RAAF may acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets

last SG · 2007-02-10T08:27:57+00:00

They feel that the hornet is generally not as bad as some thought. In fact most( Aussies) say that it's pretty good especially with their weapons package as...

duotiga83 SG

according to

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

Features of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet:

90% Common F/A-18C/D Avionics: Avionics and software have a 90 percent commonality with current F/A-18C/Ds. However, the F/A-18E/F cockpit features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display; a larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color display; and a new engine fuel display.

34 in. Fuselage Extension: The fuselage is slightly longer - the result of a 34-inch extension.

Two Additional Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: Super Hornet has two additional weapons stations, bringing the total to 11. For aircraft carrier operations, about three times more payload can be brought back to the ship.

25% Larger Wing: A full 25 percent bigger than its predecessor, Super Hornet has nearly half as many parts.

35% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the F414-GE-400, an advanced derivative of the Hornet's current F404 engine family. The F414 produces 35 percent more thrust and improves overall mission performance. Enlarged air inlets provide increased airflow to the engines.

33% Additional Internal Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe increase internal fuel capacity by 3,600 pounds, or about 33 percent. This extends the Hornet's mission radius by up to 40 percent.

still the range is still shortlegged by F-111 Ardvark is RAAF wants strategic strike capability which can only be replace by Strike Eagle or FB-22?

Shotgun SG

Originally posted by duotiga83:

according to

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

Features of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet:

90% Common F/A-18C/D Avionics: [b]Avionics and software have a 90 percent commonality with current F/A-18C/Ds. However, the F/A-18E/F cockpit features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display; a larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color display; and a new engine fuel display.

34 in. Fuselage Extension: The fuselage is slightly longer - the result of a 34-inch extension.

Two Additional Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: Super Hornet has two additional weapons stations, bringing the total to 11. For aircraft carrier operations, about three times more payload can be brought back to the ship.

25% Larger Wing: A full 25 percent bigger than its predecessor, Super Hornet has nearly half as many parts.

35% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the F414-GE-400, an advanced derivative of the Hornet's current F404 engine family. The F414 produces 35 percent more thrust and improves overall mission performance. Enlarged air inlets provide increased airflow to the engines.

33% Additional Internal Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe increase internal fuel capacity by 3,600 pounds, or about 33 percent. This extends the Hornet's mission radius by up to 40 percent.

still the range is still shortlegged by F-111 Ardvark is RAAF wants strategic strike capability which can only be replace by Strike Eagle or FB-22?[/b]

Sorry bro, don't quite get your point. But yeah, according to your website, the Super bug does have less physical parts as well.

Also, the similar avionics and software is what makes transition from the Hornet to Super hornet easy.

Appending to my above post, the larger aircraft does carry more fuel hence greater endurance and / or range compared to the original hornet. A larger aircraft naturally needs a more powerful engine, in the form of the F414. However, notice that no one said the Super Hornet is gonna out perform the Hornet in all regimes. The requirement for the super hornet was simply NOT to compromise the turning capability of the hornet.

Here is a very interesting point indeed. What does Australia REALLY want? A deep strike capability, or an Air to Air capability to match up with the region's flankers (that has been brought up sooo many times.) The nearest Flankers to Aussie belong to the Indons are still far and few. Indon's not gonna be able to threaten Australia's sovereignty with a few Flankers, esp with the Indons flying them.

And by the time the Indons do get a sizable and hopefully fully armed flankers, the Aussies would probably start receiving their JSFs and perhaps even the Raptors?

The way I see it, 24 multi mission aircraft like the Super bugs, with easy transition and familiarity isn't that bad for Aussie as an interim solution. It seems to me that the Aussies have already set their mind on the JSF, and are more than keen to acquire the F/A-22 should they become available. Perhaps it is wise to acquire an interim solution like the Super Bug. Once they do acquire the Raptors and JSFs, they'd have a qualitative lead in regional air power.

In other words, Deep Strike and First rate A2A capabilities may not be what the RAAF is gunning for in an interim solution. Those are capabilities that they want tier 1 5th gen aircraft to fill. Its likely that the Super Hornets could be the basis of forming a 2nd tier multi mission aircraft for RAAF's own modernization plans.

Tier 1 Air Superiority : Raptor
Tier 1 Strike : JSF
Tier 2 Multi Mission : Super Hornet

Just looking from another point of view. =)

coolant SG

If Super bug is the 1200cc car, then latest F-15 is like 2000cc car
Im not saying 1200cc car cant run up to 160kms, but its 2000cc cars domain in expressway where you need consistent running over 120kms. 24 superbugs will be stretched extremely thin considering how big the Australia is. I stand by my point F15s like those RSAF is getting are better suited for RAAF. Only F15 has the speed and determination to keep pace with Flankers. You dont want a 1200cc car to chase a 2000cc one, do you?

For air superiority, F15SG alike is better than Superbug, the reason is simple, if one day, some countrys Su30 intrudes into Aussies vast airspace, Ill lovely to see how a slow moving Superbug to catch a Flanker with a maximum speed over M2.3.

For deep strike, F15 is still better than superbug.

For money value, F-15 is still more cost effective as by adopting a new Superbug over bug, the saving is not too much.

The only clue I can get is Aussies are paying USN service in their nearby waters in a smart way. Wink

By adopting F-18E/F, they are able to integrate their Air defense with the USN which is the most likely US force presenting in the Oceania.

And of course, when its a fight, you can expect more superbugs than the mere 24 pieces.

Shotgun SG

1. That is what i believe too. That the F-15SG is a boom and zoom, while the F/A-18E/Fs are great level turners.

2. The aircraft don't need to be the ones who do the chasing. Its the missiles, thats what they were made for. With a good AEW, thats precisely what the F/A-18E/Fs can do. Controllers can put them in the best positions for intercept. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Super Hornets can get airborne pretty fast and on pretty short runways too.

3. A large country like Australia, is not defended by fighter jets alone. Intruding jets would have to contend with Land based systems, Anti Air Warfare ships and finally Fighter jets. Throw in the Wedge tail, and the enemy will find that they are gonna burn too much fuel trying to fly anything to Australia. You don't have to shoot down planes to defend airspace, you just have to make them realize what they are gonna do isn't cost efficient.

4. Don't quote me on this, but I really doubt that the RAAF intended to hand the deep strike role over to the Super Bugs. I sincerely believe that its gonna be inherited by the JSF, and Air Superiority, the Raptor. Should the Raptor still be unavailable, then you might see the RAAF look for something else... maybe Typhoons?

5. How is the F-15E/K/SG more cost effective? They will be acquiring brand new aircraft, along with a full set of spare parts inventory, engines they've never worked with nor have technicians worked on. Pilots who have never flow in similar aircraft before would require extensive training in with the Yanks also mean more $ spent on training and basing personnel overseas for an extended period.

OTOH, a brand new F/A-18E/F would be familiar with existing A/B pilots and require less training and conversion. Its parts and inventory though new, would be considerably reduced (Half as many parts as the old hornet), and the technicians would probably find it easier to handle an evolved F404, rather than a brand new F110.

6. And yes, you are definitely right that the Australians want to be able to ensure interoperability with the US Navy folks around them.

So why not the F/A-18E/F?

Oh yeah, I'd like to see the Flanker break Mach 2 with external stores too. Then I'd like to time how long it spends in the hangar after that flight. Laughing

digger SG

The Superhornet is actually cheaper than the F15SG, the combined price of just the 24 aircraft is just over $1.6bil (US).
The price of $6B AUD is a package over ten years.

Remember the cost of all the extras is when the costs start to build up.
For instance Australia recently ordered 250 JASSM,s for the old Hornets, the price? $450M

And the Superhornet order is believed to include over 500 JSOW"S

digger SG

RAAF SUPER HORNET DEAL CONFIRMED:

Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson confirmed today (March 6) that the RAAF will acquire 24 BoeingF/A-18F Super Hornets as a bridging air combat capability for the next decade and a half.

The Super Hornet will, along with the RAAF's upgraded 'Classic' Hornets, fill the capability gap between the retirement of the F-111 in 2010 and the full operational capability of the F-35 Lightning II, expected from around 2018.
Many in industry and the media have questioned the merits of the acquisition despite reported looming delays to the RAAF's anointed New Air Combat Capability (NACC) solution, the F-35 JSF. But the Super Hornet has always been the stated fallback or 'Plan B' option for the RAAF to replace its F-111s and F/A-18A/B Hornets should the F-35 experience substantial delays or cost increases.

"The JSF is the most suitable aircraft for Australia's future combat and strike needs," the Minister said. "Australia remains fully committed to the JSF. But the government is not prepared to accept any risk to air combat and strike capability during the transition to the JSF."

The Minister said Australia's first JSFs would be delivered in 2013, with an IOC achieved in 2015, and that "the Super Hornets will support the transition of Air Force and industry from 1960s technology to the latest 21st century technology."

Minister Nelson also confirmed the F-111 force would be retired in 2010. "The next generation Block II Super Hornets will provide a more flexible operational capability than currently exists with the F-111."

The aircraft are being acquired through US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) channels under the newly established Air 5349 Bridging Air Combat Capability (or BACC) project. They will be based at Amberley and operated by current F-111C unit 1 Squadron. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is slated for late 2010, with Australian crews expected to begin training on the aircraft in 2009. The first four aircraft will arrive in Australia in early 2010 with the final aircraft delivered by the end of 2011.

As it is intended to be a "bridging" capability, Minister Nelson said that a future government would make the decision in 2014 whether or not to acquire a fourth operational squadron of JSFs to replace the Super Hornets at the end of the next decade, and that it was his view that that should happen.
Australia's F/A-18Fs will be built to the latest Block 2 standard with Raytheon's APG-79 AESA radar; the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM Block 2) system which comprises theALR-67(v)3 RWR, ALQ-214(v)2 jammer and ALE-50 towed decoy systems; the latest Advanced Crew Station (ACS) which has a 20x25cm direct high resolution colour display directly interfaced with the AESA radar for more precise targeting; and the ability to transmit precise targeting coordinates to the RAAF's 'Classic' Hornets and other strike platforms via a MIDS Link-16 datalink.

The cost of the 24 aircraft package will be $6 billion over 10 years, which will come from supplemental defence funding, which the Minister says will not "impact on the current level of funding for the JSF project, nor (involve) deferrals/deletions from the Defence Capability Plan".

The $6 billion amount includes support costs and the usual non-recurring costs associated with the introduction of any new type into service, with items such as type-specific ground support and test equipment; a Super Hornet simulator which will be located at Amberley and able to be networked to the RAAF's Classic Hornet simulators; pilot and maintenance training courseware and hardware; electronic technical manuals; six spare GE F414 engines; deployment kits and common spares; basic flight test instrumentation of the RAAF's first jet; and an initial three year training support plus 10 year sustainment agreement with Boeing and the US Navy.
Also incorporated in the package will be a comprehensive weapons and sensor suite which, in RAAF service, will likely be unique to the Super Hornet. This will likely include the AGM-154C JSOW GPS guided glide bomb, the advanced AIM-9X air-to-air missile, the ATFLIR targeting pod, and additional Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) helmets for the pilots and backseat weapons system operators (WSO).

Meanwhile Boeing, rather than take the RAAF's F/A-18Fs straight out of US Navy production, may instead look at increasing its Super Hornet production during 2009 and 2010. The company is said to be looking to ramp up production at St Louis to meet potential additional US Navy orders, as well as all the RAAF's deliveries in just two production lots so they're as close to a common configuration as possible.

Initial training for RAAF Super Hornet crews, to be drawn from both F-111 and Classic Hornet ranks, will be conducted with the US Navy at NAS Lemoore in California. "Deliveries will start in 2009, and the first four aircraft are scheduled to arrive in Australia in the first quarter of 2010," a Boeing spokesman said. "The talking plan at this time is that the jets will be dragged back to Australia four at a time, hopefully using the RAAF's new (KC-30B) tankers, but it's not yet a firm plan. They'll come down the line just like a US Navy jet; only we'll paint a kangaroo on it at the end of the line."

"The support agreement is for a fully integrated performance based logistics system, meaning the RAAF will plug direct into the US Navy's logistics contracts," the spokesman added. "The advantage of that is, instead of ordering spares and components for just 24 unique airplanes, you're in a system for 540 airplanes or whatever the final USN number will be. The difference here is that the local off-flightline support will be contractor owned and operated. We'll provide all the support for the aircraft other than that on the flightline.

"This turned out to be the lowest risk and most cost-effective solution."

coolant SG

Originally posted by Shotgun:

2. The aircraft don't need to be the ones who do the chasing. Its the missiles, thats what they were made for. With a good AEW, thats precisely what the F/A-18E/Fs can do. Controllers can put them in the best positions for intercept. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Super Hornets can get airborne pretty fast and on pretty short runways too.

Your AEW can give you the position but end of the day, its still up to the interceptor to catch the position in time. Not say you can ID the best position then your fighter will cover the position in time. F15, born to be an interceptor, in any given time, can cover much large air area then Superbug, its extremely valuable for a vast country like Australia.

3. A large country like Australia, is not defended by fighter jets alone. Intruding jets would have to contend with Land based systems, Anti Air Warfare ships and finally Fighter jets. Throw in the Wedge tail, and the enemy will find that they are gonna burn too much fuel trying to fly anything to Australia. You don't have to shoot down planes to defend airspace, you just have to make them realize what they are gonna do isn't cost efficient.

No need to complicate a simple comparison by involving more stuff. A better, cheaper fighter isnt adverse to your existing surface air defense.

4. Don't quote me on this, but I really doubt that the RAAF intended to hand the deep strike role over to the Super Bugs. I sincerely believe that its gonna be inherited by the JSF, and Air Superiority, the Raptor. Should the Raptor still be unavailable, then you might see the RAAF look for something else... maybe Typhoons?

Well, same money, you want to buy a 2000cc car or 1200cc? F15 covers the Superbugs role more than enough yet cheaper.

Oh yeah, I'd like to see the Flanker break Mach 2 with external stores too. Then I'd like to time how long it spends in the hangar after that flight

I dont know who you refer to, I never say Flanks can fly over M2 with much external load. But Flankers definitely have better supersonic and transonic performance is non-deniable. F15 can cover the most Su27/30s supersonic/transonic flight envelops but not F-18.

Shotgun SG

Coolant,

As I've mentioned, fighters are not the sole components of an integrated air defense system. There would layers of Naval and Land based AD components. To rely on fighters to "catch" the positions reveals serious flaws in the Air Defense plan. If you ask me, can the F/A-18E/F be able to intercept its targets, I'd say, it can if the plans are done right. Not every CAP would see its fighters dropping off its external takes, pushing into afterburners to make the intercept. Thats when the shiit hits the fan and or happens in Hollywood Movies.

As pointed out to me by an RSAF officer, today's air war is really about who is able to keep their planes in the air the longest. On a micro-level, the Super Hornet has really good loiter capability.

I'm not complicating the matter by throwing in all these components. What I was trying to point out is that the Super Hornet CAN fit well into a proper Air Defense plans which consists of multiple component.

Is the modernized F-15s REALLY cheaper? Like what digger mentioned, the SuperHornet deal is cheaper compared to our deal for the F-15SG.

coolant SG

Emmm, Say a Aussie maritime asserts being attacked by fighters, do you need to send in fighters to cover ?

My point is why F15 cant fit as well, if not better into the overall air-defense?

F15 performs equally well in sub-sonic regime, if not say better than Superbugs.

Well, about cost, before the more detailed breakdown cost of that hefty 4 billion USD becomes available. I will treat it as expensive.

Smile

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Well I think we need to look at it the big picture way.

Unlike lionniosy, most of us do not have much reason to think that the Aussies lack common sense. If the F-15 is really better suited for the needs and cheaper to boot, they would most certainly get their hands on it.

There are a lot of things we do not know, namely the way the RAAF operates, the happy meals the Yanks are willing to give them for the Super Bugs and what other have you nots.

So all in all it's tough to call. Are they really getting a defective aircraft? I don't think so... the rest is politics and cash.

LazerLordz SG

I believe that the Australian involvement in the JSF is deeper than ours, and perhaps they will be getting a substantial discount for those planes, with a large order, as an offset. Perhaps this Bug purchase has much more hidden details beyond the mere purchase of the planes.

"The support agreement is for a fully integrated performance based logistics system, meaning the RAAF will plug direct into the US Navy's logistics contracts," the spokesman added. "The advantage of that is, instead of ordering spares and components for just 24 unique airplanes, you're in a system for 540 airplanes or whatever the final USN number will be. The difference here is that the local off-flightline support will be contractor owned and operated. We'll provide all the support for the aircraft other than that on the flightline.

"This turned out to be the lowest risk and most cost-effective solution."

Remember, the superbug is rated as capable enough to replace the Tomcat. Wink

Shotgun SG

Exactly. The F/A-18F replaced the TOMCAT, arguably the best fleet interceptor of all time.

Why is it able to do despite its lack in supersonic performance? It has to do with the technological advancement in information warfare, and increased situation awareness. You don't need to sprint all over the place when you just need to look at the map to look at a the best point to take a quick stroll to.

Sure, I can fully agree with the point that the F-15Es are equally capable aircraft and if not better in both sub and supersonic regimes. But, I've also speculated and explained my reasons why I too felt the Super Hornets were a better choice due to the logistic support, shorter logistic tail as well as easy transition. These are equally important aspects when it comes to selecting a new plane.

duotiga83 SG

yes is being replace by the Tomcat, but the roles now is being superseded by hornets/s-3 viking(tanker) and soon to be EA-6B fir EA roles. I am not talking abt supersonic, i am talking abt ACCERALATION. The straight wings + wing buffer issue though temp solve the prob but that doesnt really help a lot in the Air superiority role though nw the main concern is 1st lock 1st kill. Even now the APG-79 AESA have some issue on it. A great MULTIROLE but not AIR SUPERORITY.

coolant SG

Its a pity to see guys are talking F14 was retired because superbug is as capable as it. If US retire one weapon only because the substitute is as capable as the retired one, then your guys can also draw the same conclusion as B-52 is as capable as B-1 and FB111. Both are retired or retiring, as a consequence of the ending of Cold war, which is the same reason the Tomcat was forced to retired though Grumman & Navy appealed to the congress.

The F-18 came as a low end supplement to the F-14, 20 years ago its like that, 20 years after, even Bug evolves to become superbug, it still not up to the tier of F-14, One day if you see USSR rerising and Su34/ Tu-22/Tu-160 re-deployed with aim at Sams, you will see swiftly reviving of Tomcat or its equivalent, Not a Superbug or its evolution, no matter how much cost USN can save from streamlining the air wing operation or how high the maintenance of F-14 fleet will be. Just like US is still relying on F-15 eagles for its territory air defense, not Superbugs.

coolant SG

When u said You don't need to sprint all over the place is as u are endorsing You dont need supercruise because Supercruise is about to let you get the freedom of sprint all over the place. Hey, once has to wonder why Supercruise is so important as 1 of 4S benchmark. Wink

Speed is the single most important factor involved in the BVR battle provided both sides Radar and BVR AAMs are similar. F-22 can extended AIM-120Cs range by a hefty 30% when it launches at Mach1.6, an F-15 launches Aim-120C or Su-27/30 launches R-77 @ up to Mach1.5 is definitely in a superior state than your AIM-120C launched by Superbug near Mach 1. An estimated 15%-20% boost in range.

2ndly will be ACCERALATION, you are about to speed up fast enough from cruise speed to maximum AAM launching speed. Again, Superbug is outclassed by the likes of F-15 and Su27/30. Here comes again 1200cc/2000cc car scenario: 2000CC car can zoom up from 0 to 100kms in mere 8seconds while it may take 1200CC car 12 seconds to do the same.

3rdly I will put climbing rate, the better climber will shout you down from up while the poor climber will have to shoot the target up from down. Thiss especially important as most todays BVR AAM are launched in parabolic trajectory in order to increase range.

All the 3, F-18 is outclassed by F-14/15 or Flankers

digger SG

@coolant Your posts are so wrong that it would be pointless to ask you to back up the majority of your claims,talk is cheap.

"Speed is the single most important factor involved in the BVR battle provided both sides Radar and BVR AAMs are similar."

So what you are saying here is that after radar and weapons speed is the next most important thing ?(pilot,training,stealth etc?)
Anyway if what you are saying is right the S/H BL2 is certainly the winner against F14/Flanker and probably against the F15.
You might also try and google or track down just how many air to air kills have been achieved at transonic speeds.

Next, visit some other sites that are more tech savvy (no offence) and try to understand what you are saying.

There has been an independant study done as to why Aus chose the S/H and it also touches on why Korea and Sing chose the F15 and does some comparisons.
I am not sure if I am allowed to post it here though, I will find out.

coolant SG

Originally posted by digger:
@coolant Your posts are so wrong that it would be pointless to ask you to back up the majority of your claims,talk is cheap.

Hey, Im not disturbed as you make strong comments with empty content.
Talk is cheap why you come to this forum? Rolling Eyes

So what you are saying here is that after radar and weapons speed is the next most important thing ?(pilot,training,stealth etc?)

Dont involve human factor, its beyond talkable and always lead to flaming.
So what Stealth u r talking about? Does any of the fighters we r talking got stealth feature? Twisted Evil

Anyway if what you are saying is right the S/H BL2 is certainly the winner against F14/Flanker and probably against the F15.

Ya, already understand your style from u previous comment, if you think u r oracle, I have no words for u. Rolling Eyes

You might also try and google or track down just how many air to air kills have been achieved at transonic speeds.

Im not statistician, And your kills are refer to WVR or BVR? What Im talking is BVR If you really understand what's going on

Next, visit some other sites that are more tech savvy (no offence) and try to understand what you are saying.

OH, Tech Savvy? Mind to explain to us how the BVR AAMs range is defined? Mr. Green

Shotgun SG

What you say is true, that AMRAAMs have better loft range when launched at higher altitude and speeds. And air superiority fighters like the F-22 and F-15 capitalize on that.

BUT, nobody ever said the Super Bugs were air superiority fighters, NEITHER did the RAAF specify that they wanted an air superiority fighter as their interim solution. So why are vehemently shooting down the Super Bug as a bad air superiority option when it wasn't meant to be one?

You think the RAAF doesn't know the the Super Bug is not the best air dominance platform available?

Do you think the Australian mindef doesn't know the the F-15s are better A2A fighters?

How dumb do you think they are?

Start looking at the Super Bug at a wider perspective, as a complete package and you'd see there is some beauty in it.

LazerLordz SG

Precisely.

Different countries have different needs. The Superbug is geared towards CAS and naval strike, instead of air superiority missions.

I'm pretty sure the Aussie MOD knows what realistic threatcon they operate in, and what sort of equipment they need to face that threat. Look at it this way, the F-35 is no air superiority fighter, rather, it's a multi-role fighter like the Typhoon or F-16, except that it employs awareness and network fusion as it's killer app.

coolant SG

Only because todays air fighting is more and more in BVR range but I do agree Superbug got some incredible maneuver in close in dog fight.

Good read, a testimony from US Marine pilot.

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot

Virginian-Pilot, The (Norfolk, VA)

December 15, 1999

THE NAVY'S SUPER FIGHTER IS A SUPER FAILURE

Author: JAY A. STOUT

Index Terms:
OPINION

I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service - I am a Marine - doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to overcome any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the aircraft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational aircraft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet.

The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a replacement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars.

Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven performer, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to ``put one over'' on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet.

The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance.

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of ``wing drop'' - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the aircraft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a ``band-aid'' fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well.

« Previous Page Next Page »