Block 3 SuperHornet set to be better than Eurofighter in every way?

[Like-minded]

Comment on this if you could, please...

>>Guys SH may be a bit of a slouch in raw performance terms, but the block two is a far better BVR performer than allmost all of its contemporaries, including the Eurofighter. Its radar/missile combo and EW suite are practically world beaters and it is also a better strike platform. Whats goint to serve you better in BVR? Higher sprint speed or better instentainious turn rate? Or one of the best LPI radar systems operational anyware, arguably the most sophistocated EW/EWSP suite on a fighter, and some LO cahrecteristics? F/A-18E/F Bk II would shoot down a European made aircraft long before they ever merged. And even if they did, how much is maneuver going to help you when your facing an AIM 9X with its kinematic performance and off broadsight capability???

>>Just you wait until Block 3 joins the fleet in 2009. The Eurofighter will never know what hit it WVR. The main upgrade will be a full 25% increase in installed thrust (up from 44,000 to 55,000 pounds of thrust), for little or no increase in engine weight or SFC, through the use of advanced fan designs, materials, and construction techniques. This will pretty completely make up for any deficiencies in acceleration, top speed, rate of climb, and instantaneous/sustained maneuvering that the old Super Hornets might have had (what I've read says it was the equal of any -402 equipped F/A-18C up to Mach 1 in level flight).

>>yeah, the SH with the upgrade is going to have T/W to spare, beyond even what Eagles dream of, roughly 1.25 at full fuel (Eagle around 1.13, Raptor around 1.27). Its going to be a top shelf airplane as far as non VLO is concerned



Is European aviation, ultimately, doomed?

[SirToppamHat]

Why are you asking us for our views - what are yours?

Where did these quotes come from? In what context were they made and by whom?

STH

[BEagle]

'Off broadsight'....?

Comments from a spotter, by the sound of them.

[serf]

...but will it be as good on the airshow circuit?

[Flyingblind]

This should be interesting.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

It's too early in the morning to be chuckling this hard.....

Yes, the phoon is not all together and that is a travesty given how long the project has been running, and thus a block 3 superhornet, which is the pinnacle of that aircraft's design (much like the -15E/various recent exports) might well better than the current typhoon.

But some might say it's worth looking at the longer view past the next 2 years....

[Never Alert]

Not much solid substance in the first post. No mention of a comparison of tactics, pilot training or future development of the Typhoon project.

Give the Typhoon guys a little more time & let them bring the jet up to it's full potential before trying to trash it. Anyone who has is working with Typhoon knows how good it is.

[Razor61]

Obviously taken off some Yank forum looking at the wording and the replies which stand out in your head like "Yeah, you wait dude, you Europeans will have your ass kicked" type of thread.

I'm sure there are plenty of upgrades that could be done to the Typhoon but the UK simply won't do it on grounds of cost. You'll probably find later on down the line that the UK Typhoons will be of lower spec than those of our European friends that use the Typhoons of which will probably find the funds to upgrade the Typhoon (engine etc) in a few years time.

[Lazer-Hound]

Interesting question. Will those Typhoon countries which are also getting F35 (UK, Italy) bother to fully fund upgrades to the Typhoons, or spend whatever upgrade money they have on their F35s? And will Germany/Austria/Spain/Saudi be willing to fund upgrades without the other 2?

[Archimedes]

Spot the Difference:

Compare

Guys SH may be a bit of a slouch in raw performance terms, but the block two is a far better BVR performer than allmost all of its contemporaries, including the Eurofighter. Its radar/missile combo and EW suite are practically world beaters and it is also a better strike platform. Whats goint to serve you better in BVR? Higher sprint speed or better instentainious turn rate? Or one of the best LPI radar systems operational anyware, arguably the most sophistocated EW/EWSP suite on a fighter, and some LO cahrecteristics? F/A-18E/F Bk II would shoot down a European made aircraft long before they ever merged. And even if they did, how much is maneuver going to help you when your facing an AIM 9X with its kinematic performance and off broadsight capability???

With

Guys SH may be a bit of a slouch in raw performance terms, but the block two is a far better BVR performer than allmost all of its contemporaries, including the cat. Its radar/missile combo and EW suite are practically world beaters and it is also a better strike platform. Whats goint to serve you better in BVR? Higher sprint speed or better instentainious turn rate? Or one of the best LPI radar systems operational anyware, arguably the most sophistocated EW/EWSP suite on a fighter, and some LO cahrecteristics? F/A-18E/F Bk II would shoot down a viper long before they ever merged. And even if they did, how much is maneuver going to help you when your facing an AIM 9X with its kinematic performance and off broadsight capability???

And:

Just you wait until Block 3 joins the fleet in 2009. The Eurofighter will never know what hit it WVR. The main upgrade will be a full 25% increase in installed thrust (up from 44,000 to 55,000 pounds of thrust), for little or no increase in engine weight or SFC, through the use of advanced fan designs, materials, and construction techniques. This will pretty completely make up for any deficiencies in acceleration, top speed, rate of climb, and instantaneous/sustained maneuvering that the old Super Hornets might have had (what I've read says it was the equal of any -402 equipped F/A-18C up to Mach 1 in level flight).

With:

Oh Hudge, just you wait until Block 3 joins the fleet in 2009. The F-16 will never know what hit it WVR. The main upgrade will be a full 25% increase in installed thrust (up from 44,000 to 55,000 pounds of thrust), for little or no increase in engine weight or SFC, through the use of advanced fan designs, materials, and construction techniques. This will pretty completely make up for any deficiencies in acceleration, top speed, rate of climb, and instantaneous/sustained maneuvering that the old Super Hornets might have had (what I've read says it was the equal of any -402 equipped F/A-18C up to Mach 1 in level flight).

(source for second quotes: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=115344; my emphasis added in 2nd quotes)


Seems to me that someone's done a spot of judicious cut and pasting with minor alteration to indulge in some New Year Typhoon bashing. Or cr@p, time-wasting plagiarism for the purpose of trolling, if you're being less charitable. :=

[glad rag]

Eagle eyes there Archimedes. :D

[Green Flash]

Good call there, Arch:ok: It looks like it's a spotter/troll who really should get mummy to send him to bed earlier.

[Audax]

It's diffcult to take a post seriously when my 10 year old grandchild can produce better spelling and grammar.

[Archimedes]

You should read L-M's previous contributions to the forum about Typhoon (accesible through his profile). They have a.... ummmmm.... slightly surreal quality to them.

[Green Flash]

Ah, so L-M has been overdoing the Calpol, has he?:hmm:

[Load Toad]

Prolly stroking his big gun right now t' get himself to sleep....

[Razor61]

Or stroking my mum looking at his current location :eek:

At the end of the day, Typhoon in it's different tranche guises will be upgraded throughout its life with more expensive and better technology and perhaps those uprated engines that have been talked about for years.

At the end of the day, the Typhoon won't be coming up against the F/A-18E/F Block 'whatever' and this thread was started in yet another attempt on the "what country has the best plane" and a slagging off match against the Typhoon as usual.

Although the Typhoon looks cack in it's current grey scheme it is a remarkable aircraft (no matter what the anti-Typhoo crew say).

[LowObservable]

LO calls bull:mad:.

LM (or to be charitable, the f-16.net poster) is a muppet.

There has been informal discussion of a "Block 3" Rhino, mainly offering improvements in stealth. However, there's nothing to indicate that anything like a 25 per cent thrust boost (and has any engine ever seen a one-step 25 per cent thrust boost with the same airflow?) anywhere in the roadmap; nor, absent something radical like ADVENT, could it be done without affecting SFC. And nothing beyond the Block 2 Plus (current aircraft with some comms improvements) is even in the SH roadmap, let alone funded, let alone due to reach the fleet until 2009.

Unless, that is, the entire published roadmap is a cover for a black-world Block 3 that nobody has heard about, but the probability of such a thing has to be in the 0.000001 level.

[Double Zero]

Re. 'Like Minded's' interesting post, I'm intrigued as to what ' Kinematic' performance is, presumably when combined with ' off broadsight' capabability this is something which would be really impressive in an I-Max cinema... ( and look how they're so successful they're all over the place ).

As for ranting about BVR, then talking in the next breath about AIM9X, I don't think this is a trolling journo'.

From sensible posts, it would seem to me the RAAF could do a lot worse than Typhoon, given conformal tanks & tanker support.

Then there's always the old chestnut of a converted airliner with a jolly good big radar, and rows of pylons for AMRAAMS etc; did see that suggested again at least semi-seriously recently by Boeing I think.

Not so good at A-G dual role though, unless it carried parasitic or towed A-10's / UCAV's ?!

[Cyclone733]

Just wait until they put frickin lasers on the Typhoon...

[Razor61]

When does the Meteor BVR missile come into service, i believe the Swedes with a JAS-39 were testing this or similar over Cardigan Bay last year from Valley.

This missile coupled with the Typhoon radar i assume is a world beater? Along with IRST/Pirate and ASRAAM? Or am i barking up the wrong tree?

[Riskman]

"the Meteor BVR missile"

Ah, Meteor. My TLA decoder kept telling me BVR was 'black vynil roof' throughout the thread. I only carried on reading in the hope that someone would mention MkII Capri :confused:

Anyway, ISD onTyphoon is currently 2012

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/common/AA/bvraam.html

Happy New Year to all

ps Can someone tell me how to make quotes appear in a blue box when I post a reply, please. The other forum I frequent has a "quote" button along with the "reply" one but not here. If I've missed the obvious then I apologise but a pointer would be appreciated. thanks

[Razor61]

Riskman
The way i do it is to copy the text you wish to quote and then paste it in the Reply box. Then select all that text and then click on the little "quote bubble" in the menu above (the icon on the far right) and this will wrap Quotes around the text...

[Razor61]

Although nothing to do with the Typhoon, Looking at the GAO reference to the F/A-18E/F versus the older F/A-18C i came up with this which is interesting, no wonder they needed to upgrade the existing E/F models:-

"Although the F/A-18E/F met its key performance parameters, such as range
and carrier suitability, the operational testers’ comparisons of the
F/A-18E/F to the existing F/A-18C showed that the F/A-18E/F did not
demonstrate superior operational performance over the existing F/A-18C
aircraft. The testers compared the operational effectiveness of the F/A-18C6
to the F/A-18E/F in 18 operational mission areas such as interdiction,
fighter escort, combat air patrol, air combat maneuvering, and air-to-air
weapons. Using a numerical scale, the testers rated the F/A-18E/F’s
operational effectiveness essentially the same as the F/A-18C’s."

"Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-158 Defense Acquisitions
The major deficiency was the aircraft’s weak aerodynamic performance,
which reduces the aircraft’s ability to accelerate, climb and turn, and
causes it to have a low top speed. These deficiencies reduce the
aircraft’s ability to maneuver during air-to-air combat with adversary
aircraft; quickly exit a combat area so as to not get caught from behind;
protect the carrier battle group by sprinting out to engage enemy
aircraft; and integrate into operations with the better performing
F/A-18C aircraft. Correcting these deficiencies would require a costly
program to develop and acquire a new engine and retrofit it on already
produced aircraft. The Navy does not currently plan to develop a new
engine for the F/A-18E/F to correct these deficiencies because it
believes that future upgrades to the aircraft—such as the Joint Helmet
Mounted Cueing System and the AIM-9X missile—will provide
capabilities that will make the speed and maneuverability of the aircraft
less critical in close-in aerial combat.7 However, these two upgrades are
still under development and testing. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing
System is expected to be available when the F/A-18E/F is scheduled to
enter the fleet in 2002; however, the AIM-9X will not be available at that
time. In addition, these upgrades will not correct the F/A-18E/F’s
inability to quickly exit a combat area or to protect the fleet by sprinting
out to engage enemy aircraft.
• The F/A-18E/F also has a noise and vibration deficiency that damages
the air-to-air and some air-to-ground weapons carried by the aircraft. As
a result, during operational testing, limits were imposed on the number
of hours the weapons could be carried on the aircraft before they
needed to be replaced, and more frequent weapon inspections were
imposed. The operational testers concluded that the time limits and the
more frequent inspections would not be acceptable for fleet operations
and, therefore, rated the F/A-18E/F unsatisfactory in the air-to-air
weapons area. The Navy’s current approach to mitigating this problem is
to strengthen the weapons, rather than make costly changes to the
aircraft. A panel of experts assembled by the Navy to study the noise
and vibration problem, however, stated that if further testing reveals
damage to the weapons’ electronic components, modifications to the aircraft’s wing might be needed."

This along with other material within the GAO report suggest that the E/F has a slower rate of turn (sustained) by 2°/sec than the F/A-18C and also no significant range increase at all.

I could go on but the report is quite large but it is a rather interesting read:-
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns00158.pdf

[Riskman]

Razor61

then click on the little "quote bubble"

I obviously missed the obvious; thanks very much:O

[Like-minded]

Deny it all you want, but the Block 3 is about to be unleashed on the world, and onto the whimpering cur that is the Eurofighter. Read and behold, infidels.


>>As we all well and know, by the end of 2006, all of the USN's F/A-18E/Fs will be flying in Block II config.

Block II(in a nutshell)
- JHMCS + AIM-9X
- IDECEM Blk II
- AN/APG-79 AESA Radar
- Updated avionics.

Now that Block II is completed, what does Block III hold in store for the SuperBug?

Block III (possible additions).

After a cursory search on the web, I have found amazing evidence of what the Block III SuperHornet will have.

The major updates for Block III can be:

- GE414-400 improved powerplants. Using improved design and materials, this engine will have 30% less parts and maintenence needs, 25% more thrust, reduced overall weight, and improved efficiency at medium to high altitudes.

- TVC. With 25% more thrust and lighter powerplants, the aircraft can support the weight and thrust penalties of a single-axis TVC system, possible based on that of the F-22A.

- APG-79 upgrades. Improved signal processing software and power output. Maybe newer T/R modules as well.

- Reduced RCS. The current F/A-18E/F does not have any RAM coatings. This is primarily due to the corrosive environments on board USN Carriers. But the JSF program's F-35C will sport RCS coatings which will be able to hold up to these conditions and be inexpensive to place on the fan blades and leading edges of the F/A-18E/F.

- IDECM Blk 3. Makes use of ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy.



>>Under the VAATE program, its envisioned that the F-414 engine will offer 20% improved thrust and 55% increased range by Y2010.. this should help mute criticism of the SH



Oh, and I wouldn't trust GAO, a bunch of accountants to assess weapon systems either. They were also critical of the immensely successful Stryker and Bradley systems, ffs. The Superhornet has at least met expectations but mostly exceeded it in the 6 years of war, pilots love it for the improved range, better handling and new systems. It is extremely combat proven by now, soaring over all modern combat, while the little Eurofighter growled and snuffled from deep within its kennel in england and did its best impression of being a big boy. Muppet.

[Double Zero]

I am quite sure even Boeing wouldn't want this character fighting their corner -

I suggest, 'Like Minded' you 'soar' over your pillow & get over it - I am no fan at all of the BAe which now makes the Typhoon, but anyone can see it is far more agile than the Super-Hornet, and will carry more up-to-date systems, the Meteor has already been mentioned as well; airframe range is an interesting point too.

Yes it will take time, all aircraft development does that; but I & most of the people here are talking from experience, and everything you say indicates you are not.

See you on Jet Blast, if you get off your home F-18 simulator...

[garudadude]

GAO document - dated May 2000. I stopped reading at that.

[SirToppamHat]

Deny it all you want, but the Block 3 is about to be unleashed on the world, and onto the whimpering cur that is the Eurofighter.

I know Pakistan is a bit unstable at the moment, and Kenya is having soem trouble with its 'democracy'. I am also well aware of the goings-on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the Russians' troubles with the south flank hadn't escaped me, but this statement left me open-mouthed - just who have we upset so much that Typhoon is going to be set-upon by 'Super Hornet'?

I need to pay more attention to the news!

Like-minded, your post is either a poor attempt at humour or you are an Arse Sir, and a Block III Arse at that!

To be serious for a moment, the biggest single capability offered by the Hornet over the Typhoon is its ability to operated from a water-based moving runway!

STH

[Load Toad]

Did you write that all yourself or plagiarise it off another message board?

[Like-minded]

my dear little load jockey, fighter pilots may die, but we never lie.

next time I barrel roll over one of your compadores, I will be sure to thrust.

[Load Toad]

I'm a ceramist and I work in a factory - best of luck - if you barrel roll over me you'll be in with a good chance of passing down the glost kiln.

[Jackonicko]

Simple-Minded says:

"As we all well and know, by the end of 2006, all of the USN's F/A-18E/Fs will be flying in Block II config."

He's wrong, of course, as you'd expect from a 12 year old flightsim addict, but not from a 'fighter pilot'.

And before we get too excited about Block III, perhaps we'd better wait to see the results from the first cruise by an AESA-equipped Hornet squadron. This has been delayed several times, up to now, but VFA-213 are now scheduled to take the full Block II jet on its first deployment later this year.

I wonder whether that will happen before or after the 'Whimpering Cur' :rolleyes: makes it to Kandahar....... :E

All this fighter pilot talk is confusing me, though. So many new terms that I've never heard of. I shall have to consult my 'compadores' about 'kinematic' performance and 'off broadsight' capabilities. I could ask them about 'instentainious turn rates', and about what is the best LPI radar systems operational 'anyware', and about 'sophistocated' EW/EWSP suites, and these LO 'cahrecteristics'?

[benzonar]

my dear little load jockey, fighter pilots may die, but we never lie.

next time I barrel roll over one of your compadores, I will be sure to thrust.

Guess who got a new xbox from his daddy this xmas, probably with a copy of Ace Combat 6?

Like-minded, have you had your house checked for radon levels recently?

[control snatch]

Dont have much intelligent to add, but i have flown both british and american hardware. And I can tell you I would much rather go to war in an american bird any day.

SH over eurolemon anyday!!

[Rakshasa]

SH over eurolemon anyday!!

Mmm, sounds to me like more antipodean rueing over what they've bought. :E

[Double Zero]

Well, it's different & entertaining at least...

I reckon there are 3 options;

1, this chaps' posts are gaining in translation more than he realises

2, It's a 12 year old flight sim berk

3, It's a bored SH pilot laughing his socks off, whiling away the time until he has an operational AESA to use...

The point about the only advantage of the SH being it's ability to use carriers was well made, pity that's not a part of LM's requirements.

I'm off now to put up a barrage balloon above my Compadore just in case.

[SirToppamHat]

Load Toad
Did you write that all yourself or plagiarise it off another message board?

All my own work (and I was half asleep, so I may have dreamt LikeMinded's bizarre post!); always happy to give credit to others' works when due...

STH

[Load Toad]

My comment was to 'Like-minded'. It seems the post I was commenting on has disappeared now. Weird.

[Selac66]

What are these toys for again?

[dakkg651]

Mr Like Minded.

I'm afraid my mind is nothing like yours so could you please translate some things for me.

Quote - GE414-400 improved powerplants. Using improved design and materials, this engine will have 30% less parts and maintenence needs, 25% more thrust, reduced overall weight, and improved efficiency at medium to high altitudes.

Does this mean that Boeing have found the missing Dilithium crystals?

Quote - TVC. With 25% more thrust and lighter powerplants, the aircraft can support the weight and thrust penalties of a single-axis TVC system, possible based on that of the F-22A.

Ah, just like the old Harrier you mean. That can support it's own weight but of course it does have a more sophisticated 4 blower system.

Quote - APG-79 upgrades. Improved signal processing software and power output. Maybe newer T/R modules as well.

Why does the Hornet need a tail rotor?

Quote - Reduced RCS. The current F/A-18E/F does not have any RAM coatings. This is primarily due to the corrosive environments on board USN Carriers. But the JSF program's F-35C will sport RCS coatings which will be able to hold up to these conditions and be inexpensive to place on the fan blades and leading edges of the F/A-18E/F.

I think this is a long held misconception of RAM coatings not being able to withstand naval environments. My uncle spent three years on the Russian convoys during the war, and the sheepskin coated jacket he wore is still in perfect condition today! Anyway I would wager that RCS coats are not as good as C&A.

Quote - IDECM Blk 3. Makes use of ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy.

Very fancy I'll admit. But I still think that towing a decoy with ordinary cable is more cost effective.

PS You didn't happen to borrow my mothers copy of Walter Mitty from her bedside cabinet whilst you were there?

[BEagle]

Load Toad, the post to which you referred was, I understand, deleted due to some of the offensive language contained therein.

[Question_Answer]

Yes it must have been - I spotted the very offensive word before the post was deleted.
Since the originator seems not able to a) use non-offensive language and tone, b) be accurate with their information, c) clearly not open to a discussion, rather insistent that their (monologue) point is the only valid point of view - why continue with any dialogue.
IMHO - both are clearly capable a/c - Typhoon has a lot of proving to do but should do well as its career progresses. Apples and oranges? As an aside both displayed rather well at FI2006 thought arguably both were clearly outmanouevred by the MIG - of course there's more to operational effectiveness than a few airshow tricks!

[GPMG]

He/she is not 12, look at the facts.

Offensive language and a poor grasp of English

Lack of knowledge, ignorance of facts and fabrication of the truth

Pig headed attitude and inability to carry out reasoned discussion.


He/she is a SUN reporter.

[F34NZ]

......Or a politician.

[Archimedes]

If you look at L-M's previous postings he/she/it appears to be nothing more than an ill-informed troll who follows two courses of action if people disagree:

1. Abuse

and/or

2. Attempt to appear superior by claiming to be a fighter pilot coming out with stuff that the screenwriters of Iron Eagle 44 would reject for the storyline of their latest piece of kinematic [sic] hyperbole. While this trolling ploy sometimes works over on other aviation boards (where JN seems to fight many a long and frustrating battle against the '10,000+ hours on the Viper, all without leaving my bedroom' warriors), it seems a high-risk gambit here...

[LowObservable]

L-M is entering Wowbagger (http://hhgproject.org/entries/wowbagger.html)mode, rather than producing sources that support his prima facie improbable claim; to wit, that a vastly improved SH is less than 24 months away from fleet deployment.

IGNORE selected.

Meanwhile, there is a real discussion here about the merits of the Rhino. Basically, though, the answer is:

1. Nice avionics.
2. Nice engines.
3. Not so nice airframe.

#3 should not be too surprising. It's a late-1960s design (little or no computational fluid dynamics, early fly-by-wire). It has been through three iterations (YF-17, Classic H and Rhino) all of which have experienced drag and/or handling issues - one designer I talked to suggested that the configuration is so complex that it is hard to get right. It's also a carrier-rated airframe, with consequent compromises - drag and radar size versus visibility; wing, tail and flaps sized by approach speed; cat, arrest and sink-rate loads.

On the other hand, the Ozzies bought Rhinos because they can convert to it quickly and because they can sell the jets back to the USN if Dave-A turns out to be all they need.

Further to JN's comments about the Rhino AESA. Before you criticise Typhoon for its lack of an AESA, consider that the only two fighter AESAs in service so far are expensive limited-production kit (a few F-15Cs and F-22s). Had EF tried to go AESA at the time of the production contract, it would have cost a bomb (and be ripe for replacement already, like the F-22's current AESA) and would probably be giving trouble.

[Double Zero]

Besides the things I heard about Typhoon radar which are classified, anything based on Blue Vixen can't be too bad ( in fact embarassingly good )whether the 'scanner' is moved by engineering, electronics or Pixies.

[LowObservable]

Double Zero,
It's also worth noting that one reason for the AESA on the Rhino is that the AIM-120D can out-range the old APG-73, while there's been no discussion of having to change the Captor to handle the longer-range Meteor.

[Jackonicko]

If you wanted multi-role (A-A and A-G with an emphasis on the A-G and on simultaneous modes) then ESAs make sense even now - despite all the problems and shortcomings.

Which is why Rafale makes such sense for the Armée de l'Air.

But if your principal requirement is for A-A, then the range, gimbal limits (and range at gimbal) make an advanced mechanically scanned radar hard to beat - and all indications is that right here, right now, Captor M is bloody hard to beat - even if Captor E will soon be absolutely required!

And the (quite rightly) award-winning LO is right (he usually is) about the Super Hornet - nice engines, nice avionics - but nicer than EJ200? Nicer than Typhoon's toys? I don't necessarily agree.

[Spaghetti Monster]

He/she is not 12, look at the facts.

Offensive language and a poor grasp of English

Lack of knowledge, ignorance of facts and fabrication of the truth

Pig headed attitude and inability to carry out reasoned discussion.


I still don't see why he can't be a fighter pilot.

[Modern Elmo]

Navy Details New Super Hornet Capabilities

Feb 25, 2007
By David A. Fulghum

…

Silence about these key features of the Super Hornet's advanced radar and integrated sensor package is being broken by U.S. Navy and aerospace industry officials just as the President's budget faces scrutiny by Congress. Supporters of the design say it will give the Block II Boeing-built Navy aircraft a fifth-generation capability similar to that of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Hornet's electronic attack capability could become even more sophisticated with additional modifications, says Capt. Donald Gaddis, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program manager.

Radar-guided, air-to-air missiles that worry U.S. planners are the Chinese PL-12, which is on the brink of entering service; the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder); the R-27R/ER (AA-10 Alamo) family, and possibly the AA-10's R-27P/EP passive receiver variants. In the world of antiship cruise missiles, the Russians have developed RF-seeker-based antiship systems that include the Novator 3M-54 (SS-N-27) family and NPO Mashinostroenia 3M-55 (SS-NX-26), which is also the basis of the Russo-Indian Brahmos. The YJ-63 is a Chinese antiship cruise missile; Iran has the RAAD, and North Korea has a system in development known as KN-01 in U.S. intelligence circles.

Many Navy and industry planners hope that the merits of the F/A-18E/F's advanced systems, which can detect, identify and attack new classes of very small targets, will help it survive any congressional predilection to trim upgrades that are crucial to the program. Moreover, the Super Hornet equipped with a fifth-generation radar and integrated sensor suite is expected to be a tough competitor for international fighter sales. The advanced package has already resulted in a likely sale of 24 aircraft to Australia and is being pitched for large fighter buys planned by Japan and India.

…

Cruise missile defense with conventional weapons is a primary task of the Block II Super Hornet. "That is one of our assigned mission areas, and AESA does that very well," Gaddis says.

Part of the secret of the radar's ability to spot small targets and track them is a combination of power (for range and discrimination) and processing speeds that permit better ways of using radar information. Early radar designs could use a variety of waveforms with high, medium and low pulse-repetition frequencies. High PRF offers unambiguous, nose-on speed resolution and clutter rejection; medium PRF gives good low-speed resolution but low detection range, and low PRF provides unambiguous target ranges but poor clutter rejection.

"If you're looking for cruise missiles, often you have to pick them out of clutter, at low altitude and often at high speed," says an Air Force pilot with AESA radar experience. "With mechanically scanned radars, you would have to take six sweeps looking in high PRF, six in medium and six in low to cover different target sets. With an AESA radar, you can assign different parts of the radar to do each function so you don't have any gaps in your surveillance. If PRFs are suitably chosen, targets within a span of interest can be kept continuously in the clear."

Changing PRF radically affects both the radar's signal processing requirement and its performance. But a high-speed processor can simultaneously extract the best information from each category of PRF observations.

…

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw022607p2.xml


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW)
Back To The Future

After completing the first phase of its flights tests in April, NASA's Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) F/A-18A research aircraft became an attraction at three major Midwest air shows during the summer of 2003.

….

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/AAW/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/AAW/index.html)


Boeing probably won't be able to sell the morphing wing for production
F-18's, but it may go on the tailhook version of the F-35.

A morphing wing is particularly advantageous for such aircraft having relatively wider wingspans, because the outer wing sections can be flattened in flight, reducing drag at transonic and higher speeds. --Elmo

[Double Zero]

Low Observable,

Thanks for your point; whatever the details are between AESA Rhino's & up to date ( or future ) Eurofighters, at least you came over with decent well informed 'gen' - unlike the character who started this whole thread off !

DZ

[Like-minded]

Look, I don't mean to hurt any Eurofighter Talibunnies here, let's just face the facts.

The EF is overpriced, a beautiful delicate titty-bird, and hence, too much of a luxury symbol to use over the gritty battlefields of today, mainly in third world countries. It was designed to be used over Europe where after the mission, the pilot can leap out of the cockpit in his leather jacket and have a small coffee on the lakes of Lake Como as he made swooshing actions with his hands (pilots...).

The F-18E was born to ruck and rut - grimy, insolent and with that nose, horny.

The delicate, fairy-like EF concept is 20 years too late. I bet when the Berlin wall came down, the EF designers must have smacked their heads and groaned. No one now threatens Europe yet no one can afford anything from Europe, least of all a sweet looking plane that was built to flit and stiletto-slit the enemy in the high jamming, fast paced, low IFF, ruck it up scenario of continental European warfare.

The F-18E was a bastard child, cobbled together with leftover parts from the successful earlier model, took to the air below budget and before schedule, and today flies with canted pylons the equivalent of bowlegged legs, but it doesn't care.

The EF was designed to pirouette like a dancer in the sky, with extreme instability, high thrust, and low weight making it a virtual pain-in-the-arse to deal with up close. It was made with finality, few upgrades planned and paid for. Engineers moved their hands lovingly over the velvet composite skin on runways in Germany and Italy.

The F-18E in air to air is designed to point its nose with supreme
agility but nothing else, meant to hang onto your ass with grim finality, more Thunderbolt than Mustang. Its upgrades are done in the deep bowels of a ship going up and down and left and right somewhere in the open sea, where they beat the plane with hammers, starved it, maltreats it, and then lets it off the catapult to go and attack something.

And this is my reasoned dissertation why F-18E is superior in all *effective* ways.

[LowObservable]

Somewhere between "face the facts" and "reasoned dissertation" there may have been something that makes sense, but I'll be :mad:ed if I can find it.

LM - you're not Jimmy Webb, are you? The style is somehow reminiscent...

MacArthur Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down...
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Again....

[glad rag]

Wow the third of January and the random posts have started already..........this and http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306775

[ftrplt]

and wait till the F18G is in service, the whole concept of fast jet military flying will evolve once again.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Like-minded. A fascinaing discussion. I hope you didn't pay over the odds for;

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5171YZPG6DL._SS500_.jpg


and


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kM3KIf%2BGL._SS500_.jpg

[tutgby]

I love the ''face the facts'' thread by L-M.

To be honest it sounds more like an english essay with the F-18E ''rucking and rutting'' and the Eurofighter ''twinkling and stilettoing''...

you just have to put Ford GT in the place of F-18E and it'll be clarkson...!
(and no L-M, thats not a complement.)

[LowObservable]

Clarkson? Not so much... More like a really, really bad parody of LJK Setright writing about Bristols.







This (http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/index2.htm) kind of Bristols, you dirty-minded pigs.

[Zoom]

Like-minded
Your enjoyable and poetic description of the F-18E fits only one aircraft ever made and it is not the F-18. It is an aircraft that has made a far bigger impact on the world of military aviation than that one has; it is, as all real fighter pilots know, the one and only F-4 Phantom II.

[Pontious]

Very impressive the SH may be....but can it beat a Bugatti in a 2 mile dash...?
:ok:

[stilton]

I know nothing of miltary aviation beyond what I read, but it seems the F14D was the best Naval fighter ever made.

[Double Zero]

Stilton,

You might find despite the stuff in ' Top Gun ' the F-14 was an interceptor rather than fighter - no the worse for that as far as I can make out, given its' main task being fleet defence.

It may have had the very long range Pheonix missile, but even for the U.S. this was so expensive it was rarely carried ( which meant it being potentially 'abused' by vibration, acoustic & shock fatigue etc ) as I understand it.

From comments by fighter pilots ( and I'm not one ) the long range camera identification system sounds one of the best features, being passive rather than radar.

As for 'fighter' & 'Top Gun', the obvious question the film raises is, if the A-4 is so b***y good an opponent, why not use that ?!

In reality it seems especially nowadays ( except for the Royal Navy which has employed the Ostrich approach ) the answer is indeed interceptors with BVR missiles, as the Sea Harrier evolved into.

Pontious - you're not related to ' Top Gear ' by any chance ? !

[antipodean alligator]

Wensleydale.......

I'd vote for the Sea Fury myself

[Double Zero]

AA,

well you're talking about REAL FIGHTERS now - I think their time has largely passed for naval use, but recommend Eric 'Winkle' Brown's book.

[stilton]

From what I understand the F14D and I emphasize the 'D' model was, and still is unparallelled in it's sheer performance, no 'modern' equivalent being able to fly nearly as far or as fast while carrying the same payload.

And while originally designed as an interceptor the D model was quite a dogfighter as well being able to hold it's own against the F15 which is saying something.

It was also modified to drop precision weapons late in it's life which, apparently it did very well at as well.

It seems it's downfall was the large amount of maintenance hours required and needing two crewmembers.

I think a total revamp with modern systems would have seen it through another 20 years service.

PS, Tom Cruise is a wnker..

[Double Zero]

Stilton,

From what I understand the 'D' was indeed the definitive version, as the 'E' may well prove to be for the F-15 for similar reasons.

The Tomcat does seem on paper to have superior range & dash speed compared to the Hornet, but I think it would be a brave or foolish pilot who tried to mix it with an F-15 close in; consider the 'G' on the wing pivot points !

It and the 'ADV' F3 Tornado tried auto-wing sweep for close in work, I suspect the F-14 probably did it better but was a lot of mass to turn around, and of course had major surge issues on earlier versions - the 'D' was reported to be the aircraft the designers always intended - we may yet end up asking the Iranians about it ! :eek:

[Like-minded]

Not enough pilots on here.

The F-4 has a longer range? Sure, if everything is perfect in life.

there is a saying that if the F-4 is not leaking, it's empty.

you tank just after catapult take-off, that's how bad it is.