F-16.net

Quote:

I'm fairly certain the SH can carry external drop tanks too...

I was comparing a "clean" SH to a "clean" F-16A/BC/D.

As to the sensor issue, I'm sure the Dutch would have been aware that a spiral upgrade path existed for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

I am NOT so sure that the Dutch, in these comments, were comparing the APG-79 to the APG-68, the ATFLIR to the Lantirn and JHMCS to total lack of JHMCS (at the time) however...

What they WOULD have been comparing was Block 1 Super Hornets with APG-73 and Nitehawk pods, which stacked against the "sunk" investment F-16's they had and still have, is not such a good deal.

Nothing whatsoever in that article suggests they evaluated F/A-18E/F Block II+ aircraft however, which are an entirely different kettle of fish from Block I Supers...

Or do you honestly think the Dutch assessed the Block II+ Super as having an inferior sensor capability to an MLU'd Dutch F-16A?

I think the SH, with three external drop tanks, does not outrange an F-16 with three externals (two of them 600 Gal) and conformals.

Yes, a clean SH will likely outrange a clean Viper, but not by much.

Whoever said anything about the Dutch comparing the SH to the F-16 MLU? The article clearly states that what they were assessing was the SH vs. future requirements as met by the F-35, not the current capability afforded by the F-16 MLU. And yes, they would have certainly been looking at a Block II+ SH. Its capabilities were well-known and already planned at the time. And yes, the latest block SH is vastly superior to an F-16 MLU. But that's not what they were evaluating. What possible reason would the Dutch have had at the time to purchase the SH as a stop-gap measure until they began receiving the F-35 when they clearly felt that the F-16 MLU met requirements until the F-35 came on line? The Dutch don't have the problem the Aussie's have with the F/A-18A/B. Their F-16 MLUs are, in fact, vastly superior to Australia's early model Hornets, and have been duly SLEPed. The Dutch also don't have a capability gap between the retirement of F-111s and the acquisition of the F-35. They obviously felt they could wait for the F-35 and make do with their Vipers in the meantime. Who are we to second-guess them?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

geogen wrote:

Conan,

Your remarks are most valid and rational. And anyone reviewing the article first posted should concur with them vis-a-vis, the SH.

Simply, the article referred to here should be thrown out and re-written. It should basically compare pros and cons with F-35 and the others listed, with the inclusion of totally comprable and capable SH, unlike the article's prejudiced (or corrupted) conclusions.

A 2010-2012 Super Hornet, maxed out with cool off-the-shelf stuff, can go head to head in any competition with F-16E/F, Tranch3, Gripen II, Rafale.

Perhaps the schedule alone of total unit delivery expectations would be a prime argument for going with a 4.5 model, versus waiting until 2020+ for full delivery of F-35 orders.

See my reply to Conan. The Dutch already assessed the SH with all its future bells and whistles years ago, and they obviously don't think it worth their while to look at it all over again for no reason. Moreover, you obviously did not understand that the Dutch expect to be receiving the F-35 from the early production blocks, not later in the decade. And again, they feel their F-16 MLUs will do just fine until then.

As for the SH vs. the Rafale, Tranche III EF (which will probably never materialize), F-16E/F and Gripen II, they are all broadly comparable, and I expect the Dutch MoD to reject all of them as suitable alternatives to the F-35 once they are done evaluating them, too. The only reason these alternatives are still being considered - hate to make a very obvious and logical point - is because they had not yet been considered, unlike the SH. Capiche?

Ob, I gotta hand it to you.. I like your style (referring Conan to your replies to me, and referring me to your replies to Conan - hahaha!) Nice one.

As far as the Dutch example goes, the point about SH stands. The analysis should be thrown out and SH included in a competition with other 4.5s, or it is prejudiced/corrupted conclusions being held to by their MoD, imo. They are saying that a SH in 2012 can't be comprable to an F-16 E/F, or Rafale or Gripen II? But I may be totally missing something in the military/political sphere on this one, so I'll yield to a superior confirmation of such.

As far as schedules go, Ob... the current, official F-35 schedule timeline to my knowledge does indeed put about 40% of RNLAF F-35s being delivered between around early 2019 and 2021 (not including IOC). If you have more current info, re: more front-ended delivery at a cost to USAF deliveries I would assume(???), then I'd greatly appreciate that link, thanks.

Have a good 4th.

Obamanite wrote:

I think the SH, with three external drop tanks, does not outrange an F-16 with three externals (two of them 600 Gal) and conformals.

Yes, a clean SH will likely outrange a clean Viper, but not by much.

Whoever said anything about the Dutch comparing the SH to the F-16 MLU? The article clearly states that what they were assessing was the SH vs. future requirements as met by the F-35, not the current capability afforded by the F-16 MLU. And yes, they would have certainly been looking at a Block II+ SH. Its capabilities were well-known and already planned at the time. And yes, the latest block SH is vastly superior to an F-16 MLU. But that's not what they were evaluating. What possible reason would the Dutch have had at the time to purchase the SH as a stop-gap measure until they began receiving the F-35 when they clearly felt that the F-16 MLU met requirements until the F-35 came on line? The Dutch don't have the problem the Aussie's have with the F/A-18A/B. Their F-16 MLUs are, in fact, vastly superior to Australia's early model Hornets, and have been duly SLEPed. The Dutch also don't have a capability gap between the retirement of F-111s and the acquisition of the F-35. They obviously felt they could wait for the F-35 and make do with their Vipers in the meantime. Who are we to second-guess them?

The Dutch Defence Minister did when he stated:

Quote:

"Based on how Americans and Australians regard the Super Hornet in relation to JSF, and based on the results of our evaluation in 2002, the F/A-18E/F cannot be considered as a relevant option for F-16 replacement in our country," de Vries says.

The Dutch were looking at replacements for their F-16A/B fleet in 2002. Arguing an F-16E/F is a suitable replacement for an early model F-16A/B, but an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not, is ridiculous.

The fact that they seem to have chosen the F-35 doesn't negate the fact that the Super Block II+ IS one of the most capable 4th gen aircraft on the market. (I personally HATE the term 4.5 gen. I'm POSITIVE a cell phone salesmen came up with it...)

As to your other comment about the "superiority" of the Dutch F-16 MLU's over the RAAF legacy Hornets, I'd suggest you read up a bit on the RAAF's Hornet upgrade Project. They are NO slouches...

Quite simply, RAAF's Hornets are amongst THE most capable legacy Hornets on the planet. Airframe life is the only major issue they have at present and even that is manageable over their life of type.

A few specs includes:

APG-73 Block 40 radar.

ALR-67 (V3) digital RWR.

Litening AT targetting pods with data-link and ground based ROVER control stations.

Full glass cockpit, with full colour displays and digital moving map.

Link-16.

JHMCS.

ASRAAM WVR missiles and AIM-120C5 and C7 AMRAAM.

Paveway II, JDAM, Harpoon and in 2010 - JASSM and JSOW.

Swedish BOL pylon mounted CMDS and AN/ALE-47. In 2009, an ELTA jammer pod will reach IOC on the aircraft.

I could go on, but the point I think, is made...

The Rhino has nice avionics with two exceptions - the bugs that have to be wrung out of AESA, and the way-to-go-there-Sparky decision to put the decoy towline next to the exhausts. Unfortunately, and like all its ancestors, it has a draggy airframe, with less range than anything else its size (except the F-35B) and weak high-speed performance.

The Australians bought it because (1) they had a specific shortfall with the retirement of the F-111 and (2) they believe that they can get operational quickly and cheaply because of the similarity in layout, design and philosophy with the Classic Hornet. Neither case applies in the Netherlands. Also, the RAAF is fairly confident that they can sell the jets back to the USN if they need to.

Quote:

The Dutch were looking at replacements for their F-16A/B fleet in 2002. Arguing an F-16E/F is a suitable replacement for an early model F-16A/B, but an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not, is ridiculous.

Okay, this is the last time I'll write this because I'm getting quite tired of some people on this board lacking even the most rudimentary reading comprehension.

NO ONE EVER SAID THE F-16E/F IS A MORE SUITABLE REPLACEMENT FOR THE F-16A/B THAN THE SH. THE SH WAS EVALUATED IN 2002 AND FOUND WANTING. THE DUTCH HAVE YET TO EVALUATE THE F-16E/F. ONCE THEY FINISH EVALUATING THE F-16E/F - WHICH THEY ARE ONLY DOING BECAUSE SOME LEFTY PARLAMENTARIANS ARE FORCING THE MOD TO GO THROUGH THE POINTLESS EXCERCISE - THEY WILL LIKELY COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION REGARDING ITS UNSUITABILITY FOR THEIR NEEDS AS THEY DID WITH THE SH. AS EVIDENCED BY EADS DROPPING OUT OF COMPETITION TO SUPPLY THE EF TO THE NETHERLANDS, THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE HEAVILY WEIGHTED AGAINST ALL AIRCRAFT OTHER THAN THE F-35. THEREFORE, JUST AS THE SH WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE DUTCH, THE F-16 WILL BE SIMILARLY FOUND UNSUITABLE.

Last time I explain this glaringly obvious fact. Over and out.

THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE HEAVILY WEIGHTED AGAINST ALL AIRCRAFT OTHER THAN THE F-35.

In other news, blind pig finds acorn. Now ask yourself if this a good thing. If I'm running an airline, and I include in my requirements "Airplane must be assembled in Washington State" am I going to get the best possible price?

LOL, you gotta love those "Lefties" forcing super-vipers.

It's still way to fluid however, to assume anything yet.

Obamanite wrote:

Okay, this is the last time I'll write this because I'm getting quite tired of some people on this board lacking even the most rudimentary reading comprehension.

You are writing this because I lack "even the most rudimentary reading comprehension"?

You should change your name to oxymoron brother...

I HAVE read that article, the Dutch are now considering the F-16E/F, along with the Tiffy, Rafale and Gripen NG as replacements for their F-16 MLU fleet.

They ahave invested in the SDD phase for F-35 and it is most likely that this aircraft will be chosen. However they ARE considering other aircraft NOW, at the direction of their Parliament.

It is my contention that the Super Hornet in it's current state is superior to most if not all of these aircraft in THEIR current state, (future upgrades being irrelevent, because if you are going to include future upgrades then I hope the Dutch have considered the Super Block III...) besides the F-35.

If you find this difficult to comprehend, perhaps your reading skills need some work.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Super v F-35 ... gee... lets take a look...

Stating a Super wouldn't fit in a NATO HAS seems crazy as someone pointed out. Then too, since the Super has two engines and good one engine performance, this means you won't lawn dart one into the ground because the engine quits. The avionics for the two crew attack F Block II is pretty great.

The bads for Super in clog land? Maybe operating cost but well, you would have that with other two engine candidates... and with AESA your avionics work is going to be a lot less... the life of the AESA unit is about 4000 more hours than the airframe. Fuel? OK...

But seeing as there isn't any more Fulda Gap and Super Block IIF is about as compatable as you can get in a U.S. inspired bombing campaign with F-22 backup... = no problem.

The real problem is doing sovereignty intercepts. From brake release to intercept a Super Slow Hornet will be behind ANY F-16, or well any other 4th gen and well even an F-4 and F-104. Laughing

It is a strike aircraft.

Obaminator needs to understand that the F-35 has a lot of test hours to go before it proves itself. Lots of software, weapons clearance etc. Try before you buy. It may all work. But it is a very long way from proving it.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

Super v F-35 ... gee... lets take a look...

Stating a Super wouldn't fit in a NATO HAS seems crazy as someone pointed out. Then too, since the Super has two engines and good one engine performance, this means you won't lawn dart one into the ground because the engine quits. The avionics for the two crew attack F Block II is pretty great.

The bads for Super in clog land? Maybe operating cost but well, you would have that with other two engine candidates... and with AESA your avionics work is going to be a lot less... the life of the AESA unit is about 4000 more hours than the airframe. Fuel? OK...

But seeing as there isn't any more Fulda Gap and Super Block IIF is about as compatable as you can get in a U.S. inspired bombing campaign with F-22 backup... = no problem.

The real problem is doing sovereignty intercepts. From brake release to intercept a Super Slow Hornet will be behind ANY F-16, or well any other 4th gen and well even an F-4 and F-104. Laughing

It is a strike aircraft.

Obaminator needs to understand that the F-35 has a lot of test hours to go before it proves itself. Lots of software, weapons clearance etc. Try before you buy. It may all work. But it is a very long way from proving it.

ELP, we know you have a bias against the F-35 and until now you were quite reasonable, but this goes a bit too far. Let's see:

-Stealth: Ok, you got that one right.

-Twin Engines: yes, they are more survivable although less and less significantly though. However, this also means increased maintenance footprint and cost, which you don't mention.

-Two crew advantage: I would admit i would like to have seen a second-crew option on the F-35 to function as a tactical mini-awacs/controller, but with the current F-35's level of situational awareness, sensor fusion and automation, the second crew on an F-35 would have the most boring job in the air force. Watch the interviews with the pilots who have thus far flown the F-35. Even they make lighthearted comments about how "boring" flying the F-35 is already. You don't need TWO tacticians in-situ with the level of support they already get from today's networked battlefield.

-Range: Got that covered.

-Jammer/Decoy: The F-35 will have one of the most advanced EW suites ever. This is in line with the Air force policy to include this in the airframe exactly for the reason not to have to rely on escort jamming. Details on this are still sketchy, however, and probably for good reason. Also, a towed decoy on a stealth aircraft? REALLY?!

-Cost benefit: with the fixed price and all the benefits which you've conveniently excluded or misinterpreted, the F-35 seems to offer much more for the bang. Never has a stealthy multi-role airframe been so affordable.

-Tanker option: The dutch are doing just fine with their F-16's current system, what's your point? The F-18 lacking boom refueling could just as well be interpreted as a disadvantage.

-- EDIT: Ok, I had a minor brainfart and now realize you were talking about the F-18's ability to act as a tanker. I think the argument still stands, though. Buddy refueling is limited and loses it's significance away from a closely-knit carrier group. otherwise, conventional (strategic) options are a better solution, especially cause the probe/drogue system isn't compaitble with what the netherlands have been using. --

-Escort jammer: See above.

-SHARP recon: Have the dutch (or anyone else) asked for such a capability on the F-35? even so, the INTEGRATED EOTS and SAR will give the F-35 a tremendous tactical situational awareness and surveillance ability that includes limited ELINT, without sacrificing another fuel tank (which the SH needs) for range. Even so, it wouldn't be too hard to integrate a recon pod externally, but I wouldn't see why anyone would make that a priority. Seriously, citing the ability to carry a very specialized recon pod as a reason to chose an entire airframe over another is pretty sad unless there exists a very specific requirement (in which case you might as well integrate it into the airframe you really want, rather than justifying another choice based on that).

Lastly, Conan, what Obamanite was trying to say (albeit unnecessarily rude) was that the F/A-18E has already been evaluated, while a formal evaluation of the other airframes is still pending. They may well be excluded for the same reason. ALTHOUGH, considering that the Gripen should be cheap in both procurement and operations, and similar things could be said about the F-16E especially since it falls within current infrastructure and logistics of the dutch AND the fact that both of these choices could probably match or exceed any threat the dutch/nato are likely to face in the near future gives those airframe a cost/logistics advantage that does not make their consideration as outrageous as some have suggested. Still, I'd exptect them to chose the F-35 for reasons already stated.

AeroG33k,
Two engines may equal extra cost. On the other hand I expect that the F135 will turn out way more complex than an F414, with its prognostics and huge LP turbine. A single engine also carries a lot of duplication. So the difference will be far from the factor-of-two that you might think.
Two crew: Very useful, still, for some missions, particularly FAC-A. Pause for a moment and think how acute fighter sensors have become. There's a lot of info in the cockpit now.
"The F-35 will have one of the most advanced EW suites ever". It has a very good system in the passive mode but zero active.
Cost benefit: we shall see when an F-35 package price is alongside a rival package price, responding to the same RFP.
Recon pod: Not insignificant. With RecceLite on the F-16, the Cloggies currently have a better recon sensor than they will have on the F-35A.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

All valid points, LO. While the F135 will undoubtely be more complex, it is likely to be very, very easy to maintain at low through-life cost (can engineguy confirm this?). I don't think there is a complete lack of active EW, however, as the AESA radar has been reported to be able to conduct focused electronic attacks, although much is classified and probably not on the same spectrum as a dedicated system. Stealth and active EW don't go too well together either, so it could be seen as a valid trade-off towards stealth. Recon pod...again, it would not be a big deal to implement onto the F-35, but it seems to be that SAR is slowly overtaking optical systems, while the EOTS shouldn't be underestimated in its abilities if optical/IR tracking is required. And while there is more information in the cockpit, the way it is displayed has every pilot agreeing that the human-machine interface of the F-35 is revolutionary and makes the workload much easier. So yes, I can see your points but I'm not sure if you can put those on the same level as stealth and the long range ability of the F-35.

That said, I still think an "EF-35" with advanced active EW and/or side-scanning AESA arrays in the internal bays and maybe a system officer seat where the lift-fan is would kick major A$$ to complement the F-35 force.

Correct in many respects. I will wait and see on the O&S costs of the F135, but much of the basic technology and philosophy used in the F119 and F135 is also on the F414. AESA-as-jammer is a possibility, but because of its limited field of regard can't sustain jamming during an evasive maneuver. As I understand it the EOTS is basically similar to a late-generation Sniper or Litening; RecceLite has a bigger aperture and a datalink. Critical? Not necessarily. Part of the adapability that's kept the F-16 useful for so long? Definitely.

It seems that all of you are forgetting one important factor in the Dutch choice...their relationship with Lockheed, which is a very close one indeed. It is not unusual for the Dutch to find something out in flight test or Depot maintenance that they share with Lockheed and the rest of the F-16 world, with no expectation of compensation or repayment for their efforts. KLu can be thought of as more of a partner with Lockheed (and GD) over the last thirty years. They have built a mutual relationship of trust and free exchange that they would be loath to abandon to try and start anew with another OEM. Will this relationship be a factor in any future procurements? That's not my piece of the puzzle, but I am here on the ground with these guys and I think I have a good idea of how the wind is blowing. That said, I realize that the decisions are made in Den Haag and not the Depot, and that I don't see all of the big picture politically. But you can't discount loyalty and a good relationship in the equation.

Does Lockheed see things the same way? I wouldn't believe that our relationship with KLu would make a difference to corporate bean counters or contract weenies, but there are still quite a few people at Lockheed who are aware of our special relationship with the Dutch over the years and would work hard to preserve that.

Best Regards,

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Duth refuse to consider Super Hornet