Mythbuster: "Experts"

Captain Buster was never one to say know to a free lunch, especially lately.  As his financial planner was fond of telling him, Captain Buster was much better at flying a CF-18 than managing his debt.  While he was not exactly starving, his bank statements were not exactly heartwarming.

Besides, Captain Buster was looking forward to catching up with his old buddy, who had left the RCAF to join the private sector.  Vought-Republic, one of the biggest defense contractors around, was picking up the lunch bill today.  What Buster did not realize was that his friend would be bringing a co-worker...

"Thanks for meeting with us today, Buster.  It's great seeing you again."

"Yeah, it really is good to have a chance to catch up.  How has civvy life treating you?"

"Really good!  I've just made junior vice-president.  You should see my office, it's got a great view of the city."

"Wow."

"Let me introduce you to the man responsible.  This is George Payola, my boss.  He used to be in the USAF...  Flew an F-4."

"Nice to meet you, Captain Buster, your friend here has nothing but good things to say about you."

"He's a filthy liar than!"  Captain Buster joked.  

Payola countered with a polite laugh.  "We must admit to having a bit of an ulterior motive in asking you to lunch today...  We're on a bit of a hiring drive and your friend here seems to think you would make a great test pilot for our new F/A-37.  What do you think?"

"I don't know...  I'm pretty happy where I am..."  This was a lie.  Captain Buster had just been passed over for yet another promotion, and he was getting sick of the cold winters.

"I hope you give us the chance to convince you."  His friend interjected.  "This job comes with a substantial pay raise, stock options, and we can set you up near our corporate offices in California."

That did sound good.

"All this for flying a plane?"  It sounded almost too good to be true.

"We'll want you speak at airshows, do a few YouTube videos, that sort of thing.  We look at our test pilots as a public relations resource as well.  People would rather see a Chuck Yeager-type in a flight suit than some MBA in an Armani knock-off."

"Sounds easy enough...  What the hell...  I'LL DO IT!"

"GREAT!  Now, before we get into the details, we need you to sign a few things..."  Payola dumped a stack of legal documents on the table.  "Just the standard conditions, non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements, security clearances...  You know, the usual."

Captain Buster started having second thoughts...

Required reading.

"When in doubt, defer to the experts."

There really is no shame in admitting that a subject is too complicated for a layman to understand.  When that time comes, it is only human nature to seek out those with a better understanding.  This is especially true in the world of military aircraft, where cutting edge technology intersects with the world of top-secret "for your eyes only".  To put it simply, much of the truth about modern-day fighter aircraft is beyond the reach of us mere mortals.  This is where we must place our faith in the experts.

But who are these experts?

I have written about a few of these guys before.   Whenever an in-depth conversation of fighter aircraft, especially the F-35, happens, these are the names that often come up:  Flynn, Sprey, Wheeler, Thompson, and Sweetman.  All have extensive knowledge on the subject, far more than that of your typical blogger (present company included).

So what happens when these "experts" disagree with each other?

Stewart all the way...

We pick a side.

We do not pick a side at random.  We pick the side that most reflects our own beliefs in the subject.  We then use this as a resource to reaffirm our own beliefs in a process known as confirmation bias.  If "Mister X" says that "Fighter A" is amazing and "Fighter B" is terrible, and we believe that ourselves, then we will begin to trust "Mister X" as an authority on the subject.

Ah...  But what if "Mister Y" states that "Fighter A" is a colossal failure?  Surely someone is wrong!  If we agree with Mister X, than clearly Mister Y is an incompetent boob, then.  At least, that is is what we would want to believe.

What if "Mister X" and "Mister Y" are both highly qualified?

Who do we trust?

Trust me!

The simple answer:  Do not trust anybody.

Everybody has bias.  EVERYONE.

That does not mean we have to discount everything that everyone has to say.  Instead, we simply need  to listen (or read) more carefully in order to separate the subjective from the objective.  Doing so is easier than you might think.

A subjective statement is one that is based on feelings, opinions, or personal bias.  A statement like this is usually intentionally vague, or uses descriptors such as "I feel" or "I believe".

Here are some examples:

• "This jet feels like a rocket when it accelerates."
• "I believe this aircraft has the most advanced sensors ever."
• "I think this aircraft is a disaster."

None of the above statements can really be proved right or wrong, since they are dependent on the observer.  An aircraft that feels like a rocket could still accelerate fairly slowly compared to others.  Believing an aircraft has the most advanced sensors ever does not make it so.  The aircraft does not become a disaster simply because the observer thinks it.

Objective statements are, quite simply, hard facts.  They can be easily verified and are usually quite specific.  

Some examples:

• "This jet takes 45 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1."
• "This aircraft uses an AESA radar, IRST, and a helmet mounted display."
• "This aircraft is behind schedule and over budget".

Unfortunately, it is still possible to present a rather biased report using nothing but objective statements.  This can be done by omitting certain key facts.

Here is an example.  

Right from the beginning, we know that the video will be subjective rather objective, based on the part of the question which reads:  "Based on your experience..."  We will ignore that part for now, however.

In this video, Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn talks about the F-35's range.  He makes several objective statements, all of which are true:

• The F-35 carries 50% more fuel internally than the CF-18.
• This does translate to a longer range and longer loiter time.
• Canada does have the largest coastline.

What is more important is what Flynn does not mention in the video:

• The F-35 cannot carry any fuel externally at the current time.  
• The F-35 may carry more fuel, but does it burn more or less than the CF-18?  50% more fuel does not necessarily mean 50% more range.
• Which "4th generation fighters" he is referring to.  (F-16s?  F-15s?  MiG-29s?)

By keeping things intentionally vague, Flynn shields himself from any disputes.  

And it's not lupus.

As a test pilot for the F-35, Billie Flynn can certainly be considered as an expert on the F-35.  Flynn has a vested interest in its success however.  Althouhgh he used to be commanding officer in the RCAF, he is currently employed by Lockheed Martin.  

As many of you have experienced, employment with an organization often means more than a paycheck.  Non-disclosure agreements, non-compete clauses, and other legally binding contracts are usually part of the deal.  Most organizations expect their employees to act as public relations ambassadors on top of their normal duties, and many have strict rules regarding media communications.  

Therein lays the catch-22.  Those with the most access to the information are often the least able to talk honestly and candidly about it.  That leaves the rest of us scrambling for whatever scraps of information we can get in order to form our own objective opinions.

What about myself?

I can truthfully say:  I am no expert.  My only access to information is Google and the links graciously provided to me by the commenters here and in the Facebook group.  I started this whole blogging thing on a whim and it still amazes me at the response I have gotten.  

Like many of you, I have had a life-long fascination with fighter aircraft.  I have friends and family that are (and have been) active members in the Canadian Forces, including the RCAF.  I read...  A lot.  While struggling to find my place in life, I studied both engineering and journalism.  I then said to hell with both and went into medicine.  

These three seeming separate disciplines overlap more than you might think.  They also form the basis on which I form my opinions.  

1. Engineering encourages one to analyze, calculate, and quantify.  It also gives one a basic understanding of how materials interact when subjected to force.
2. Journalism encourages one to research and "dig deeper"...  It also allows one to identify "PR speak".
3. Medicine encourages the use of evidence to back up any hypothesis or claims.

Experts are a dime-a-dozen.  It is not too hard to find a so-called "expert" on any given subject.  It is often just as easy to find an expert willing to take an opposite position (this seems to be the business model of most 24-hour news networks).  

Facts are precious commodities.  Facts allow each and everyone of us to form our own opinions based on the evidence provided.  The great thing about having your own opinion is that you are free to change it at any time, especially when presented with new facts.  

After a while, you may find yourself armed with enough facts to become an expert yourself...

Published: By: Unknown - 4:48 PM

Mythbuster: Drones

X-47B Pegasus

Captain Buster felt his stomach tie in knots when he was told the news.  How was this possible?  After countless years as one of the RCAF's most talented pilots, he was now wondering what he would end up doing until retirement.

"Sorry Captain...  But I'm afraid you are now obsolete.  These new drones are cheaper, stealthier, fly longer, and can maneuver way harder than any manned fighter.  They really are the future don't you see?"

Captain Buster was not convinced.  "How is some bucket of bolts going to make up for years of experience?"

"That's the beauty of it, don't you see?  We just upgrade the software every couple of years and these things will be better than you could ever be!  Don't feel so bad.  It's much safer to stay on the ground anyway."

"I don't know how to do anything except fly!  What am I supposed to do?"

"Maybe we can switch you over to flying a transport or something..."

Oh crap.

Drones.

The mere mention of the word brings to mind a deadly swarm of unfeeling, mechanical death machines intent on human destruction.  Or something like that, anyway.  The recent proliferation of UAVs and UCAVs in places like Afghanistan and Iraq certainly do make it seem like airborne combat will soon consist almost entirely of "drones."

UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and UCAVs (unmanned combat aerial vehicles) certainly do have advantages over traditional combat aircraft.  With no need for a pilot onboard, the aircraft does not have to make concessions to the squishy human pilot.  There is no need for ejection seats, life support systems, or even a cockpit.  The aircraft can be flown into dangerous territory without risking human life.  UAVs do not need to eat, sleep, or take bathroom breaks, allowing them to stay on task for longer.

For high performance aircraft, the advantages of UAVs become even more tempting.  There is no risk of a pilot blacking out due to high-g maneuvers, and the space and weight normally reserved for a cockpit can instead be used for sensors, weapons, or extra fuel.

With all these benefits, it is surely just a matter of time before most modern aircraft are replaced with UCAVs and the like.  Why risk human lives when drones can do the job, right?

MQ-9 Reaper

The truth is, human piloted aircraft will be around for quite some time.  Drones have their advantages, but they are not the be-all, end-all just yet.  Drones have come a long way since their humble beginnings, but they are not ready to replace front-line manned combat aircraft just yet.

The rapid evolution of UAVs lately may give a false indication of just how ready they are for front-line service.  This new found capability did not happen overnight.  In fact, despite their recent publicity, drones themselves are nothing new.

50s era Ryan Q-2 Firebee

UAVs have been around longer than powered flight.  In 1849, Austria loaded up about 200 pilotless balloons with explosives and sent them towards the city of Venice.  Needless to say, relying on timed fuses and wind currents made these early UAVs far less effective than modern GPS guided munitions, but it was pretty impressive thinking for the mid-19th century.

UAVs have slowly evolved over the years, usually acting as remote controlled target drones or rudimentary reconnaissance assets.  Some, like the D-21, certainly looked impressive, but were ultimately failures.

"pwning n00bz"

The last fifteen years has seen a "perfect storm" for the proliferation of UAVs.  Computing power has improved to the point that these aircraft can now act semi-autonomously, so they are no longer just glorified remote controlled planes.  Most still require a "man-in-the-loop" but some, like the RQ-4 Global Hawk can fly virtually untethered to any sort of ground control.

This quantum leap in UAV intelligence has come during a time where they can operate uncontested over low threat airspace like that found in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Normally, these slow moving UAVs would be sitting ducks for enemy fighters, but the lack of any credible aerial threat allows them to operated with near impunity.  Not only that, but ground targets tended to be "soft", requiring only smaller weapons like a 500lb bombs or Hellfire missiles.  This fits well as even larger UCAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper only have a maximum payload of about 3,000 pounds.

This combination of improved computing power combined with low-threat airspace has certainly boosted the UAV's profile, but there are still plenty of areas where UAVs are not going to be performing anytime soon.

Air Superiority

Yeah...  Don't hold your breath.

Not a single UAV ever built, or even planned, has the air-to-air capability to rival even the most modest of modern fighter aircraft.  UCAVs may have the potential to perform extremely high-g maneuvers without blacking out the pilot, but right now their performance is rather limited.  Even advanced UAV demonstrators like the X-47B are subsonic, with design elements focused towards endurance over speed and agility.

Not only that, but no current or planned UAV has the ability to mount air-to-air weaponry like the AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM.  Predator drones were once fitted with short-range Stinger missiles, but the results were borderline laughable.

Cost

The RQ-4 Global Hawk

UCAVs like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper have low operating costs compared to modern multirole fighters.  This is not due to some special UAV formula.  They are cheaper to fly for the simple reason that they are simple aircraft.  In fact, the Predator uses a small piston engine that would not look out of place under the hood of a Subaru. 

UAVs still need to be maintained by ground crew, and they still need pilots, even if those pilots never leave the ground.  Like any other military asset, their capability is very much determined more based on what high-tech gear they carry inside.  For some, this gear tends to be expensive.

Possibly the most glaring example of this is the RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance UAV.  It is definitely impressive, capable of flying at altitudes up to 60,000 feet for over 30 hours at a time.  The Global Hawk is possibly the most advanced UAV currently in existence (that isn't top secret).

All that capability comes at a cost however, and therein lays the Global Hawk's main issue.  Germany has cancelled plans to operate the UAV due to excessive costs and certification issues.  Part of the issue is that UAVs like the Global Hawk are not permitted to fly in civilian airspace.  This hampers their usefulness over crowded regions like western Europe.

Even the USAF finds the RQ-4 a tad expensive.  This fact is especially glaring when the relatively new Global Hawk still does not meet the current operational capabilities of the nearly 60-year-old Lockheed U-2.  This could be excused if the RQ-4 was cheaper to operate...  But it was not initially.  Threat of cancellation managed to get costs down, however.  Ultimately, the RQ-4 will replace the U-2, but only begrudgingly.  

Ethics

"I'm sorry Dave...  But I'm afraid I can't do that."

No discussion about drone warfare is complete without mentioning the ethic debate.  Volumes have been written and likely will be continued to be written well into the future.  This new found capability  raises plenty of philosophical questions:

• Does war lose meaning when one side does not have to risk its own flesh and blood?
• Will taking human lives be the result of a simply computer algorithm?
• Will the proliferation of drones result in our becoming a police-state dystopia?
• What if the machines rise up against their creator? 

I am not going to pretend to know the answers to these questions, or others like them.  These are the sort of questions that will need to be answered before UCAVs completely replace manned fighter aircraft.  

Optional equipment.

Saab has been proposing an unmanned Gripen.

If anything, the trend in UCAVs is not towards replacing manned aircraft, but supplementing manned aircraft.  The U.S. Navy's UCLASS program is set to develop an aircraft that will fly alongside their Super Hornet and F-35C fleets.  Saab is said to be working on an "unmanned" version of their updated Gripen multirole fighter.

Looking further into the future, early proposals for both the F/A-XX and the Next Generation Bomber call for an "optionally manned" capability.  This would suggest that both aircraft could have both manned and unmanned variants.  Considering that these two aircraft will not see production until the 2030s, it is safe to assume that manned combat aircraft will be around at least until the 22nd century.  

Some so called "experts" may disagree with this, however...

Published: By: Unknown - 2:12 PM

Mythbuster: "Future" Tech

"PEW PEW PEW!"

Captain Buster Junior cleared his throat and spoke loudly and clearly into his helmet microphone.

"Computer...  Initiate air combat protocol.  Arm all missiles, activate all electronic warfare modules, and charge up the directed energy weapon."

His order was confirmed by the CF/A-55E's onboard artificial intelligence.  "Affirmative.  Sensors confirm two hostile bogeys coming in from the east.  Radar jamming initiated.  Missiles armed.  Fusion cells charged to ninety-eight percent."

"Great."  Captain Buster Junior answered.  "Transmit the usual multi-language message stating that they have violated Canadian airspace and..."

"CAPTAIN!  Missile launch detected!"

The pilot reflexively banked his aircraft into a defensive maneuver and barked back at his aircraft.  "CRAP!  Okay, target that missile with the DEW turret and prepare to fire CUDA missiles!"  

"Acknowledged.  Directed Energy Weapon locked on.  Do you wish to fire?"

"YES!"

Captain Buster Junior heard a tell-tale "BOOM!"  His joy was short lived as he saw two crimson beams of light flash by his aircraft.  That was too close.  He turned his head, and his helmet mounted display projected a holographic image of the two enemy aircraft directly onto his retinas.  It only took a moment for the green square surrounding them both to turn into a red circle, indicating missile lock.  

"FIRE MISSILES!"  

It only took an instant for four missiles to eject out of his aircraft's weapon bay and streak towards their target at hypersonic speed.  At that speed, they were too fast to be targeted by the enemy aircraft's own directed energy weapon.  Two missiles slammed into one, obliterating the aircraft instantly thanks to their precision and kinetic energy.  

Only one missile hit the other aircraft; damaging it, but not destroying it.  As it turned to limp home, Captain Buster Junior cracked a sinister smile as he turned his own aircraft to give chase.  He was finally able to make out his enemy's distinct lack of cockpit.  This was not a manned fighter, but a drone!

"Computer...  Target enemy UCAV...  See if you can hack its systems and upload an E-BOLA virus.  That'll give the bad guys a nice surprise when it gets home!"

"Affirmative, Captain."

F-35 model with proposed "CUDA" missiles.

 When one looks at some of the concepts being developed now, it seems very clear that the future of aerial warfare will be quite different from what we see today.  Innovations in directed energy weapons (DEW), smart bombs, and the like lead us to believe that air combat two decades from now will look more like science fiction.  This is understandable.  After all, twenty years time is all that separates the Me 262 and and the SR-71.

Surely, twenty years time is all that separates us from "the next big thing" in military aviation as well.

From this...

To this in twenty years.

The last twenty years has seen an explosion in consumer technology.  It is only natural to assume that military technology has and will make similar advances.  This is not necessarily the case, however.  Whereas consumer technology is very much driven by factors such as lifestyle changes, fashion, and prestige, military technology is driven more by perceived necessity and budget pressures.  This makes military technology development much more risk averse.

What this means is that companies like Apple and Samsung need to constantly innovate in order to maintain market share in a world filled with fickle customers.  Faster processors, more vibrant screens; all wrapped up in thinner bodies.  Meanwhile, most military technology hits the point of "good enough".  A 500 pound smart bomb does not become more effective with the addition of a high-definition screen or a built-in fingerprint scanner.

From this (Vietnam era M-16)...

To this.  (Modern M4)

Instead, military weapon advancements tend to be more "evolutionary" than revolutionary.  The modern-day M4 carbine is near identical to the M-16 battle rifle first used in Vietnam over 40 years ago.  Sure, there are plenty of improvements "under the skin" resulting in better accuracy and reliability, but the rifle is still gas-operated, rotating bolt assault rifle that fires 5.56mm rounds.  Attempts to replace it with something more radical have so far been unfruitful.  Even suggestions to change the caliber have been shot down.

Why?

Because for all its weaknesses, the M4 is still very much a "good enough" weapon.  It is lightweight (much lighter than the pre-Vietnam M14), accurate (less accurate than the M14, however), cheap to produce, and easy to maintain.  Other assault rifles may be superior in many ways, but not superior enough to warrant replacing the half-million M4s already in service with the U.S. Army.

Can something as simple as a battle rifle cannot be used as an analogy to high-end jet fighters?  The last twenty years would seem to indicate it can.

F-22 Raptor

Thirty years ago, the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program produced a fighter that was originally intended to replace the F-15 Eagle as the USAF's predominant air-superiority fighter.  That fighter, the F-22 Raptor was certainly superior to the F-15C in almost every respect, but escalating costs and the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Raptor production being curtailed at 187 instead of the planned 750.  

To this day, the F-22 is still a fighter without a real purpose.  It only recently made its combat debut, an action that did little to showcase its air-superiority talents.

Meanwhile, the F-15, the very aircraft the Raptor was meant to replace, continues production.  A slew of upgrades and a strike variant will keep the production line running until 2018, a full six years after the last F-22 was delivered.

B-2 Spirit

The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber has met a similar fate.  Originally meant to replace the geriatric B-52 Stratofortress, 132 B-2s were planned to be built.   Like the F-22, escalating costs and changing times led to many questioning the need for such a beast.  In the end, only 21 examples were built, resulting in the aircraft's infamous unit cost.

It seems doubtful that the B-2 will outlive the 50's era B-52, which is planned to keep flying until 2044.

At least the USAF got some of the aircraft it clamored for.  The USN was not so lucky...  Or was it?

A-12 Avenger II

The planned replacement for the venerable A-6 Intruder was ambitious if nothing else.  The A-12 Avenger II was meant to bring stealth capability to the American carrier fleet.  The A-12 had much in common with the USAF's B-2; a stealthy, flying wing shape, an internal bomb bay, an troubled development, and an astronomical price.

Eventually, the A-12 was cancelled when it was found that it would be too heavy to operate from a carrier.  Even if it could, the aircraft would have been too expensive to fly anyway.

Artist concept of the NATF

The proposed NATF intended to replace the F-14 Tomcat never even left the drawing board.  Even plans to base it heavily on the F-22 in order to save costs were not enough to save it.

Instead of the A-12 and NATF, the USN was provided with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as a sort of "consolation prize".  While not nearly as glamorous, the Super Hornet has made for a competent and cost effective workhorse.

Now, with delays and cost overruns plaguing introduction of the F-35C, the USN is faced with the difficult decision of what to do as it retires its aging legacy F/A-18 Hornet fleet.  Does it simply wait, does it expand and upgrade its Super Hornet fleet, or does it dive headlong into UCAV's like the X-47B?

F-35A Lightning II

Whatever the end decision is, the result will likely have more to do with budgets than anything else.  The biggest enemy of most militaries face right now is budget cuts.  It is hard to imagine military purchasers splurging on expensive and unproven technology when they cannot even afford to maintain their current capability.  

Despite concerns about "emerging threats" and the like, modern fighters are still more than a match for current threats.  Western airpower, as it currently stands, is still "good enough" to handle any potential threat.  Even if there are concerns about a diminishing technological advantage, the truth is that the USAF alone enjoys a distinct numerical and technological advantage over the Russian and Chinese air forces.

Perhaps the current predicament will lead to a new sort of benchmark for future weapon systems.  Instead of focusing strictly on the Cold War mentality of "superiority at all costs", perhaps future weapon systems will focus more on cost effectiveness.

What we were promised:  A SR-71 Blackbird replacement concept.

What we got:  The MQ-9 Reaper UCAV

Indeed, it is through cost effectiveness that UCAV's like the MQ-9 Reaper have become quite prevalent over the last few years.  It is far cheaper to patrol an area with a slow, propellor driven drone than it is a supersonic multirole fighter.

Oddly enough, if you were to pick up a book on "Future Aircraft" twenty years ago, you would not see a single aircraft resembling the modest drones used over Iraq and Afghanistan.  Instead, you would have seen streamlined flights of fancy said to fly at hypersonic speeds.

The truth is, while fantastic new technologies may grab the magazine covers, the future usually ends up being far more mundane.

At least we know that UAVs will probably replace manned fighters in the near future...  Right?

Published: By: Unknown - 7:55 PM

Mythbuster: "Super" Hornet

Captain Buster climbed into the familiar cockpit, and let his muscle memory do the rest.  Flick a switch here, push a button there, check that dial over there...  It was all such a routine now that he did it without thinking.  

"Captain Buster!"

Zoned out, the CF-18 pilot ignored the voice in his headset and continued his preflight checklist.  He was just about ready to start up the engines when the rude voice in his headset woke him from his zen-like trance.

"CAPTAIN BUSTER!"

"WHAT?  Can't you see I'm busy here?"

"Captain Buster, you may want to double check your surroundings.  That's not your aircraft you climbed into."

"Everything looks alright from here...  Look, I've already completed the preflight checklist.  Why can't I just fly this CF-18 instead of my usual one?"

"Normally, that wouldn't be an issue, but we are not authorized to fly that aircraft!"

"Since when?"

"Since you climbed aboard a U.S. Navy Super Hornet by mistake!  Your CF-18 is the next one over!"

F/A-18F (left) refuels a F/A-18C (right)

When the time came to start evaluating potential CF-18 replacements, many have advocated doing the simple, sensible thing and simply upgrading to the newest F/A-18 variant.  It is argued that this would be the simplest and likely cheapest solution.  Transition training would be simplified, both for ground crews and pilots alike.  

Unfortunately, it is not that easy.  The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not simply an updated variant of the classic F/A-18 Hornet that is the basis of our CF-18.  

It is easy to see why there may be some confusion.  

Both fighters look incredibly similar, and both fighters have the same designation (F/A-18).  Both are considered "multirole" fighters in service with the USN.  Both are made by the same manufacturer (since Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas).  

The fact is, however, the Super Hornet is almost an entirely different aircraft.  So different that it should have earned its own "F" designation (F/A-24?).

How different?

It's like a regular Hornet...  Only "Super".

For one, there is the size difference.  The Super Hornet has been stretched out in nearly every direction, almost everything about it is bigger, as you can see in the picture above.  While it may not seem that substantial, the Super Hornet is actually much closer in size to the F-15 Eagle than its smaller sibling.  Its empty weight (14,552kg) is a full four metric tonnes greater than the legacy Hornet (10,400kg).

Since the Super Hornet is bigger and heavier than the CF-18, its airframe is almost completely different.  Only the front fuselage is identical.  While keen-eyed spotters can often identify the Super Hornet by its trapezoidal intakes, there are also minor differences in the wings, leading-edge extensions (LERX), and other areas.

GE F414 

Super Hornet changes go beyond being skin-deep however.  Inside, the Rhino uses two GE F414-400 afterburning turbofans.  While these are based on the GE F404s found in the legacy Hornet, they are actually closer to the F412s found in the aborted A-12 Avenger II.

Those upgraded engines are needed for the Super Hornet.  While they provide about 4,500 pounds more thrust (with afterburner), the Rhino actually has a slightly inferior thrust-to-weight ratio and rate of climb than its older sibling.

CF-18 Cockpit

Super Hornet cockpit

"Advanced Super Hornet" cockpit

Avionics-wise, the differences between the aircraft get a little more complicated.

Throughout its life (so far) in the RCAF, the CF-18 has received extensive upgrades to its cockpit and radar.  While its current APG-73 radar matches those originally found in the Super Hornet, the Rhino has since upgraded its radar to the APG-79 AESA unit.

The cockpit layout is fairly similar, but that would change substantially with the proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade that would see a large touchscreen display replace several multi-function displays (MFDs).

In all, the transition to the F/A-18E/F models would still require a substantial amount of retraining for both air and ground crews.  It would not require as much as some of the other potential fighters, but it certainly would not be "plug-an-play".

Still, would it not make sense to upgrade Canada's current Hornet fleet with its natural replacement?

The "legacy" Hornet's replacement, the F-35C.

Maybe, but the Super Hornet was never even developed as a true "legacy" F/A-18 replacement.  That honor goes to the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C.  The USN still flies a substantial amount of legacy F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Ds.

The Super Hornet was developed, not to take the place of the "legacy" Hornet, but to fill the gap left by two wildly different aircraft:  The F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder.

F-14 Tomcat

A-6 Intruder

With the Cold War ended, the American military machine was under intense scrutiny by the Bush (Senior) and Clinton administrations.  Deficit spending was the new enemy, and casualties were to be expected.  Both the A-6 and the F-14 were due for replacements, but those replacements did not look cheap.

The A-6's planned replacement, the A-12 Avenger II, was already years behind schedule thanks to budget overruns and design issues.  Meanwhile, the F-14's replacement, the NATF, looked to replicate the same stratospheric costs surrounding the F-22 Raptor.  This made it a non-starter.

The USN still needed new aircraft, however.  The small F/A-18 Hornet lacked the range to take over the F-14's interceptor duties, nor did it have the payload capacity to take over the A-6's strike capacity.  The USN needed to fulfill these roles while convincing a budget-minded congress to loosen its purse strings a little.

Ultimately, the Super Hornet was developed as a means to provide a versatile aircraft that would not only be able to fill the gap left by the F-14 and A-6, but be low-cost and low-risk enough to secure funding.

In retrospect, the USN got what it needed, if not exactly what it wanted.  The Super Hornet, when equipped with AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AESA radar, helps take the place of the faster F-14 while carrying nearly the same payload as an A-6.  It does not quite match what modernized F-14s and A-6s might have been, but it has certainly been "good enough".

But what about the Aussies?

RAAF F-111

While the RAAF has begun procuring the F/A-18F as an "interim fighter" whilst waiting for the F-35 to become combat-ready, those Super Hornets are meant to replace the RAAF's recently retired F-111 fleet.

In the end, the Super Hornet's name is a bit of a misnomer.  "Super" would imply that the F/A-18E/F is substantially better than its non-super sibling.  This is not the case.  By most fighter aircraft metrics (speed, maneuverability, etc), the Super Hornet performs similarly.

What the Super Hornet does have to offer is its size.  Its larger airframe allows it to carry more fuel and more weapons.  More importantly for the USN, its larger size allows it a higher "bring-back" weight.  This means that not only can a Super Hornet take-off a carrier with more fuel and weapons, but it can land as well (since you don't want to dump fuel and expensive smart bombs into the ocean prior to landing).

It's kinda like that...

Instead of thinking of the F/A-18E/F as a "Super Hornet", perhaps it is better to think of it as a "Supersized Hornet" or a Hornet XL.  It is easy to see why the Super Hornet has so many fans, it is a lot like the CF-18...  There is just more of it.

To some, the Super Hornet is the family size pack of double-stuff Oreo cookies.  It is the same cookie that you know and love...  Only more so.

Hard to argue with that.  

Published: By: Unknown - 8:09 AM

Mythbuster: Foreign Fighters

Captain Buster stifled a yawn as he stared bleary eyed at the lifeless powerpoint presentation.  He wished he was back piloting his beloved CF-18, not stuck in this dreary meeting.  He cursed his Commanding Officer for "volunteering" him to be part of the committee to pick the CF-18's replacement.  It may be good for his career, but it was hell on his nerves.

"As you can see, we have several choices available to us."  Captain Buster had already forgotten the committee chairperson's name, so decided to honor the chairperson with the call-sign "Drone" for the way the chairperson would drone on-and-on...  And on...

"We have the Lockheed F-35, of course.  I'm sure many of you have heard the controversy surrounding it.  The Americans seem hell-bent on using it to replace just about every fighter they have, however, so you can see why they want us to get it too.

*Click*

"Then we have the Super Hornet.  It's a lot like the CF-18, only bigger and modernized somewhat.  It's way cheaper than the F-35, but some worry it might not be that much of an improvement on what we already have."

Captain Buster struggled to stay awake as the slide-show continued.  "Tell me something I don't know..." he thought to himself.

The chairperson continued.  "From Europe, we have the Eurofighter Typhoon.  It's fast, agile, and billed as the next best thing to the F-22.  The Brits and Germans say its expensive, however, and they seem to have trouble getting parts."

*Click*

"And here's the French Rafale.  It seems like a great fighter.  They got 'em working from carriers and it won't be long before its France's only fighter.  India's looking to buy a whole bunch of 'em too.  We'd have to modify them to fit our AMRAAMs, etc...  But that shouldn't be a big deal."

*Click*

"Lastly, there's the Saab Gripen from Sweden.  It's small, but the Swedes have given it good range and all the latest toys.  It doesn't have quite the payload of the others, but its cheap to run and can land damn near anywhere.

"As you can see, there are plenty of options out there, the hard part is narrowing it down to one."

"AHEM!"  The deputy minister in charge of something-something cleared his throat, pulling his too-tight shirt collar away from his bulging fat neck.  "Just the F-35 and the Super Hornet are made in the States, right"

"Correct."

"You can't be seriously suggesting that Canada would buy a non-US aircraft, can you?  When have we ever bought an European fighter?

"Well...  Uh..."

"I thought so.  Why don't we just simplify things and cross the European fighters off the list.  That just leaves the F-35 and the Super Hornet, right?  Wouldn't that make it easier?"

"Zzzzzzzzzzzz...."

"WOULD SOMEBODY WAKE UP CAPTAIN BUSTER!"

Our only "real" choices?

Since entering the jet age, the RCAF has never operated a jet powered fighter aircraft designed outside of the United States. The CF-86 Sabre, the CT-133 Silver Star, the CF-101 Voodoo, the CF-104, the CF-116 Freedom Fighter, and the CF-188 (better known as the CF-18 Hornet) all hail from the good old U.S.A.  Even the F2H-3 Banshee flown from the decks of the HMCS Bonaventure came from south of the border.  While many of these aircraft (like the CF-86 and CF-104) were license built in Canada, the designs themselves come from American stalwarts like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas.

The only true "non-American" jet fighter to serve in the RCAF is in fact the CF-100 Avro Canuck.  Intentions to keep Canada's fighter design business alive with the CF-105 Avro Arrow met a grisly end, and we have been "flying American" ever since.  

Canada's only "non-American" jet fighter, the CF-100 Canuck

Despite Canada's preference for American fighter jets, there is no hard-and-fast rule dictating that all other designs should be ignored.  Fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen were in fact considered in the time leading up to the F-35 Lightning II selection.  Some may argue this was strictly for appearances, but then the same could be said about the Boeing Super Hornet's consideration as well.

Perhaps we need to look further back and look at some other examples.

When the Canadian government decided to replace the aging CF-101 and CF-104, it truly was a "buyers market".  No less than seven aircraft were considered under the New Fighter Aircraft program, including two different versions of the F-18 Hornet.

Here they are, in no particular order:

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

Northrop F-18L

Panavia Tornado 

Dassault Mirage F1 

Dassault Mirage 2000

In retrospect, the decision to go with the F/A-18 seems sound.  The Mirage F1 was quickly eliminated, since it it did not meet the requirements.  Dassault instead offered the Mirage 2000, but was unable to finalize an offer in time.  The Northrop F-18L (a land-based F/A-18) was an early front-runner, but Northrop was unable to find any other buyers for it and conceded the market to McDonnell Douglas.  The F-14, F-15, and Tornado were all eliminated due to cost concerns, not to mention the fact that none of them could be called "multi-role" fighters at the time.  This left the F-16 and F/A-18 as the "last fighters standing".  It was decided that the F/A-18's more robust airframe, twin-engine performance (two smaller engines take less time to "spool up" than a single larger jet) made it more suitable for Canada.  At the time, the F-16 also lacked BVR capability to match the F/A-18's AIM-7 Sparrow missiles.  

Hindsight being 20/20 some (including myself) believe that the F-16, F-14, or F-15 may have been a better fighter for Canada, it is hard to fault the selection of the F/A-18.  Ultimately, it was the Hornet's  capabilities that earned its place in the RCAF, not is country of origin.

The RCAF is, in fact, no stranger to European (and other) sourced aircraft.

Dassault CC-117 Falcon

The Dassault Falcon served as a VIP transport and electronic warfare aircraft from 1970 to 1989.

SAGEM Sperwer

Over Afghanistan, the RCAF also utilized the French made CU-161 SAGEM Sperwer UAV for surveillance.

IAI CU-170 Heron

As well as the Israeli sourced CU-170 Heron (these were leased).

Airbus CT-150 Polaris

Currently, Canada operates the French-built Airbus A310 as the CT-150 Polaris.

BAe CT-155 Hawk

RCAF pilots are trained in the British-made BAe CT-155 Hawk.

Agusta-Westland CH-149 Cormorant

Search-and-rescue duties are performed by the Italian Agusta-Westlane CH-149 Cormorant.

CH-178, aka the MI-17 "Hip"

Perhaps the most surprising example of a foreign-sourced aircraft goes to the Russian-made MI-17 "Hip" helicopters used as a medium/heavy-lift platform during the war in Afghanistan.  These civilian specced helicopters were leased to fill the gap left by prematurely retiring the Chinook helicopter.

Throughout the years, the RCAF has leased plenty of other aircraft to "fill the gap" due to a lack of heavy-lift strategic airlift.  This has been rectified since the the purchase of the C-17 Globemaster III.

Looking at Canada's other military branches, we see equipment procured from every corner of the globe.  Tanks from Germany, APCs from South Africa, rifles from Belgium, and anti-aircraft guns from Sweden.

Airbus C-295

Alenia C-27J

If that was not enough proof that the RCAF is an equal-oppourtunity purchaser, just look at the two options being considered for Canada's next fixed wing search-and-rescue (FWSAR) aircraft.  Neither the Airbus C-295 or the Alenia C-27J are made in America.  There have been suggestions that the Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey should be considered as well, but cost concerns make that seem unlikely.

Despite many reports that competition to replace Canada's CF-18s will be a two-horse race, there seems to be little reason to believe that only realistic alternative to the F-35 is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.  Choosing a fighter aircraft is a difficult enough task, there seems to be little reason to limit the possibilities based simply on where those aircraft are manufactured.

It the Super Hornet is selected as Canada's next fighter over the F-35, it will be thanks to that particular aircraft's capabilities, price, and offset deals; not because it is the only American fighter being offered.

Likely the ease of transition from legacy Hornet to Super Hornet would also be a factor.  After all, the Super Hornet is just a more advanced variant of the current CF-18...  Right?

Tune in next week.


Published: By: Unknown - 4:32 PM