too much weight to the wrong priorities.
IMHO - we are in the last 30 years of manned aircraft in any big way. Budgetory constraints are going to slash deep into the F35 to the advantage of the Hornet and drone technology will continue to advance.
JD- FA-18 A-C, 1984-2002 (plus a lot of instructional time in the EF Sim)
Is that the issue though?
I don't fly them, so I have no idea what their specific air-to-air capabilities are. We all love the romantic notion of fighter pilots dueling to the death, but if you look at the major conflicts in the last 10-15 years, you'll see that air-to-air hasn't played a huge part after the first few days.
As far as I can tell, the F-35 isn't intended to be an all-out air superiority fighter...that's the F-22s job. F-35 is intended to replace the F-16 and have a major air-to-ground roll. My point is: what advantages will an F-35 have as a multi-roll fighter 8-10 years from now that an upgraded, factory-new F-18 wouldn't give right now? Are those few advantages worth waiting that long for?
Post new comment