British F-18s

[uk 75]

In another thread we have been exploring what would have happened if CVA01 had been built.
It was planned to carry a mixture of F4 and Buccaneer.
At the same time RAF Germany used two F4 squadrons for peacetime air patroling and wartime air defence.
Both Australia and Canada chose the F18 as their combat aircraft for the 80s.and 90s.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the UK could have opted for F18s too.
They might also have replaced the three UK based Jaguar squadrons.
ADV Tornados would still have been needed for the UK mainland air defence role, or would they?
In a UK without Sea Harrier and Eurofighter BAe would have been even closer to McDD than they were with the RAF Harrier force.
If the UK had opted for F18s in the 1980s there would have been no Eurofighter. Germany, Italy and Spain would either have waited for Rafale (Germany?) or bought F18 (Spain).
The need for a VSTOL fighter for the UK would have vanished after RAF Germany was disbanded in the 90s leaving the US Marines as the only customers for a Harrier replacement.
Replacing F16 and F18 would still have led to an F35 of some description but possibly with no VSTOL variant.
France would have been in a strong position to argue that Rafale was Western Europe's key Combat Aircraft Programme. Germany would have been a niggardly and annoying partner as it has been with Typhoon.

 

[zen]

I can imagine the F18L being a strong case for licensed production and leveraging systems like Blue Vixen and EJ200 (presumably given a RB designation as just a RR product) adding UK content along with Skyflash.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I can imagine the F18L being a strong case for licensed production and leveraging systems like Blue Vixen and EJ200 (presumably given a RB designation as just a RR product) adding UK content along with Skyflash.

An UK engine is almost a given if you ask me with XG40 (Basically early EJ200) as the lead contender. Also agree on Blue Vixen and but with AMRAAM instead. Would be interesting fighter if they could get an F-18L version. Might even tempt Germany into buy F-18's if you ask me.

 

[GTX]

Sorry, couldn't help it:

 

[CJGibson]

This is covered in Typhoon to Typhoon wrt AST.403 etc

Chris

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Thread 'F-18A with Rolls Royce Engines' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-18a-with-rolls-royce-engines.18633/

There were already studies done to fit RB199's into an F-18 although these show an A not an L model. This however seriously impacts the Tornado ADV. I doubt it would exist as no doubt an "F-18K/M" would have sucked quite a bit of cash. The bean counters would have recommended it for all the roles of the ADV I think. Eurofighter obviously doesn't go ahead. Maybe BAe gets more involved in Super Hornet or does a new European consortium form to build an 5th gen platform in the mid 90's?

 

[CJGibson]

There were already studies done to fit RB199's into an F-18 although these show an A not an L model. This however seriously impacts the Tornado ADV.

How so?

 

[zen]

F18K would succeed F4K for the FAA on CVA-01 and CVA-02....about 140 airframes at best and more likely 70.
As such RAF would getting F18M to replace Jaguars....about 200 to 175.
Another 175 to 120 might be considered for F4M replacement but .....ADV Tornado delivers the loitering BARCAP range desired....only F14 can offer a viable alternative.

 

[RavenOne]

Thing is though it was looked at (more than a passing glance) say In last decade re examining options on our QE so the rumor mill says When alternates to F-35.

We have had exchange Fleet Air Arm pilots albeit Harrier pilots (both SHAR and GR/9) be it straight postings or work up to preparing us for QE operactions.

The oldest rank on this exchange was a Royal Marine Lt Col Phil Kelly who flew the Super Hornet from NAS Oceana as part of thr first cadre of Royal Navy FAA pilots to start learning the black art of CV aviation again after the demise of the Harrier. He was also the first Royal Marine pilot to qualify and fly the Sea Harrier. He became Carrier Strike Group Commander on the QE when it was commissioned.

A famous Commodore - and head of F-35 program for the UK and a great novelist Ade Orchard (I paid homage compliment on his book Joint Force Harrier at a military helicopter conference a few years back after his presentation).

cheers

 

[uk 75]

Tornado ADV might be replaced by Hornets in the 90s after the Cold War ends.
Assuming at least one CVA01 and possibly a second (CVA02) has converted to Hornet when the USN replaces its F4s on Midway and Coral Sea in the 80s, and RAF Germany then gets them to replace its 2 F4 squadrons.
If this goes well, more Hornets might then replace the 3 UK based Jaguar squadrons removing the need for Eurofighters.
Super Hornet would then be well placed to serve in all these roles.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Minus the Carrier landing gear, could enough fuel be squeezed into the Hornet to make a decent ADV replacement? Asking a fair bit from what I know of the aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

With the end of the Soviet Union the ADV role lapsed and Tornados sent to Saudi in 1991 exposed the limitations of the type.
I am not sure if Typhoon could handle Blackjack or Backfire raids with conventional cruise missiles on UK.

 

[Archibald]

There were already studies done to fit RB199's into an F-18 although these show an A not an L model. This however seriously impacts the Tornado ADV.

How so?

Tornado ADV might have it flaws, but there is a place where it would bury any F-18: RANGE. The son of a Tornado (low altitude penetrator = fuel tank) vs the Hornet big weakness (even the A-7s it replaced had better range.)

Hornet could eventully replace Jaguars and Phantoms, but Tornado IDS would still happen and, range-wise, ADV would bury Hornet.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

How so?

Tornado ADV might have it flaws, but there is a place where it would bury any F-18: RANGE. The son of a Tornado (low altitude penetrator = fuel tank) vs the Hornet big weakness (even the A-7s it replaced had better range.)

Hornet could eventully replace Jaguars and Phantoms, but Tornado IDS would still happen and, range-wise, ADV would bury Hornet.

You are correct, but would the bean counters see it that way? Like I said in my previous post - fitting RB199 and no doubt UK avionics too won't come cheaply and it will no doubt give Warton some work manufacturing rear "F-18M" fuselages I guess.

The ADV program till about the Gulf war was filled with them fighting for even the smallest things to make the aircraft surviveable. That considered I don't see how a UK F-18 and Tornado ADV will co-exist. The increased range of ADV I just don't see as a strong enough argument once the money needs to get divided between the two in this situation.

 

[CJGibson]

You are correct, but would the bean counters see it that way?

Yup. They'd say 'We're not paying for more tankers and AEW to support Hornets, buy ADVs.' Same argument against Tomcat and Eagle.

Does anyone read my books rather than just look at the pictures?

Chris

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Yup. They'd say 'We're not paying for more tankers and AEW to support Hornets, buy ADVs.' Same argument against Tomcat and Eagle.

Does anyone read my books rather than just look at the pictures?

Chris

This is alternative history. Here the UK defense planners were better future oriented and didn't create an requirement set to fulfil a role (long range bomber hunter) that was obsolete by the time the aircraft entered service and was poorly suited to the new roles in its then current state. That is when the bean counters said - make it work and it still took a war to get the funding to bring the F3 to the promised service entry level of almost 10 years prior.

I don't know much about the UK F-15 evaluation but the argument for the Tomcat was they didn't want to buy its radar and Phoenix. Without that the Tomcat doesn't hold much value. Add to that the promise of a cheaper Tornado derivative that will have a brilliant radar and the bean counters were easily convinced! And the radar then took almost 10 years to reach the promised service entry level...

Hence why I say an F-18M with industrial offset would keep BAe going and provide a better overall platform for UK air defense as the world evolved.

 

[uk 75]

I have been careful to see F18 as an off the shelf niche replacement for the two F4 squadrons in RAFG and the three Jaguar squadrons in the UK.
I added in the F4 squadrons for CVA01 if it were still around and CVA02 had been built.
Once the Cold War ends so does the role for Tornado ADV.
What comes next, Super Hornet or Eurofighter?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Once the Cold War ends so does the role for Tornado ADV.
What comes next, Super Hornet or Eurofighter?

That would depend - is Warton still going? Love or hate the ADV it did keep Warton alive with design and manufacturing work meaning there was scope for Eurofighter in the future or a UK only watered down variant to exist.

Like my previous arguments if F-18M is chosen I could see Warton still existing with offset to build some sections and developing the avionics although I can also see a harder argument existing against Eurofighter. They now have a proper FBW highly manuverable aircraft... Maybe a UK derived Super Hornet with EJ20/XG40?

 

[Hood]

It could well have happened, an F-18 for AST.403 and thus replacing Jaguar.
I suspect it wouldn't have replaced Harrier though. That might have seen P.1126 being built as a sop to home industry and keep Harrier drivers happy - but it would mean Dassault mops up Eurofighter. Germany might have thrown in the towel with either Hornets or co-develop Rafale with the French.

ADV was probably safe. I don't see a Super Hornet being likely, unless it was selected in the 90s to replace Tornado GR under FCAS or whatever it was called back then. But its likely we'd still see F-35A and B replacing the Hornet/Tornado/P.1126 fleet. Warton would be dead once Hawk sales dried up and BAE Systems would probably be no longer in the airframe business and doing quite nicely selling black boxes and pointy stuff alongside building subs and boats - oh wait that part isn't AU....

 

[zen]

Super Hornet is a problem as is vanilla Hornet.
Leveraging UK technologies into Hornet (Hornet II as it might be named I suspect) has a series of consequences.
Firstly XG40 engines, assuming this is still RR-MTU EJ200 is more powerful than US engine.
This can be exploited in two ways.
Higher thrust-to-weight ratio.
Or
Increased size. Increasing internal fuel.
Not Super Hornet size....unless a conscious decision to optimise systems for a Euro-Hornet/Super Hornet decades earlier.

Super Hornet could make case for EJ270 delivering higher thrust again.

Blue Vixen possible earlier than OTL Shar2 and development for say Euro-Hornet (with GermanySpain and Italy) results in Captor.
Skyflash in early years, Meteor in later years.

Integration of European weapons means customer has enormous choice. Especially if MN jump aboard causing Dassault to have a fit!

Options for Sky Shadow pod or Zeus intigrated ECM system on Hornet II and PIRATE on Super Hornet.

Tanking can offset range/endurance partially. Something Lightning forced UK to get used to.

Reduction in fighter cost offset by increased tankers.

 

[Stovepipe]

What about just simply buying the F-18, as it was, out of the factory, as all of the actual operators have done, without going down the road of alternative engines and avionics? Rehashing the F4 K/M would be an utter waste of time and money, when the F-18 aircraft is excellent from the off. Why spend hundreds of millions protecting a few hundred jobs? It'd be easier to simply pay off the workers instead of using an aircraft as yet another political football. Want range? add conformal tanks or schedule more tanker assets or carry two less missiles and two more drop tanks.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

What about just simply buying the F-18, as it was, out of the factory, as all of the actual operators have done, without going down the road of alternative engines and avionics? Rehashing the F4 K/M would be an utter waste of time and money, when the F-18 aircraft is excellent from the off. Why spend hundreds of millions protecting a few hundred jobs? It'd be easier to simply pay off the workers instead of using an aircraft as yet another political football. Want range? add conformal tanks or schedule more tanker assets or carry two less missiles and two more drop tanks.

National pride in part but also the industrial offsets gained from new tecnologies being developed that get utilised in other sectors through sub contractors. Plus the jobs affected becomes 1000's once looking at those sub contractors and all the families involved. Lots of votes to think about!

Plus, few of the actual F-18 operators had an self supportive aviation industry the scale like that of the UK. Plenty incentive to keep it going.

 

[Stovepipe]

Spain has an extensive arms industry, and Switzerland and Finland are also well up there. All well able to service the F18 without any need to go changing engines for no real justifiable reason. Look at the Tucano as a case in point. look at the Jetstream in RAF service. All gone and its contemporary the King Air is still in service.

 

[CJGibson]

For what role are you planning to use these Hornbrits?
Chris

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Spain has an extensive arms industry, and Switzerland and Finland are also well up there. All well able to service the F18 without any need to go changing engines for no real justifiable reason. Look at the Tucano as a case in point. look at the Jetstream in RAF service. All gone and its contemporary the King Air is still in service.

There is a difference in being able to service and look after a type in service and sustaining an extensive R&D capability that results in complex designs reaching production.

Debating the need for procuring F-18L with new engines and avionics is certainly part of this thread but there is very sound reasons for wanting to do it. Are they financially worth it with the indirect penalties in terms of sector capability losses taken into account is where the big debate comes in. Few countries are as set as the UK on maintaing a level of local design proficiency! Spain, Finland et al just don't match in that demand and capability to some extent. Even F-35B has signifant BAe involvement and RR in the lift fan...!

 

[Stovepipe]

Spain certainly does. It has been manufacturing whole aircraft since the days of the F-5 and even before. Switzerland has a deep involvement in the F-18. Even humble Finland has built and sustained aircraft and other weapons into production. As for the engines, why would the Americans even allow you to do it? It gains them nothing and introduces a unique subtype that affects commonality. I understand the desire to carry British designed weapons, but drastically changing an aircraft for not much gain is hardly worth it.

 

[red admiral]

Licence manufacturing is very different from clean sheet design capability.

If there's a Hornet order and still a need to sustain this capability, then there's a need to spend money on a different new project. Hence total costs for Hornet option increase. Whereas Hornet mod with UK design involvement sustains at least some of this capability.

 

[zen]

General Electric F404-GE-402 as used in F/A-18 C/D
Gave 11,000lb dry and 17,750lb reheated.

EJ200 produces more thrust in both dry and reheat and not a trivial difference.

But fact is Jaguar Successor must use UK AW either then WE.177 variant or then projected new tactical device. This involves avionics changes.
UK radios for interface with UK IADS.
Other sundry minor changes are very likely to mesh with extent UK infrastructure facilities, training, etc...

Similarly with a F4K successor, as a host of minor changes would be involved.

Ergo change is inevitable and the only question is how much.

Arguably the whole thread is moot, since UK perspective on requirements drove notable differences even on what could be called clones of US designs. In other words US designs didn't fit RAF requirements.

 

[CJGibson]

other words US designs didn't fit RAF requirements.

Exactly. US types were examined in the 70s for ADV and in 80s for Jaguar/Harrier replacement - nothing fitted the UK requirements.

Chris

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Exactly. US types were examined in the 70s for ADV and in 80s for Jaguar/Harrier replacement - nothing fitted the UK requirements.

Chris

The argument could be made that the UK's requirements were the issue and not the equipment... The ADV threat was long gone by the time it entered service leaving the RAF to make the shoe fit. Very similar to the F-111B saga. Designed for a role that was redundant by the time the aircraft flew.

Thus, the key to this thread in getting the F-18 into UK is probably the MoD getting their requirements more in line with the then times!

The strike scenario is however a bit more complex... But I still think the F-18 could work there bar the VSTOL role. Not that BAe got far with Harrier II. In the end they took on a MDD design despite all their own work but not getting the funding support to build them.

 

[red admiral]

Eh, there are still Russian Bears and Backfires over the North Sea even today. The threat didn't disappear...

+ Wide area air defence covering all the NATO MPAs and ASW ships operating in the GIUK area?

Air superiority over central Europe was from the Tornado GRs doing airfield attack... and Taildog-ASRAAM to defend the strikers if some MiGs stumbled (visually acquired) onto them on route

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Eh, there are still Russian Bears and Backfires over the North Sea even today. The threat didn't disappear...

If things went hot they would more than likely have been escorted by highly manuverable long range fighters like the Su-27... Yes, maybe I'm simplyfying too much saying the threat disappeared, but to base your future frontline fighter for a long range missile role when your peers are going for ever more manuverability is quite short sighted. It also vastly underestimates your enemy's future developments. The US seemed to guage them well, why not the UK?

In the ADV's defense - if it was delivered with the the radar at the level promised of it I do think it would have been received a far better aircraft instead of only really coming of age by the time its replacement started flying.

 

[CJGibson]

Eh, there are still Russian Bears and Backfires over the North Sea even today. The threat didn't disappear...

+ Wide area air defence covering all the NATO MPAs and ASW ships operating in the GIUK area?

Air superiority over central Europe was from the Tornado GRs doing airfield attack... and Taildog-ASRAAM to defend the strikers if some MiGs stumbled (visually acquired) onto them on route

Beat me to it. Even nonsense like Prodigal was rooted in a rational requirement. They don't think them up in the pub and scribble them on the back of a fag packet.

 

[CJGibson]

They do leave the documents in the pub, I'll grant you that.

 

[uk 75]

I am surprised noone has mentioned the saga of Typhoon.
Delayed by German politics as much as any technical or manufacturing issues Typhoon has replaced everything that was in the frontline in 1990.
This single seater fighter replaced the Tornado ADV, Jaguar and finally Tornado IDS. It also replaced Harrier rhanks to the Cameron government taking it out of service before F35 came on tap.
The partnership with the US Marines enabled F35B. Personally I think VSTOL is overrated and F35 CTOL would have been better for the RAF. But I may be proved wrong.
Looking at an RAF and RN with F18 has been an interesting exercise.
Thank you everyone who put in so much information and viewpoints.
I just hope Typhoons can shoot down those Bs that for an all too short period no longer threatened the West.

 

[red admiral]

If things went hot they would more than likely have been escorted by highly manuverable long range fighters like the Su-27...

Hmm its a really long way for Flankers. Multiple AARs, and Norwegian based fighters.. but even then you've got the radar and missiles to engage at long range.

It also vastly underestimates your enemy's future developments. The US seemed to guage them well, why not the UK?

But ADV wasn't a fighter. Strike command's role was to go bomb things. Like airfields to keep the MiGs on the ground. And bridges. For fighters you outrun, outhide, outjam, and fight with SRAAMs when you need.

I think the best defence of the ADV is that it was cheaper than the US options. And kept UK industry capability.

Come to Typhoon and you've got your highly agile fighter + BVRAAMs. But the RAF really still wanted a striker to go bomb things, and then be more agile and have HOBs SRAAMs if needed. And STOVL. But it was a political compromise. But achieved it with F-35B.

 

[zen]

So the bomber threat with stand off missiles was not one that could be ignored. Both the bomber and the missile had to be intercepted.

In this ADV with FMICW and monopulse homing Skyflash was the lowest cost-to-capability answer for the UK and not squandering precious Dollars.

Su27 is misunderstood. High agility is at low fuel weights but a design with large internal fuel tanks. Obviating the need for bulky and draggy drop tanks. But.....at a price in agility.
Essentially two fighters in one, at low fuel weight fast, agile and phenomenal acceleration.
At high fuel weight, long endurance in a liw drag package with pylons free of drop tanks for lots of weapons.

UK requirements process is much more professional by the 70's and 80's. The sheer need to win the Treasury agreement to fund things mean you have justify it in excruciating detail.

Thinking on this I suspect that the only winning Hornet argument is that the USN is buying it.

In a military sense the RN would be much more interested in F14 Tomcats ro succeed the F4, and domestic industry could definitely produce F4 upgrade optionthat t make F/A-18 Hornets look like a retrograde step.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I think the best defence of the ADV is that it was cheaper than the US options. And kept UK industry capability.

Nail on the head I think - although I still think it could have been a better airplane sooner, but it did give us Eurofighter in the end so all ended well. An British F-18 buy muddies the water quite a bit in terms of future UK projects.

 

[BlackBat242]

What I see rather than the UK buying into the Hornet would be the addition of a "Sea Tornado" (Tempest?) program in the late 1970s in parallel with (or instead of) the ADV... possibly even starting in parallel with the IDS in the mid-1970s, but certainly with the higher-power RB.199s of the ADV.

Perhaps the added funding for the additional FG1 Tempests would allow for an improved development path for the Foxhunter radar (or a more multi-mode alternative).

 

[zen]

So a scenario in which CVA-01 comes to fruition and the F4K is the initial Fighter element of it's airwing.
Leaves little scope for the ideal process for domestic fighters.

But.....the argument for a domestic sourced successor is as strong for both RAF and FAA as it was OTL and led to the ADV and all Digital AI.24 Foxhunter radar.

However in terms of process the AFVG is very strong and could be developed earlier than the MRCA.
In fact it's AI.24 radar.....let's give that a different name to differentiate what is a more mixed analogue and digital FMICW radar, say "Blue Wolf". Would be available in the early 70's.

So AFVG eith Blue Wolf being 'the future' could undermine F4K purchase. Especially in the real circumstances of it's spiraling cost increases and Sterling Inflation.
Potentially then the costs of F4K could force a reduction in numbers. The expectation being that F4K is a temporary measure for Ark Royal and Eagle.
This actually meshes with the processes that led to F4K beung selected. Since it was Soviet Anti-ship Missiles on display in 1963, that forced the reevaluation of the viability of Sea Vixen/Red Top based defence and acccelerated the need for replacement.
P1154RN wasn't going to enter service as a viable system until the early 1970's because that's the speed they could achieve for the radar/missile combination.
And that's why completion of delivery was supposed to be 1968. While this domestic solution would start 1972 at best.

All this background makes Sea Hornet in the 70's and 80's look unattractive. Either sunk costs are on F4K and F4M or they are sunk into AFVG or ADV MRCA.
And Hornet doesn't offer anything of relevance. It's not F14 AWG.9/AIM-54 and it's not Buccaneer or Tornado level capability in Strike. Especially range.
It's a nice to have short range fighter/attack platform. But planners had ditched specific use of such for more long range attack platforms and just used some of those at lower weights to achieve the same result. Which actually allowed a reduction in total aircraft numbers and a saving in costs.

Besides making Jaguar M work would likely be the focus of any solution and earlier than Hornet.

It's not until Super Hornet that the platform has much attraction.