Super Duper Hornet Walkaround

[Catmando]

We're not exactly going into down town Hanoi in F-4s any more. If we were still operating with the same technology you were, id whole-heartedly agree. I'd consider your scenario in today's day and age as likely as a full scale amphibious assault. ......

It has always been the same in warfare, whether in Alexander's armies, Roman legions, the Vietnam air war, or tomorrow's major air battle.

The warrior who has at his side or right behind him, his fellow warrior – he will always perform better than one lone warrior on his own in the heat of battle, regardless of any wingmen, technology, and outside support.

Believe it!

 

[HAL Pilot]

Having an extra set of eyes sure didn't seem to help the Tornadoes.

The Brit Tornadoes flew the most dangerous profiles/missions of any aircraft in Desert Storm. When everyone else went high to avoid the ground fire, they stayed low. And they did it over the most heavily defended targets. There was a quite a flap about it in the UK too with U.S. even being accused of using the Tornadoes in this role to minimize U.S. loses. This might not have been on purpose, but in reality that is the way it ended up. Brit Tornado crews had the biggest brass balls of the war and you could hear them clanking miles away.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The Brit Tornadoes flew the most dangerous profiles/missions of any aircraft in Desert Storm. When everyone else went high to avoid the ground fire, they stayed low. And they did it over the most heavily defended targets. There was a quite a flap about it in the UK too with U.S. even being accused of using the Tornadoes in this role to minimize U.S. loses. This might not have been on purpose, but in reality that is the way it ended up. Brit Tornado crews had the biggest brass balls of the war and you could hear them clanking miles away.

I agree about the Tornadoes, and that's my point. Losses don't tell the whole story, and predictably the aircraft operating at low altitude (like the Tornadoes, A-10's Harriers, and Broncos) suffered disproportionately. Using this as an argument for or against the utility of a backseater is a stretch, in my opinion.

 

[Fog]

I nominate ed flanagan for an Oscar for the Funniest Shit I've Read in Years. I also recommend HAL for the Truth in Arguing award. From what I've read (wasn't there/out of cockpit reservist by then), the Brits took their Tornados into the weeds to hit airfields and caught everything the Iraquis had when they came over.

 

[EODDave]

Having now flown all Hornet Variants from A's to F's, I am inclined to have that guy in back. There are some guys who have a hard on to fly by themselves and thats cool. I'm just saying that a pilot with a good WSO is more effective and more lethal than a single seat guy. I will also say that a pilot with a bad WSO is less effective than a single seat guy.

With all the new toys, JHMCS front and back, 9X, APG-79, etc.., it takes two guys to use all of the technology to its max extent. There are times in a flight that a single seat guy starts to task shed due to cockpit workload. Its during these times that the extra guy is worth his weight in gold (fuel). In the A/A arena today, I'd give the nod to a high lot F. Two guys, both with JHMCS, 9X, 79, 214 with the Rhino's low RCS. If you ever got to a merge it would be over quick. If you somehow got jumped and were defensive, a break turn and now your neutral with the HOBS shot. The pilot can do the pilot shit and the WSO can look over his shoulder and take a lock in the break turn. Now its dueling missiles. Having a pilot concentrating on flying the airplane, staying on or geting to his numbers and then an extra guy to use the extra toys for a lock. Then its a quick QA and shot. I know some single seat mafia types will call bullshit, but deep down inside they know I am right.

A/G and a WSO is even more important. Low level ingress and a pop the pilot or WSO can throw out a quick designation with the helmet and then while the pilot is flying the airplane, the WSO can sweeten up the designation with the FLIR. During a SES, a pilot can work the radar in the A/A mode while the WSO is working A/G mode designating targets for his plane and his single seat wingmen. Anyway, I get that flying alone is fun. But if we are talking max performance out of ALL of the systems, then it takes 2 guys to get the most out of the jet.

Now back to the 1st post. If you added, conf tanks, IRST, 20% more thrust (woohoo), the new displays and the new defensive suite. That would be an awesome Freaking airplane. I saw some of this stuff at Boeing last year and all I could ask was when can we get it. The reply was "when the Navy buys it".

And yes, I have seen and been in the F-35 sim, actually saw the first Navy F-35C in FW and Pax. However, with the way the budget cuts keep rolling, being in the sim is probably as close to flying one as I'll ever get.

Look at the Aussies. They have been flying C's for a while now. When it came time to buy Rhinos, they bought F's.

 

[craftingraptor]

Newbie question. In two-seaters, how long does it take to mesh with the dude/dudette you're working with? Or is there enough rotation before an actual mission that you've flown with everyone?

 

[scoolbubba]

You guys are never going to win this argument. If 4 eyes are better than 2, I'd like to humbly submit the mighty warpig for fighter aircraft of the century, with a whopping 22 eyeballs on board at all times.

 

[statesman]

Noted regarding the current leadership. However, this aircraft was bought what 10 years ago? It's our current leadership that's trying to axe (at least part) of the program (I imagine our current leadership had other priorities when this program came to fruition.). The briefs Ive been to claimed the systems had all been and is still being flight tested (granted they weren't installed in an F35). Are you claiming the technology doesn't exist?

Zero growth capability? In regards to what? Systems/sensors? The same ones that are growing in fidelity, accuracy and speed, all the while getting smaller and lighter?

Pugs, with all due respect, all you've said is some XO RIO couldn't justify 2-seats 16 years ago? F-16s scattered all over Arizona (and probably Harriers too), but how many of either of those are we crashing today?

Full disclosure: Not a jet guy, and still a month away from wings, so I'm not trying to go where I dont belong here but:

There is a tendency to assume that 'the leadership' thinks with one mind, a singular goal, and direct action. That may be true on the uniformed side, but the JSF, like most large appropriations, has been plagued with several people's agendas causing LOTS and LOTS of problems. The unfortunate thing about the US Congress is that the US Congress is often involved in their decisions.

In March 2009 this GAO report cited "maturation of several critical techonologies essential to meet operational performance and logistical support requirements. Collectively, testing and technical challenges will likely add more costs and time to development, affecting delivery of warfighter requirements and hampering start up of pilot and maintainer training and initial operational testing."

So in effect the answer to your question above is: Yes those technologies don't yet fully exist. Now granted this is a 24 month old report, however it should be noted that the GAO has issued several reports throughout the history of the JSF program and this is by far not the first time such language has appeared. And just so you know I'm not full of shit... The March 2011 report is almost a copy and paste of the March 2009 report.

I dont have any experience in the 1 seat / 2 seat jet community so I wont speak to that, and I know that due to the sensitive nature of the JSF the full capabilities can not be discussed here. That being said as a tax payer I still have very big reservations regarding the cost benefit of the JSF, especially for the US Navy. I know the issue of JSF v. more Rhino's is a lot more complicated for USMC due to the requirement that you operate from the small decks. But for the Navy at least it would seem that the F-18 might be the best choice.

Consider the following:

We must accept that we are going to loose aircraft whether they be F-18s, JSFs, or B-2 Spirits. In the more recent years the number of aircraft that were lost to non-combat related mishaps is FAR more than combated related losses.

The fly away cost of a Rhino is in the $55 mil range (depending on how the cost is measured and what year dollars were talking about), while the F-35 started at $86 Million and has increased to a projected $131 Million. Considering the current trend its not hard to believe that the unit cost for the F-35 could reach $165 Million.

I see $165 million as kind of a majic number because thats the point where 1 JSF costs as much as 3 Rhinos. We're already passed the previous majic number of $110 Million.

So the following questions need to be answered:

Can 3 F-18s do as good or better of a job than 1 JSF?
Keeping in mind that when we loose 1 JSF to a training mishap we lost the equivalent of 3 Rhinos... and when two jets collide in formation training (which unfortunately happens far more often than we would like) we loose 2 JSFs it becomes 6 Rhinos... Is the JSF really worth the cost?

The questions are legitimate and I don't pretend to have the answers, but its something to consider. Cost is certainly a factor, but so is the life of the air crew. So trying to get back to the original threadjack 1 JSF only puts one pilot at risk, where as 2 18Fs puts 4 airmen at risk. So it is something to consider...

Boeing is making some strong arguments however, it makes me wonder more and more is the JSF the right answer for the Navy? The video in the OP is food for thought.

 

[HAL Pilot]

You guys are never going to win this argument. If 4 eyes are better than 2, I'd like to humbly submit the mighty warpig for fighter aircraft of the century, with a whopping 22 eyeballs on board at all times.

We did that on the Nellis ranges in 1987-88 before going to the Persian Gulf to escort Kuwaiti tankers and protect Saudi oil fields during the Iran-Iraq war.

The rules were guns only because the Iranian missiles didn't work (no preventive maintenance or spare parts). If we got to the hard deck and denied the fighter the vertical, the P-3 could out turn the fighter all day long. After a while, we got really good with eyes in every window and rarely did the fighter get it's guns on us. We fought A-4s, F-4s, F-5s, F-4s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s. By the end of the training, we were even able to get in a guns position on the fighters.

Unfortunately after we almost pulled the wings off a P-3 at Cocos Island and it happened to be the bird we did most of this DACM training with, the powers that be decided the Iranians were going to come for us (BS - they tried hard to get me at least three times in the Gulf) and the yanking & banking was too hard on the airframes. So we were the only squadron that did this. We also tested the flare/chaff pods and IR jammers on the Nellis electronic ranges (rush job to develop them and get them to us). Very interesting to see these actually working.

 

[a_m]

We did that on the Nellis ranges in 1987-88 before going to the Persian Gulf to escort Kuwaiti tankers and protect Saudi oil fields during the Iran-Iraq war.

The rules were guns only because the Iranian missiles didn't work (no preventive maintenance or spare parts). If we got to the hard deck and denied the fighter the vertical, the P-3 could out turn the fighter all day long. After a while, we got really good with eyes in every window and rarely did the fighter get it's guns on us. We fought A-4s, F-4s, F-5s, F-4s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s. By the end of the training, we were even able to get in a guns position on the fighters.

Unfortunately after we almost pulled the wings off a P-3 at Cocos Island and it happened to be the bird we did most of this DACM training with, the powers that be decided the Iranians were going to come for us (BS - they tried hard to get me at least three times in the Gulf) and the yanking & banking was too hard on the airframes. So we were the only squadron that did this. We also tested the flare/chaff pods and IR jammers on the Nellis electronic ranges (rush job to develop them and get them to us). Very interesting to see these actually working.

That is awesome. I would have never guessed this scenario in a hundred years.

 

[a_m]

words, words, words

A fantastic summary. I know of at least one occasion where single seat guys wont attempt to use the gucci systems due to task loading.

-Break Break-

What is lost far too often in this debate (because this debate happens often) is that regardless of how many people are in the jet, it is viewed as a singular entity once it takes flight. Whomever is screwing up is irrelevant if the mission is not being executed.

Can / will mistakes be made? Absolutely - from both seats. We all know that sometimes - regardless of what we do, how much we know, and how seriously we train - it just isn't our day.

To try and convince the other side (whatever side you may be on) why your preference is better is about as futile as debating about religion and politics.


That beings said, I'll keep to a two seat community as long as they will let me......

 

[jarhead]

Just did some Google work, and I'll let everyone reach their own conclusions from the info herein:

USN/USMC losses in Desert Storm were as follows:
4 AV-8B
3 A-6E
2 OV-10
2 F-18
1 F-14

There were 4 Harrier squadrons (all obviously Marine) deployed in theater (1 at sea, 3 on land). Needless to say there were lots more than 4 A-6 squadrons & F-14 squadrons in the area (probably ~ 15). Even though the total sortie rates for F-14s & A-6s must have vastly exceeded those for Harriers, the losses were the same as Harriers lost. While the design of the AV-8 apparently makes it more susceptible to SAMs, maybe fewer would have been lost if another crewman had been there to warn of SAMs & AA. I would surmise the last aircraft to send downtown would be a single-seat Harrier. JMHO, though.

From that information, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion that single seat aircraft gets shot down more than two seat aircraft. What that information does not include is what kind of mission was being flown and what altitude they were at when they were shot down. Matter of fact, it could be pointed out that Harriers have more air to air kills than F-14’s and F-18’s combined. But the discussion isn’t about the “goods & others” of the Harrier… it’s about whether or not single seat is better or worse than two seat fighter/attack aircraft.

My 2¢… as previously mentioned, a good WSO will increase the combat capability of the crew and a shitty WSO is nothing more than an SA sponge. What I despise is the CONE pilot who brags about going to a two seat squadron and has to do nothing but “join up and shut up” and let the WSO run everything else. “That guy” (and I’ve met them) needs to be kicked in the balls.

Personally, I’d rather fly single seat but you can’t beat the extra bodies in a two seat squadron to spread load the collateral duties.

As for the F-35 … its capabilities will be superior in every aspect to even the newest SH. It’ll be like the jump from F-15 to F-22.

S/F

 

[Banjo33]

Statesman-I've read the GAO reports. Unfortunately, they never go into any detail regarding which systems are still under development. I guess that could swing the JSF argument either way.

HAL-I'd never heard that about the P-3! Gotta agree, pretty awesome!

Dave-also a great post. The one thing I'm surprised about (and didn't know) is that you have the ability to manage the A/A radar in one seat and A/G radar in the other simultaneously. That's pretty gucci. As far as needing two people to run the systems in A/A, what more does the pilot need to do/be looking at post merge other than the bandit? Invade the seeker head, look for lock/listen for tone, and shoot? Your radar is going to drop lock with nothing you can do about it. Does HMICS not further simplify the process (missile basically caged to the helmet)? I can see the utility of 4 eyes here regarding gaining sight, so I'm surely not arguing that. I've gone blind more times at the merge than I care to admit here.
However, the "idea" or fantasy behind the JSF is that youll never go to the merge again. No gun, AMRAAM heavy, stealth. Please don't break out the F4's in Vietnam analogy, I'm sure we've all heard it.

I think it's obvious that Big Navy hasnt completely bought into single seat is best either regarding the continued purchase of the Rhino(new aircraft with probably a 30 year shelf life). As I said from the beginning, there are some scenarios where two heads are better than one.

Oh, and one other point, those 2 Harriers lost to Manpads in DesStorm were due to target reattacks. 2 sets of eyes wouldn't have saved them. Even if they had seen them, they probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

 

[Banjo33]

In reply to jarheads post-the argument isn't (or wasn't) whether two seat is better than one. It was originally whether two seats were even necessary regarding simplicity of sensor/system operation with arriving technology in the JSF. My mistake was assuming everyone was operating from the same level of understanding of what it's bringing to the fight. It's a shame none of the guys in the pipeline are roaming around to provide their perspective.

 

[flaps]

well said, jboomer

the key components of any weapon system are the competence, training, intellegence,dedication and courage of the operators and maintainers.
regardless of what machine you guys wind up with, it will work and work well.
...
i think most systems (airplanes, subs, cannons, rifles,you name it.), when they finally get to the user, will not be in the environment their designers had in mind.