The Marine Corps is upgrading the F-18C (the classic, not the newer version) with new radars (AESA), tagetting pods, missiles, and radar warning recievers.

These upgrades began in Dec 2021.

They will be retiring the last Hornet in 2030, and many before that.

I don't know what the Marine Corps is spending, but Canada is doing the a very similar upgrade for only 36 aircraft for just under $1B. I think the Marine Corps is doing 84 aircraft, so that would be $2.3B proportionatly. (If anyone finds the Marine Corps budget item, I'm interested.)

Hard for me to imagine this is the best use of money the Marines could think of. But anyone with math ... I'm listening.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-service
https://sdquebec.ca/fr/nouvelle/canada- ... 18cd-fleet

AFAIK, the USMC has already spent huge sums on a very costly overhaul of these jets.

In the past few years, they basically replaced the center of the aircraft (wingbox?), in order to give them about 10 years more life... or so.

I'm googling for a reference with no avail, because it's probably not the wingbox they replaced.

The Marines need the F-18 to be viable combat aircraft until 2031, when the transition to the F-35 models will be complete. The upgrades are a small price to pay for that capability.

They've ended F-18 carrier deployments, so now are limited to forward ground attack squadrons. Also they still have a large number of low hour airframes inherited from the Navy.

Avatar2go wrote:

The Marines need the F-18 to be viable combat aircraft until 2031, when the transition to the F-35 models will be complete. The upgrades are a small price to pay for that capability.

They've ended F-18 carrier deployments, so now are limited to forward ground attack squadrons. Also they still have a large number of low hour airframes inherited from the Navy.

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar? I can understand that it might be useful at those few times when they are forced into an air-air situation but (1) when are the Marines fighting while being attacked by enemy aircraft and (2) any enemy that can project fighters into areas controlled by the US Navy is probably not intimidated by a F-35 classic, with or wthout a nice radar.

Again, I'm not arguing it's of zero value, just that it doesn't seem like the best use of $$$.

Things they could have bought:
(1) More infantry
(2) Not scrap every tank in the Marine Corps
(3) Two or three of the smaller amphibious ships the Marine Corps now wants
(4) More F-35s
(5) etc

kitplane01 wrote:

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar?

These modern radars are jolly good at picking up ground targets. For a video on the F-35's APG-81 radar, see this video: https://youtu.be/gNhc4y1jPwk?t=93 - it will detect, from the safety of your plane, each and every car driving on a road.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar? I can understand that it might be useful at those few times when they are forced into an air-air situation but (1) when are the Marines fighting while being attacked by enemy aircraft and (2) any enemy that can project fighters into areas controlled by the US Navy is probably not intimidated by a F-35 classic, with or wthout a nice radar.

Again, I'm not arguing it's of zero value, just that it doesn't seem like the best use of $$$.

Things they could have bought:
(1) More infantry
(2) Not scrap every tank in the Marine Corps
(3) Two or three of the smaller amphibious ships the Marine Corps now wants
(4) More F-35s
(5) etc

Any aircraft you send into combat with a pilot, should be equipped sufficiently to make the designated encounter survivable. If we could instantly produce F-35's, along with all their pilots, maintainers, and supply chain, then I think your point would be valid. Why spend the money in order to replace them anyway? But given that we can't do that, we have to maintain the existing aircraft viability in the meantime.

It's the same rationale as the Navy wanting to dump the LCS before the Constellation is available. You can argue that the Constellation is better than the LCS, so why spend the money? But you need capability in the meantime as well. So you maintain what you have, until you are able to replace.

They should upgrade them with the F404-INS20 engine. Would get you as close to the superlative F-18L as you're ever going to.
With those engines, AESA radar and Meteor/Asraam capability it could hang with any of the 4.5 Gen aircraft in the A to A role and could probably even supercruise.

744SPX wrote:

They should upgrade them with the F404-INS20 engine. Would get you as close to the superlative F-18L as you're ever going to.
With those engines, AESA radar and Meteor/Asraam capability it could hang with any of the 4.5 Gen aircraft in the A to A role and could probably even supercruise.

Not possible due to the drag from the duct tape and bubble gum the USMC uses to keep their hornets flying.

Avatar2go wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar? I can understand that it might be useful at those few times when they are forced into an air-air situation but (1) when are the Marines fighting while being attacked by enemy aircraft and (2) any enemy that can project fighters into areas controlled by the US Navy is probably not intimidated by a F-35 classic, with or wthout a nice radar.

Again, I'm not arguing it's of zero value, just that it doesn't seem like the best use of $$$.

Things they could have bought:
(1) More infantry
(2) Not scrap every tank in the Marine Corps
(3) Two or three of the smaller amphibious ships the Marine Corps now wants
(4) More F-35s
(5) etc

Any aircraft you send into combat with a pilot, should be equipped sufficiently to make the designated encounter survivable. If we could instantly produce F-35's, along with all their pilots, maintainers, and supply chain, then I think your point would be valid. Why spend the money in order to replace them anyway? But given that we can't do that, we have to maintain the existing aircraft viability in the meantime.

What encounter? An encounter with ground forces (because that's the designated mission)?

I would bet large piles of $$$ the Marine Corp plan to handle enemy fighters is not to send F-18Cs, and that in fact the Marine Corp would not fly unescorted F-18Cs into any area with a potential enemy fighter presence.

Again, this upgrade has a small but positive value. I'm just surprised it's the best use of money the Marine Corps has.

744SPX wrote:

They should upgrade them with the F404-INS20 engine. Would get you as close to the superlative F-18L as you're ever going to.
With those engines, AESA radar and Meteor/Asraam capability it could hang with any of the 4.5 Gen aircraft in the A to A role and could probably even supercruise.

The airframes originally had a 6,000 hour life. They've been inspected and upgraded at great expense to 10,000. The average airframe has 2,000 hours left of that.

If you're using the AESA radar and Asramm/Meteor, I think you're beyong visual range and not dogfighting. If so, the basic airframes RCS is uncompetative in 2020, against even thing like the Grippen, Rafale, or Typhoon. Or even the F-18E, which has a 50% lower frontal RCS.

Or your whole post was sarcasm (then I totally agree).

flyingturtle wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar?

These modern radars are jolly good at picking up ground targets. For a video on the F-35's APG-81 radar, see this video: https://youtu.be/gNhc4y1jPwk?t=93 - it will detect, from the safety of your plane, each and every car driving on a road.

True and valid point.

This upgrade uses the APG-79(v)4 radar, which isn't as good but still better than the replacement.

In clear skies, use the laser pod.

Actual question to which I don't know the answer: In our recent wars, did they allow pilots to target vehicles beyond visual range or in reduced visability conditions? I'd worry about civilian casualties.

kitplane01 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Why does a plane "limited to ground attack squadrons" need an AESA radar? I can understand that it might be useful at those few times when they are forced into an air-air situation but (1) when are the Marines fighting while being attacked by enemy aircraft and (2) any enemy that can project fighters into areas controlled by the US Navy is probably not intimidated by a F-35 classic, with or wthout a nice radar.

Again, I'm not arguing it's of zero value, just that it doesn't seem like the best use of $$$.

Things they could have bought:
(1) More infantry
(2) Not scrap every tank in the Marine Corps
(3) Two or three of the smaller amphibious ships the Marine Corps now wants
(4) More F-35s
(5) etc

Any aircraft you send into combat with a pilot, should be equipped sufficiently to make the designated encounter survivable. If we could instantly produce F-35's, along with all their pilots, maintainers, and supply chain, then I think your point would be valid. Why spend the money in order to replace them anyway? But given that we can't do that, we have to maintain the existing aircraft viability in the meantime.

What encounter? An encounter with ground forces (because that's the designated mission)?

I would bet large piles of $$$ the Marine Corp plan to handle enemy fighters is not to send F-18Cs, and that in fact the Marine Corp would not fly unescorted F-18Cs into any area with a potential enemy fighter presence.

Again, this upgrade has a small but positive value. I'm just surprised it's the best use of money the Marine Corps has.

All of your concerns have been addressed here. Ridiculing those arguments, is not itself an argument, it's just deflection.

You of course are free to disagree, but you're expressing an opinion vs the facts and concerns the USMC is using to make their decision. It's not even a controversial or contested decision, at that.

USMC has switched to lower hour airframes as the number available has increased in recent years. That trend will continue as forces around the world divest and move to other platforms.

So USMC will run out the clock on the F-18, while steadily transitioning to the F-35 over the next decade. And they will maintain the F-18 fleet as an effective, survivable, and credible platform during that time. As is expected and owed to the pilots who fly them. Very few people would begrudge them that.

As far as the radar upgrade, the USMC has done the same with their Harriers, retaining only those that have the upgrade, as a necessary component of their present and future viability. It would make no sense to maintain them in an older and lesser configuration, if we are going to rely on them. Same is true for the Hornet.

The Marine Classic Hornets still have 8 years of life left. Fitting a new radar that significantly improves performance is a good option.

I assume the targeting pods can also be used on Super Hornets once the Classic Hornets retire.

Doing a centre barrel replacement is actually decent value. Extending the life from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours is a 66% increase in life. The life extension costs less than 50% of the price of a brand new aircraft so it is still good value compared to increasing Super Hornet purchases.

Hey guys,
I SHOULD know the answer to this being an Aussie but what is happening to the remaining RAAF Classic Hornets that Canada isn’t buying or going into museums?
Up for upgrade and sale to a respectable nation?
Take care
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I SHOULD know the answer to this being an Aussie but what is happening to the remaining RAAF Classic Hornets that Canada isn’t buying or going into museums?
Up for upgrade and sale to a respectable nation?
Take care
Bunumuring

US Air, which provides aggressor air services to the US military, has contracted to purchase most of the remaining Australian F-18s. The jets are being overhauled by the RAAF in Australia, as part of the deal, before being sent to America.

There are also 2 F-18's being prepared for museum display in Australia.

RJMAZ wrote:

centre barrel replacement is actually decent value

That was the word I was looking for in my previous post. Thanks!