Royal Navy to buy F/A - 18 super Hornet (copy of artical added)

[jenko]

Here is the full artical

Dick

[daz greenwood]

Yay we getting Super Bug's can't wait to see it in RN markings

And see the RAF fast jet fleet consist of Hawks and Tiffie's.

Edited August 1, 2010 by daz greenwood

[gishuk]

if we arnt getting the F35B id much rather see Rafales or the conventional naval F35C bought rather than the super bug

[RussTnailZ]

if we arnt getting the F35B id much rather see Rafales or the conventional naval F35C bought rather than the super bug

All too expensive thats the only reason we would get the bug if it happens (im still skeptical) with it being half the price of an F-35 in any set up and the Rafale im sure is nearly as expensive as the JSF certainly well above the price of a Super Hornet anyway

Russ

[Westie7]

Perfectly happy with scrapping the JSF given the current climate and the possible technical misgivings. But would we be buying super bugs as part of our 'special friendship' and thus giving away jobs when we could buy and build Gripens under licence. IMO the Gripen already looks pretty chunky with its twin nose gear, sturdy mainlegs and off strip capability. God knows BAe could do with the work

Mark.

[daz greenwood]

Yes, but the Super Bug is battle proven, the Gripen isn't, and also the Super Bug is a good looking jet.

[keefr22]

... and also the Super Bug is a good looking jet.

Who cares what it looks like?! We need equipment that works & can do the job, not sit on the ground looking pretty! And it's all a matter of opinion anyway, I've always thought any bug was plain ugly while the Gripen is a good looking, well balanced design!

K

[SPerx]

Perfectly happy with scrapping the JSF given the current climate and the possible technical misgivings. But would we be buying super bugs as part of our 'special friendship' and thus giving away jobs when we could buy and build Gripens under licence. IMO the Gripen already looks pretty chunky with its twin nose gear, sturdy mainlegs and off strip capability. God knows BAe could do with the work

Mark.

Or we could buy and assemble under licence as the Swiss and Finnish did. The Swiss maintain an industrial base at Emmen to modify and service their F18s; the Finns did a cut-and-shut with a couple of F18s, again using their own industrial assets. We will maintain such manufacture & design capability as we have by being involved in Typhoon.

[The Velociweiler]

There is an unavoidable Political aspect with regard to a Rafale buy - France pulled out of the project which became the Typhoon in the eighties to go it alone - a Rafale buy - specifically in political terms - would seem to reward the French aviation industry for failing to commit to a joint project, and I'm fully taking into account that the US description of what should be called a 'Joint' project doesn't necessarily match with what would be the dictionary definition of the term.

Again - and specifically Politically (unfortunately) that the RAF might offload the Tornado doesn't help them in terms. The basic notion of a specific arm of the Armed Forces is that it is supposed to retain a capability to win a potential war in its associated theatre - an Army wins a war on Land, a Navy at sea. In specifically Political terms and not military - the only way to win an air war is to defeat the enemy by means of air-delivered weapons. Whilst the Typhoon is a support aircraft, and extremely capable, it is not a penetration strike aircraft which is strategically (again, in strictly Political terms) equipped to defeat an enemy from the Air. If the RAF denudes itself of such a capability, it removes the justification for its independent existence, because the force it projects becomes more of a support to either Land or Sea Forces. I emphisise the Political because I'm well aware that the airframe is extremely capable with advantages in Military terms which the Political arena doesn't take into account. Nevertheless, the SDR is a political administrative project to which the Military might advise, but to which ultimately must submit.

The follow-on paragraph which would naturally follow which would take into account why after some years of highlighting the problems, the requirements of the Navy, Army and Air Force haven't been properly filled by Government would probably lead to the thread being closed - so there's no point going there. Personally for me if the Typhoon isn't to be Navalised (my name for it would be Sea Fury...) then I'd wish to go with the Navalised Gripen. A mooted Super Bug purchase isn't without its Political and practical complications, but in strictly Political terms, rather less so than a Rafale buy.

[Bandwagon 106]

If I were in charge, the Navy would have Super Hornets and Rafales - a hi-medium mix, and the RAF Typhoons, Gripens, F-16Es, F-15Ks. Just as well I'm not really!, but it's a fairly potent force don't you think? Back to sleep for me, US Tomcats and RAF Tornado F.3s are just about to whack an Iraqi force of TU-22s during Desert Storm.....

Joel

[Graham]

There's alot of us in the Defence Industry already working on equipment for the JSF and this is not only for the RAF/RN versions, if the UK did pull out I think our "special friends" may also pull the plug on this work taking it back to the USA. So buying these other jets won't save these jobs or replace the vast amount of cash the JSF project will generate.

Graham.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Graham

[SPerx]

At the risk of moving away from a discussion on whether or not we should buy F18Es, we do need to recognise the raison d'etre for the RAF and that is, put simply, you cannot win a war on the surface - dry or wet - if you cannot command the airspace above that surface. The RAF came into being to unify the air components of the Army and the RN. The RN have always argued that the fleets required organic air power because one could not guarantee that the RAF could protect the surface fleets at extreme range from land. Hence the existence of aircraft carriers principally intended to protect the fleet and secondarily able to support amphibious operations.

As the UK retreated from its far flung colonies and dominions in the 1960s, so the need for large surface fleets to protect them diminished. It was an economic argument that finally did for the flat tops - principally because the RN was spending huge amounts on operating the nuclear deterrent, as distinct from its capital costs, but also because the assigned role of the RN was to protect the North Atlantic sea lanes in time of a NATO war with WARPAC, and the principal threat there was the attack submarine fleet of the Soviet Navy. We abandoned flat tops and fondly believed that land based fixed wing fighters - F4s and then F3 Tornado - could provide air cover to the residual surface fleet which was principally engaged in ASW operations in the North Atlantic. The ski-jump carriers came into existence initially as large anti-submarine carriers hosting Sea Kings in the ASW role - it was fortuitous that a few FAA men saw the need for organic air defence of the fleet and very lucky that mud moving Harrier could be modified into Sea Harrier - and so Naval fixed wing aviation survived - without it we would have been unable to control the airspace over the Falkland Islands and 1982 would have seen us lose the Falklands.

In the late 1980s WARPAC collapsed and everyone was left looking for a role. Tony Blair tried to invent one with his doctrine of the pre-emptive humanitarian war - but 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a change in focus. In neither case did the enemy have a viable air defence operation. Iraq's was taken down in stages - including well before 9/11 - and utterly destroyed by land based, US owned Stealth Fighters in the first few days of GW2. Then, and only then, could the land forces move in.

It seems to me that at present we are being misled into thinking that we do not need to control the airspace above the surface battle field simply because the opposition do not have any air defence capability. That will not be the case with all future wars - and definitely not the case with, say, Iran if we are led into taking them on. They are not mad mullahs - they are still operating their US supplied F14s long after sanctions should have grounded them.

Tornado IDS was conceived as an Interdictor / Strike system - to interdict WARPAC reinforcements and supplies in the early stages of a european war; to interdict their air power on the ground ( JP233); and ultimately to switch to nuclear strike if the expected war went nuclear. It seems to me that if we were to sacrifice Tornado; abolish the RAF; and revert to a pre-1918 force structure we leave ourselves at great risk in any land war of the future. At the very least we will be dependent upon allies for air cover over the land battlefield.

Edited August 1, 2010 by SPerx

[Troffa]

Superbug every time- better bet than the Gripen (a bit on the small side and single engined to boot!) and less costly than the F-35 "Dave" uber shar (No you can't have the software!), as for the effect on UK industry- well, we'll just have to sell more air defence radar systems to Countries that don't need them!

[Giorgio N]

Yes they could put a hook on a Typhoon. This is about cost.

At least Super Bug is a combat proven tool. Typhoon and Rafale M are not.

The Rafales have been used in afghanistan, as such they've performed the same type of missions demonstrated by the Super Hornets: drop bombs in a theatre with no threat from the ground or the air.

[hacker]

Here is my take on this. Stealth technology is a proven system that is great for when you need to sneak in and take out say radar sites so your other conventional fighters can flood in and do the real damage. In the superiority fighter role it does give the fighter pilot the edge in surviving an air battle.

but once the war door is open they know you are coming period. Fighter bombers like the F/A 18 in all its variants are the grunts of the air to ground role the same as the A-10 and the Harrier who are the grunts of the close air support roles.

Stealth had in my opinion gone from a useful technology to an expensive fad that they are trying to sell as a expensive do all system

in other words they are trying to sell you an outhouse and telling you its the tashmahal!!

The F-22 is a good stealth superiority fighter which is needed the F-35 l think will turn out to be an expensive white elephant that will fall very short of all its promised

IF it is so good why do the USMC does not want it?? Right or wrong the USMC of all the American services in my opinion that use jets is the most practical operators hence why they went for the Harrier for a close air support aircraft. they know F-35 will not work period

Edited August 1, 2010 by hacker

[RussTnailZ]

Superbug every time- better bet than the Gripen

Totally agree with you on that the bug is a far superior multirole might not be to everyones tastes looks wise but theres no denying its damn good at what it does.

Russ

[dylan the rabbit]

Just seen in the Sunday Times (page 2, right hand side) that the Navy are set to drop the order for the the Joint Strike Fighter and buy the F/A - 18 super Hornet. This is on the grounds of cost.

Looks like a lot of those "what if" could be redundant........ OR is a cunning move by the model industry to boost sales??

Comment to your hearts content guys and gals.....................

Dick

Proper colour scheme then! Sounds like the MOD made a smart move.

[Giorgio N]

Right or wrong the USMC of all the American services in my opinion that use jets is the most practical operators hence why they went for the Harrier for a close air support aircraft. they know F-35 will not work period

Yes, but the same USMC will never risk any of their valuable amphibious assets until the USAF and the USN have cleared the sky from the enemy planes and possibly annihilated as much of the enemy ground forces from the landing area.

The grunts on the ground will always tell you that the planes they like are the A-10 and similar, but they usually forget that without the previous efforts of the bombers and the shiny supersonic toys of the fighter jocks they seem to despise, all the beloved A-10 and such would be wiped off the sky in no time by the enemy fighters.

Of course none of this applies if the enemy will always be some third world country with no air force and no missiles. Will this always be the case ?

[Graham T]

Talking of the Gripen, my info may be out of date but don't BAE own a sizeable chunk of SAAB & IIRC weren't the wings built in the UK? Certainly BAE have been involved in the overseas marketing of the Gripen.

[RussTnailZ]

Yes, but the same USMC will never risk any of their valuable amphibious assets until the USAF and the USN have cleared the sky from the enemy planes and possibly annihilated as much of the enemy ground forces from the landing area.

The grunts on the ground will always tell you that the planes they like are the A-10 and similar, but they usually forget that without the previous efforts of the bombers and the shiny supersonic toys of the fighter jocks they seem to despise, all the beloved A-10 and such would be wiped off the sky in no time by the enemy fighters.

Of course none of this applies if the enemy will always be some third world country with no air force and no missiles. Will this always be the case ?

Dont forget their super cobra attack heli that is used extensivley and is known as the marines best friend.

Russ

[Bandwagon 106]

I know we often see Hornets of all types in a mud moving role nowadays, let's not forget that it is a very capable air to air machine. Ok, so it was 20 years ago, but 2 Hornets from VFA-81 flew from the USS Saratoga, engaged 2 Iraqi MiG-21s / J7s, shot them down and then proceeded to dump 16,000lbs of bombs on target. Maybe the angles were good, along with the vectors they received from the Hawkeye, and they didn't need to turn and burn, but still...

The only argument I can offer is this, as long as we get something to fly, I'll be happy.

Joel

[Max Headroom]

I think we will have to wait until October when Parliament gives it's Big Decisionon Everything. What will the Americans think about the UK pulling out? Remember we are a Level 1 partner and all of the £££ spent will be lost; I doubt we will be allowed to use the technology elsewhere - they didn't give is the source codes for the software.

If this happens what about the RAF? F35C? Superbug? Again I will say that the politicos need to decide what our Forces are actually for and then resource them PROPERLY.

Whatever happens I have a horrible feeling that it will end up in tears..........

Trevor

[Mike]

Would they keep the Hornet name? In the past they've changed the names of American aircraft used in the RN/FAA, so it's not inconceivable they could do it again? Wonder what it would be?

[Shaun]

Intresting idea but how long would it take to enter service and be decleared operational?

Wonder if someone would do something stupid, like state it needs British engines?

Current defence projects all seem to overrun.

Shaun.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Shaun

[denstore]

Talking of the Gripen, my info may be out of date but don't BAE own a sizeable chunk of SAAB & IIRC weren't the wings built in the UK? Certainly BAE have been involved in the overseas marketing of the Gripen.

That is one reason that I was thinking it would have been a good reason for going that way. And the fact that Gripen is a lot cheaper both to buy and to keep running than the US alternatives. But it doesn't seem to matter.