External pod is a weird new idea to clean up one big bomb and 2 amraams? Never been tried before. Still has Sparrow conformal spots on underfuselage and wingtip for sidewinder. And cleans up what is a very dirty airplane compared to the old F-14 Tomcat which had a nice big tunnel under the fuselage. ]
and a really long thread of comments.
Not a bad way to upgrade super hornets
Would the USAF buy this instead of F-15?
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/08/f-18-pod-carry-weapons-graphic.html
F-18 Pod Carry Weapons Graphic.
Other links:
mages for f-18 weapons pod
- Report images
Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet flies with CFTs and weapons pod ...
www.flightglobal.com/.../boeing-fa-18f-super-hornet-flies-with-cfts-and-...Aug 9, 2013 - Boeing has released this photo of a US Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet in the air equipped with conformal fuel tanks and a weapons pod near ...
F/A-18F CFT & Weapons Pod mockup in St Louis - The DEW Line
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the.../05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup/May 22, 2013 - While it has been known for sometime that Boeing and the USNavy intend to fly a modified F/A-18F Super Hornet equipped with conformal ...
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
In early 2008, Boeing discussed the development of a Super Hornet Block III with the U.S. and Australian military, featuring additional stealth capabilities and extended range; a long-term successor is to be developed under the Next Generation Air Dominanceprogram.[20] In 2010, Boeing offered India and other international customers the Super Hornet "International Roadmap", which included conformal fuel tanks, enhanced engines, an enclosed weapons pod (EWP), a next-generation cockpit, a new missile warning system, and an internal infra-red search and track (IRST) system.[21][22][23]The enclosed weapons pods (EWP) are to have four internal stations for two AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two 500 lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions; a total of three EWPs could be carried, one belly mounted and one under each wing, for a total combat load of up to 12 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders.[24][25] The next-generation cockpit shall feature a large 19 in x 11 inch touch-sensitive display.[26] In 2009, development had commenced on several engine improvements, including greater resistance to foreign object damage, reduced fuel burn rate, and potentially increased thrust of up to 20%.[27][28]In 2007, Boeing stated that a passive Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor would be a future option for the Super Hornet; the sensor detects long wave IR emissions for detecting and tracking targets such as other aircraft. The sensor would be mounted on an external fuel tank; operational capability is expected in 2013.[29] On 18 May 2009, Lockheed Martin announced it had been selected by Boeing to conduct the technology development phase of the IR sensor.[30] Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop the IRST on 22 November 2011.[31] Additionally, in 2011 Boeing received a contract to develop a new mission computer.[32]Northrop Grumman and Boeing have been self-funding a prototype of the Advanced Super Hornet.[33] The Advanced Super Hornet is to demonstrate several improvements to the aircraft; the prototype has a reduced radar cross-section (RCS), is outfitted with conformal fuel tanks (CFT), and a new enclosed weapons pod.[34][35] The new RCS treatments reduce the frontal radar cross-section by 50 percent and the CFTs boost its range by 260 nmi (300 mi; 480 km). Other efforts include the integration of an internal infrared search and track system, and increasing the engine power by 20 percent. The improvements of the Advanced Super Hornet can also be integrated onto the EA-18G Growler.[36] Flight tests of the Advanced Super Hornet began on 5 August 2013 and continued for three weeks, testing the performance of CFTs, the enclosed weapons pod (EWP), and signature enhancements.[37]In March 2013, the U.S. Navy revealed it is considering the widespread adoption of conformal fuel tanks, which would allow Super Hornet to carry 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of additional fuel. Budgetary pressures from the F-35C Lightning II and operations in the Pacific region have been stated as reasons for adopting CFTs; however, as the Super Hornet is not as powerful as other CFT-equipped aircraft, the additional weight and drag of the tanks may seriously impair aerodynamic performance. Boeing has stated that the CFTs do not add any cruise drag but acknowledge a negative impact would be imposed on transonic acceleration due to increased waved drag. General Electric's enhanced performance engine (EPE), which would increase power output of the F414-GE-400 engines from 22,000 lb of thrust each to 26,400 lb of thrust each, has been suggested as a mitigating measure.[38] At the Langkawi International Maritime and Air Show in March 2013, Boeing displayed a mock-up of the proposed Super Hornet CFT on a static F/A-18F.[39] The CFTs could prove vital to free up underwing space and drag margin for the Net Generation Jammer on the Growler.[40]Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet flies with CFTs and weapons pod
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3053041/postsAug 9, 2013 - I noticed on the local news that an F-22 from Tyndall which crashed a few months ago was caused by a frayed wire. It just seems there is no ...
Boeing, Northrop fly advanced F-18 prototype - UPI.com
Aug 29, 2013 - An F-18 Advanced Super Hornet has been put through extensive flight ...The enclosed weapons pod on the prototype was designed and built ...
Raytheon Company: F/A-18 Air Dominance
www.raytheon.com › ... › F/A-18 Air DominanceThe U.S. Navy's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet integrates a variety of advanced ... the three capabilities into a single compact pod, freeing an air-to-air weapon station ...
Boeing poised to begin flight-testing Advanced Super Hornet features
www.janes.com/.../boeing-poised-to-begin-flight-testing-advanced-super...... Mike Gibbons, VP F/A-18 and EA-18G Programs, said an F/A-18E/F Super. ... "
We are going to fly with non-function conformal tanks and the weapons pod to ...
Upgraded F/A-18 to begin test flights; offer Navy alternative to F-35C ...
defensetech.org › AirApr 8, 2013 - A Super Hornet outfitted with a weapons pod on its belly, ... Regardless, Boeing wants the F/A-18 to be that cheaper workhorse for the Navy.
SNAFU!: F-18 Pod Carry Weapons Graphic.
snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/.../f-18-pod-carry-weapons-graphic.h...Aug 27, 2013 - It really looks good. If the F-15Se really wins in Korea and the Advanced SuperHornet wins in Brazil and Canada(all big ifs)i see Boeing ...
F/A-18F CFT & Weapons Pod mockup in St Louis | Regator ...
regator.com/p/.../fa-18f_cft_weapons_pod_mockup_in_st_louis/View this blog post and others related to: Super Hornet.
80 comments:
If the F-15Se really wins in Korea and the Advanced SuperHornet wins in Brazil and Canada(all big ifs)i see Boeing pushing this planes at a very low price for the US...there are a lot of voices in the USAF wanting the F-15Se and in the Navy wanting the ASH...maybe it time the USMC to take a second look at this
if you give up, on your f-35b, we'd want our harriers back, broken promises and all that !!!!
but it'll never happen too many pups at the breast suckling of uncle Sams saggy tits....
lol gives you a horrible picture doesn't it.
this is probably the most affordable, combat proven 4thgen + airplane flying today. it'll get the job done till 2030 and then we can get something newer
The brazilian governement wants so bad that the new fighter brings some new capabilities to the national industry. SAAB says the Gripen would increase our potencial in bulding aircrafts and Brazil would take part in every sales of Gripen around the world. That is a good point, but we all know that a plane`s project is something hard to predict. The history has shown almost all projects involving high-tech fighters had delays and budgets busted.
I think we can not afford this. F-18, in the other hand, has a great growth potencial and we could personalize some features, like Boeing affirmed no long ago, referring to the partnership with AEL Systems.
Plus, Ms. Rousef has said she "will not buy jets from a nation that spies on Brazil" meaning the USA.
Also, the French are building 6 new subs for Brazil and will do ANYTHING for another Rafale export order.
http://news.usni.org/2013/08/27/document-boeings-advanced-super-hornet?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=document-boeings-advanced-super-hornet
When loaded with 1k or 2k class weapons, the EWP cannot carry AMRAAMs. It is also limited to 1 large munition.
So, to protect and deliver 2 large munitions, you would need 2-3 Superhornets...
Yeah, that makes sense :)
Remember too that space on a carrier is very limited, so using this will limit your sorties rate well below that of the F-35C.
Besides, I think the EWP is a good idea... and should be bought for the F-35 :).
It will take you at least three times as long (assuming the SH has the same survivability rate as the F-35, which it clearly does not) to strike all priority and hi threat targets. This additional time allows the enemy to beef up support, move assets, etc. Even after "1st" day ops, large munitions are being used and AAA, SAMs, & MANPADS are still a threat. Throw in the additional support needed and this is not workable.
If this idea would meet the JSF requirement, then Boeing would have bid this solution instead of the F-32. It does not and they did not.
I bet that thing flies like a PIG with all the crap hanging off it.
You can lunch an airplane from a carrier every 45 seconds or less. So 9 minutes to lunch 12 F-35 with a total of 24 big bombs and 24 Amraams internally.
In the other hand, you need 18 minutes to put in the air 18 Super Hornets with a total of 18 big bombs internally and 36 Aim-9x on the wins, another 4 extra Super Hornets for escort with 16 Amraams internally and 8 Aim-9X on the tip of the wings and two extra Growlers with 2 Amraams each. That means internally 0.75 times the amount of bombs carried internally by the F-35, and more than 2.33 times the Air to Air missiles and everything for 1/3 of the price.
As a plus you have 2 real electronic warfare airplanes, not only to jam radars, but also the enemy communications for the rest of the war.
Whats the big difference for the enemy if he has only 9 extra minutes to run?
For Day two and the res of the war, you will launch the same number of airplanes and bombs with the Super Hornets or the F-35, but way more cheaper with the Super Hornets.
Gee, 48 vs 18 SH fail again. Then there is the whole surprise factor (VLO and not needed EW letting everyone in the neighborhood know you're coming).
Btw, the F-35 can carry:
6x2k weapons to the SH's 4
10x1k weapons vs the SH's 6
Then there is the whole EODAS, EOTS (another thing not included in the EWP setup), MADL, etc.
News Flash: Day One last much longer than a day (often the entire time).
Day one pretty much the same result with both fleets. Day 2 and the rest of the war...voila.... you have 2,5 more punch with the Super Hornet fleet.
Is the F-18 cheaper than a F-35, sure. But is also less capable and because deck space is limited, the USN wants the most capable fighter that takes up a spot.
Btw, how many more BILLIONS is it going to take to develop all the toys (EWP, IRST, MAWS, avionics, EPE engine, etc) that Boeing wants to put on the Silent Hornet? Did that figure into your cost equations?
Why is Lockheed Still upgrading the F-16?????
Now try some facts:
SH cannot fly m1.6 armed while F-35 can
SH must take up a weapon slot to mount a FLIR
SH does not have a IR MAWS
SH cannot survive in the same environments as other VLO aircraft. The fact that it requires EW support to even get close is testament to that.
SH cannot supercruise at any speed & altitude.
SH's datalinks can give it's position away
The only thing that flew yesterday was a SH with MOCK attachments in order to verify the aerodynamic characteristics of the CFT and EWP hardware.
As far as the F-35 and it's capabilities goes:
It has already flown to m1.6 with a full internal weapons load
It already has a VLO airframe (something ADV_SH will NEVER have)
It already has a working EODAS, EOTS, LPI AESA radar, MADL, etc
The big difference in EW support:
VLO airframes can use EW support as an option while 4th gen assets REQUIRE EW to get the job done.
plus, a Super with all those goodies will cost $100 million.
Also, are the SDD costs included in that price?
SpudmanWP, it is now clear to me that you don't know anything about the way the Navy operates. The space on a carrier deck is limited, but the number of carriers is not. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated that the cuts in the size of airwings and carriers is to protect the F-35 Program because it is so damn expensive. In case you need that simplified: THE NAVY IS MAKING CUTS IN ITS FORCE SIZES BECAUSE OF THE F-35 PROGRAM'S HIGH OUT TO SPACE PRICE TAG. The F-35 is the source of the problem.
Normal Navy doctrine puts 2 carriers near a warzone for the duration of the heavy fighting. Two carriers with full loads of Advanced Super Hornets is fully capable of taking on and overwhelming any known threat with the one exception being a Chinese take over of Taiwan, which the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations specifically have said even the F-35 when/if it is made fully operational is not sufficient for. Why do you think the Navy is making the F/A-XX program?
The current estimates for an ASH are at roughly $90 million, which is still less than half the cost of the current F-35C, the price tag of which has not gone down, but has in fact gone up to $199.4 million flyaway cost according to the FY 2013 budget estimates, which are publicly available online: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
The price of the F-35C is anticipated to go up because the only way to solve the problem of it not being able to land on a carrier is to stretch out its airframe, which will cause drastic price increases that would greatly exceed whatever it would take to fully develop the ASH upgrades. The cost required to get the F-35 actually functional greatly exceed what the Navy would spend developing the ASH. Boeing did a chunk of the work for us already. (I'm in the Navy by the way, which is why I refer to it as "us.")
While the ASH is not yet using fully functional CFTs and an EWP, it is still far less difficult and far less expensive to develop than a fully functional F-35 of any variant because it is using off the shelf technology and does not require development of any brand new technologies. The longest thing to develop would most likely be the software changes, and don't get me started on the software setbacks that the F-35 has in place. Even the most optimistic F-35 supporters say that the software still experiences a significant level of "risk."
By the way, SpudmanWP, since you take Lockheed F-35 marketers for the word on costs like a blind zombie I think it's only fair that you give Boeing Super Hornet marketer cost estimates a fair amount of legitimacy too don't you think?
Aside from that, lets face it, the fact that we have Tomahawk cruise missiles and other long range ordnance means that our enemies will more than likely never get their aircraft off the ground. The PAK-FA will not be made in enough numbers to be effective at anything except homeland defense for Russia. The J-31 and J-20 scare is unreal since those aircraft are really far out in their operational timelines, more like late 2020s timeline. The Advanced Super Hornet also doesn't need to be more stealthy than the F-35 if it has the right ordnance, like a long range stand-off anti-radar missile of incredibly high speeds that could kill SAMs.
The F-35 is soaking up funds for that (the T3 missile and then another one was killed called the JDRADM missile) and other much more cheap ways of getting the job done more effectively. It is only still going because it puts money in the right pockets and jobs in the right places. It is a bad joke and a total cluster fuck for the armed forces, but it is a money maker for the military industrial complex.
The Super Hornet is a program the Navy built with a purpose and the upgrades to it would make it roughly just as good as the F-35 (and better in some areas) while being only a fraction of the cost. The Navy is trying to pull itself away from the F-35 but Lockheed has their hooks in deep.
Nice try.
If the ASH was "good enough" then that's what the USN would be buying and would not be pushing for F/A-XX either.
The DoD (not LM) puts the FRP cost of a F-35C at $110 mil. So for a mere $20 mil you get all the benefits of the F-35C. I base all my numbers on official DoD docs (SAR, budget projections, etc), not LM marketing.
btw, Who pays for the development and did that play a part in your calculations?
As far as soaking up funds goes, all of that is heading towards social programs and not the military. T3/JDRADM were put on hold due to not being needed in the near term. The AIM-120D is good enough for now.
For the same price and also for day one of conflict using passive VLO enhancements (against surface radars) you can have one advanced SH with two engines, (two lifes) two pilots (two brains), two mid size bombs of 500 lbs; two amraams and two Aim-9X, one Aesa Radar, EO/IR sensors plus an extra Growler (active stealth against surface and air/air threats), also with two engines, two pilots, 2 high speed antiradiation missiles, two Amraams one Aesa Radars and a real electronic warfare capability to jam enemy radars and disrupt their troops communications.
At the end and for the same money you have in the air:
1 engine vs 4 engines
2 Big Boms vs 2 Mid size Bombs
2 Amraams vs 4Amraams plus 2 Aim-9X
1 single Pilot vs 2 Pilots and 2 co-pilots for battle management, ellectronic warfare,reconnaissance and in the near future control of drones.
1 Aesa Radars vs 2 Aesa Radars
Passive Stealth design (effective only against surface redars) vs VLO and active stealth (effective agains surface and air/air threas).
The F-35 design is passive Stealth just at the front and sides (against surface radars). Any 4gen fighter (like the Sukhoys or Migs) Flying higher in CAP mission (carring a lot of missiles), is able to detect the masive and round engine and the cockpit back of the F-35, using just a conventional radar (not even an Aesa one)
And you still talking about better capabilities for the money?
And all of that is just for day one of conflict. For day two when you don't need to carry on weapons internally the SH/Growler fleet is even twice as effective than the F-35 fleet.
Watch another of my videos, maybe this way you will finally understand the point.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
btw, The F-35 has all-around passive stealth. Every panel is aligned, every edge treated, and the nozzle has interweaving sawtooth edges.
In the end the ASH will not end up in USN inventory in place of the F-35 although I would not mind seeing it as upgrades on current SH airframes.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35A_JSF_Head-On_lg.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-16B_lg.jpg
The F-22 & B-2 are large from the top yet are also VLO assets.
This was before the upgrade
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBjlchyBEg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
F-35 max Ceiling 60000 ft
Max speed at high altitude Mach.1,6
BTW the F-35 flyes at match 2.85 at 65000ft with their weapons inside, but an very high cost too.
Just tossing an anchor windward.
A Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR designed to sly after and shoot down B1s and maybe cruise missiles.
It can't use A to ground munitions and is incredibly maintenance and fuel hungry.
It also has the radar signature of barn, and the thermal singature of a small star.
1. You did not know what alignment was and how it affected RCS
2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe
3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance
4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s.
5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?)
6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons
Prove it
2. You think the SH is a VLO airframe
It is at certain angles
3. You think that the Triton has an A2A radar and that it can detect a F-35 at any significant distance
As I told you, any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges, with simple geometry fusioned with the IR/Sensor can give you the altitude.
4. You compare LRIP F-35 pricing to FRP F-18 pricing. This applies to today’s price but ignores tomorrow’s.
Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35
5. You compared the F-18’s frontal view to the F-117/22/35 (notice the lack of a chine, or what it’s for?)
I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it.
6. You completely ignore tactics in your “vs” comparisons
Prove it.
BTW, I'm enjoin my holidays seen how desperate is some F-35 fans trying to justify it's necessity.
The better solution for USA should be to built more Raptors and Silent Ealges for the USAF, More Super Hornets for the USNavy and Sea Gripens for the Marines corp. Those small wonders can take of and land in a small carrier like the Marines use.
It won't be the first time they buy airplanes from outside.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-India/About-Saab-India/Saab-in-Focus/Sea-Gripen-Force-Multiplier-For-The-Indian-Navy-IN1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SyUtmn2YOs
--I said “Every panel is aligned” and you replied “aligned to what?”. The correct answer is that they are aligned to each other and the edges of the wings and control surfaces.
2. “It is at certain angles (SH being VLO)”
--Boeing does not even claim this. All they claim is a ” 50% Improvement Over (it’s) Current LO Signature”. This of course is while being clean. Add CFTs, weapons, flir pods, etc and it goes up from there.
3. “any 2D radar can give you the distance, speed and direction of any small airplane at long ranges,”
--You have yet to provide a source that says a maritime A2G radar can track ANY airplane, let alone one designed NOT to show up on radars DESIGNED for detection of planes.
4. “Waht every body ignores is the final price of the F-35”
--I do not care what you think everybody else does, just what is applicable within a given timeframe. It would take several years (likely 5 due to the EPE engines) and over a BILLION dollars to get into production. To be intellectually honest you need to compare the F-35 price at what it will be 5 years from now, not today’s price. Btw, don’t forget to add that $Billion to the price to buy ASH as somebody has to pay for it.
5. “I'm not comparing it's frontal view with the F-117/22 I just compare with the F-35 and I put you a view to prove it.”
--You actually said “That's why the alignments and angles on the F-117, F-22 and F-35 at the front and sides. Even the Rhino at the front uses exactly the same design.” Sure seems like you are equating the F-117/22/35 to the frontal view of the SH. Besides, they look nothing alike. No chine, no aligned panels, no slab sides, etc. This is what determines RCS, not general layout items like intake location, wing location, etc.
6. “Prove it”
--Easy, you assume the enemy knows where the F-35s are, when they are coming, and that the F-35 will not respond to ESW warnings but will instead fly blindly towards an approaching enemy.
Sea Gripens, which exist only on paper and would cost BILLIONS more to develop, cannot take off from LHA/LHD platforms as they have no ramp. They also are unable to operate from austere basing. The F-22 is not coming back and the F-15 costs more than the F-35.
Try to do some research before posting as this feels like you are bringing a knife to a gunfight ;)
So in order to be LO, it must have Growlers?? So you admit that a single ASH cannot do it alone? Well, there goes your affordability. What happens when even the F-35 needs a Growler, how will the ASH survive?
Not even the manufacturer of Triton claims airborne detection capability.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/f35.jpg
Since when anybody lunches an airstryke with one airplane?
I just show you how an ASH/Growler attack is more effective for day one and twice or more as effective for day two than the F-35
This will happens if you don't bring the Growlers to the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlfoxbtBeMU
In order to complete their mission, the attackers would use one or more of the following:
1. Send in attack aircraft (F-35s, B-2s, B-1, etc) with ARMs, JASSMs, etc that would attack the long range radars first, then any remaining radars that pose a threat.
2. Operate MALD and MALD-J from either F-16s, F-35s, F-18s, or B-52s
Under no circumstances will a lone B-2 knowingly fly straight into this type of IADS network without some pre work being done.
If you want to go closer, with a fleet of ASH and Growlers you can do it wit out any problem.
For A/A as I told you before you will have more missiles in the air with the ASH/G Fleet than with the F-35s an it's small internal load capacity optimized against frontal surface radars, not Airplanes like the Mig31 or Pakfa flying above them.
For any F-35 you will have 2 Super Hornets. For every 2 F-35 you will have 3 Super Hornet plus a Growler and so on.
Again, stop comparing LRIP F-35s to FRP SH (let alone ASH) pricing. You are rising disingenuous to a whole new level.
There is a reason why every service, all our international Partners, Russia, China, and many other nations are pursuing 5th gen systems. The know that in the very near future 4th gen systems, even ones backed up by EW, will not be enough to get the job done.
2-No nation is after an all stealth fleet...Russia is buying MiG-29/35s and Su-30/35s...China is buying Flanker knock offs,J-10s,JH-7s and is developing a single seat version of their trainer L-15/JL-10 designated Q-6 for the replacement of the Q-5 ...they started fielding the H-6K bomber...
No air force wants an all stealth force exept the USAF....
If the US had opened sales of the F-22 to international markets, there would have been buyers. Pity they played their cards so close to their chest that now the capability to produce more is lost. I fail to see how Australia or Japan getting F-22s is a security risk, or even Germany. The UK has their own pet Typhoon project so they probably won't bite.
The F-18's strength vs the F-35 is it's payload and the fact that it was designed for air superiority from the onset, while the F-35's advantage is that it is a versatile platform with multiple variants and that the RCS is better than the F-18.
Does it make the F-35 a "God" plane? No. If it gets caught in a dogfight against an F-18, it's going to have a bit of trouble if it plays too long. In return, does it make the F-18 a "God" plane? No. If the F-35 can sneak up on one, there is a chance of it getting the first shot off. They each have their own roles and purposes.
BTW, which company are you with? I might know them.
Just imagine the possibilities and combinations you can obtain with this modular an versatile aproach of Boeing.
In fact you don't need to have your complete fleet as Advanced SHs
For example you can send in front an Advance SH with 2 missiles and 2 bombs internally detecting all the threats in a stealthy fashion and at the rear and at longer distance an Low Observable Super Hornet carrying 10 missiles or stand of bombs.
For the enemy both airplanes will be extremely difficult to detect.
So, you will have 12 missiles and 2 bombs in the air for ptetty much the same price of a single F-35 carring 2 misiles and 2 bombs internally.
And the nex day of conflict, with those two airplanes you will be able to carry the double of ordenance than with a single F-35
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t_uw1mGohw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrZ7jWT_GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player