Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK... a few comments from the "other side of the pond"...
Yes, CVF is large enough.
Yes, the design set aside both space & weight to enable catapults and arresting gear to be fitted.
Yes, the Super Hornet is smaller than F-35B when its wings are folded, and the lifts on CVF are sized to run F-35B with room to spare.
As previously mentioned, neither the USN's EMALS (which is to be installed on CVN-78, currently under construction and due to enter service in 2015) nor the EMCAT that the UK is developing, need any steam. Both are powered by electricity.
CVF has a purely-electric ship propulsion system, provided by four Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines (~ 40MW total) for cruising and low-speed maneuvering, and two Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 gas turbine (36MW each, 72MW total) for high-speed power.
The design allows for 1 or 2 more MT30s to be installed easily, thus providing all the power needed for EMALS/EMCAT.
No donkey boilers (see above).
The USN will be launching/recovering E-2D Hawkeye "AWACS" aircraft with their EMALS... just like they currently do with their "old-tech" steam cats & hydraulic arresting gear.
None whatsoever. EMALS is designed to have no effect on the aircraft, munitions, or flight deck personnel (other than to throw the aircraft & munitions off the "pointy end" at a high rate of speed).
If properly designed, neither will EMCAT.
{edit: on the "future carrier" thread, there are those questioning whether CVF will be fast enough to generate enough "wind over the deck" to use catapults.
Let me reassure everyone that speeds above 25 knots won't be needed... only the underpowered F-14A had any trouble being launched from the USN's older, weaker catapults... the C-13s aboard all of the USN's current carriers were capable of launching any aircraft in the inventory at full-load at well below top speed and in "0-wind" conditions.
EMALS will be at least that powerful, and from what I have read, probably more powerful (capable of launching aircraft at full load while anchored). }
The French have only one carrier, with nuclear power & modified USN steam catapults.
Their plan for PA2 (which would be their second current carrier) was a modified CVF (with the same CODLAG propulsion as CVF), but with donkey boiler(s) and steam catapults... no EMALS and no nuclear power.
The USMC plans on replacing all its current "early model" Hornets with F-35B... they do not have, nor do they intend to buy, Super Hornets.
One thing that deciding on installing "cat&trap" now would do is to enable a decision later (once costs are more fully understood) to make a later buy (2020 perhaps?) of F-35C to augment the F/A-18E/F purchase, to "upgrade" the RN's aircraft to enable more tactical/strategic options.
Originally Posted by snagged1
Am not up to speed on the carrier program - would an F18 be able to take off and operate from the current design/is the deck lond enough (if catapaults and arrestors were fitted - can this be done?)? Are the lifts big enough?
Yes, the design set aside both space & weight to enable catapults and arresting gear to be fitted.
Yes, the Super Hornet is smaller than F-35B when its wings are folded, and the lifts on CVF are sized to run F-35B with room to spare.
Originally Posted by pulse1
Where will the steam come from for the cat?
CVF has a purely-electric ship propulsion system, provided by four Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines (~ 40MW total) for cruising and low-speed maneuvering, and two Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 gas turbine (36MW each, 72MW total) for high-speed power.
The design allows for 1 or 2 more MT30s to be installed easily, thus providing all the power needed for EMALS/EMCAT.
Originally Posted by david parry
Pulse 1 auxiliary boilers 
Originally Posted by david parry
BGG.. Dont need Cats!!! (or do you mean the steam for them) as in EMCAT/ Suppose you mean the Rampy thing??? So how will you get the AWACS airborne if we get them?
Originally Posted by andyy
What effect will an EM catapult have on the safety case for the a/c munitions?
If properly designed, neither will EMCAT.
{edit: on the "future carrier" thread, there are those questioning whether CVF will be fast enough to generate enough "wind over the deck" to use catapults.
Let me reassure everyone that speeds above 25 knots won't be needed... only the underpowered F-14A had any trouble being launched from the USN's older, weaker catapults... the C-13s aboard all of the USN's current carriers were capable of launching any aircraft in the inventory at full-load at well below top speed and in "0-wind" conditions.
EMALS will be at least that powerful, and from what I have read, probably more powerful (capable of launching aircraft at full load while anchored). }
Originally Posted by wokawoka
What BGG may mean is that today magnetic technology is available to launch cats as opposed to steam? Though to be fair since when as UK (plc) ever bought something up to date or ahead of its time. I believe the French are having them fitted to their carriers. Ours are the same as theirs, fitted for not with. Though they have opted for Nuke power which may help generate the power to operate those cats??
Their plan for PA2 (which would be their second current carrier) was a modified CVF (with the same CODLAG propulsion as CVF), but with donkey boiler(s) and steam catapults... no EMALS and no nuclear power.
Originally Posted by SCAFITE
Good enough for the USN/USMC should be good enough for us.
One thing that deciding on installing "cat&trap" now would do is to enable a decision later (once costs are more fully understood) to make a later buy (2020 perhaps?) of F-35C to augment the F/A-18E/F purchase, to "upgrade" the RN's aircraft to enable more tactical/strategic options.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 2nd Aug 2010 at 20:45.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember we had the same discussion over another article in the Sunday Times (if I recall) a few years back that claimed that the F-35 had been canned - what followed? Contracts for the IOT&E F-35s were signed and then it was announced that there wouldn't be a decision over the production F-35 buy until 2014 when the start of multi-year buys is/was supposed to take place. Okay the government changed and the money isn't there (and it wasn't then), but still. Also, Tom Burbage was quoted in the FT last week as saying that he had not been informed that the UK was looking at anything else or that it was planning as most expect to reduce its buy.
You'd think though that they are looking at something else now. Surely, this coalition government wouldn't be mad enough when this strategic defence review is published in October is to try to justify to the public and the armed forces cuts, redundancies, base closures, programme cancellations, scrapping Tornado fleets, etc and then several pages later state the need and commit to buying 138 new jets at big expense even if they are bought over a 15-20 year period, or 66 over a shorter period if they are still going to cost more than anything else when it appears that there are now other serious options. Or would it?
You'd think though that they are looking at something else now. Surely, this coalition government wouldn't be mad enough when this strategic defence review is published in October is to try to justify to the public and the armed forces cuts, redundancies, base closures, programme cancellations, scrapping Tornado fleets, etc and then several pages later state the need and commit to buying 138 new jets at big expense even if they are bought over a 15-20 year period, or 66 over a shorter period if they are still going to cost more than anything else when it appears that there are now other serious options. Or would it?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skittles
Is the new, 'more stealthy' version really called the 'silent hornet?'
That one needs a rethink.
And what is the difference between these aircraft and the standard hornet?
That one needs a rethink.
And what is the difference between these aircraft and the standard hornet?
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
There is no such thing as the "Silent Hornet". One journo tried to apply that briefing at SBAC and was immediately slapped down.
Super Hornet mods added to export list: AINonline
Super Hornet mods added to export list By: Chris Pocock; Military Aircraft; July 21, 2010
Boeing announced here yesterday a set of potential enhancements to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that it will market to export prospects. They include an enclosed weapons pod that is intended to lower the aircraft’s radar cross section. The countries currently evaluating or expressing interest in the Super Hornet include Brazil, Denmark, India, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, and Qatar.
There are six elements to what Boeing calls the “Super Hornet International Road Map.” The first is already under development and was seen by AIN during a visit to St. Louis last month. This is the Next Generation cockpit, which brings to the F-18 the large (11- by 19-inch) one-piece, touchscreen display, seen previously only on the Lockheed Martin F-35. Such a display helps improve the fused presentation of the integrated sensor suite that is already a big Super Hornet feature. The new cockpit could be made available for deliveries in 2013, according to Shelley Lavender, Boeing’s vice-president Global Strike Systems.
The other enhancements would be available from 2015, she said. These include the enclosed weapons pod, which would be carried on the centerline station, and may possibly be partially faired into the fuselage. It is sized for four AIM-120 AMRAAMs, but can also take air-to-ground weapons. According to Mike Gibbons, the Boeing F/A-18 program manager, an element of stealth was already designed into the Super Hornet. “We inserted some offerings from our Joint Strike Fighter proposal, in terms of shaping and materials,” he said in St Louis last month. Stealth on the aircraft is complemented by the active electronic warfare system, he added.
Conformal fuel tanks can straddle the upper fuselage, and confer an additional 10 percent range, according to Lavender. An enhanced performance engine (EPE) version of the GE F414 would provide a 20-percent increase in thrust. India has requested this extra power. The final two enhancements on offer are an internal IRST (infrared search and track) system, carried in the nose, and a spherical missile and laser warning system, housed above and (presumably also) below the airplane.
With a “hot” production line likely to be secured until at least 2015, thanks to the 124 aircraft for the U.S. Navy that are now being negotiated as a third multi-year buy, Boeing is confident of securing future exports of the Super Hornet. To date, only Australia has bought, and deliveries are underway. The price of the aircraft currently being delivered to the U.S. Navy is roughly $54 million, which indicates that the international Super Hornet is “a lower cost platform,” according to Gibbons.
Boeing announced here yesterday a set of potential enhancements to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that it will market to export prospects. They include an enclosed weapons pod that is intended to lower the aircraft’s radar cross section. The countries currently evaluating or expressing interest in the Super Hornet include Brazil, Denmark, India, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, and Qatar.
There are six elements to what Boeing calls the “Super Hornet International Road Map.” The first is already under development and was seen by AIN during a visit to St. Louis last month. This is the Next Generation cockpit, which brings to the F-18 the large (11- by 19-inch) one-piece, touchscreen display, seen previously only on the Lockheed Martin F-35. Such a display helps improve the fused presentation of the integrated sensor suite that is already a big Super Hornet feature. The new cockpit could be made available for deliveries in 2013, according to Shelley Lavender, Boeing’s vice-president Global Strike Systems.
The other enhancements would be available from 2015, she said. These include the enclosed weapons pod, which would be carried on the centerline station, and may possibly be partially faired into the fuselage. It is sized for four AIM-120 AMRAAMs, but can also take air-to-ground weapons. According to Mike Gibbons, the Boeing F/A-18 program manager, an element of stealth was already designed into the Super Hornet. “We inserted some offerings from our Joint Strike Fighter proposal, in terms of shaping and materials,” he said in St Louis last month. Stealth on the aircraft is complemented by the active electronic warfare system, he added.
Conformal fuel tanks can straddle the upper fuselage, and confer an additional 10 percent range, according to Lavender. An enhanced performance engine (EPE) version of the GE F414 would provide a 20-percent increase in thrust. India has requested this extra power. The final two enhancements on offer are an internal IRST (infrared search and track) system, carried in the nose, and a spherical missile and laser warning system, housed above and (presumably also) below the airplane.
With a “hot” production line likely to be secured until at least 2015, thanks to the 124 aircraft for the U.S. Navy that are now being negotiated as a third multi-year buy, Boeing is confident of securing future exports of the Super Hornet. To date, only Australia has bought, and deliveries are underway. The price of the aircraft currently being delivered to the U.S. Navy is roughly $54 million, which indicates that the international Super Hornet is “a lower cost platform,” according to Gibbons.
{edit: Ok... why does PPRuNe convert the a in laser to the @ symbol? In the original text, and in the text shown in the edit mode, it appears correctly, but is changed in the displayed version. Answers?}
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that GreenKnight, very informative.
I'm all for this. Dump the overpriced and over-regulated F-35 by the wayside and pick up a tried and tested machine that is loved by pilots and engineers alike.
The fact that America is willing to sell the F-18's at this point in the development of the F-35 surely says something.
Edit: I love it when they use terms like 'increased survivability.'
I'm all for this. Dump the overpriced and over-regulated F-35 by the wayside and pick up a tried and tested machine that is loved by pilots and engineers alike.
The fact that America is willing to sell the F-18's at this point in the development of the F-35 surely says something.
Edit: I love it when they use terms like 'increased survivability.'
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These enhancements are considered "very low risk", as they are designed to be able to be fitted to any existing block II or better F/A-18E/F/G as well as to new production aircraft.
They are also separate items, and can be fitted in whatever "mix & match" combination a customer chooses.
They are also separate items, and can be fitted in whatever "mix & match" combination a customer chooses.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum. UK PLC stands to make a profit out of its participation in the JSF program.
We could all run around gnashing teeth about the sticker price of the airframes themselves (which are still cheaper than some other not-even-very-comparable-in-capability aircraft). Or you could step back and look at the industrial participation in a program that's going to churn out 3000+ airframes over the next few decades. Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, BAE Systems and literally dozens and dozens of second tier suppliers will do very well out of the UK's involvement in the JSF development program. The UK Treasury will get more money in tax from the sales of these components than it pays for the 138 aircraft we want. UK PLC as a whole does even better out of the deal. If the UK packs up its toys and goes Boeing, I wouldn't expect LM to be quite so keen to let contracts to UK firms when they come up for renewal.
If you go F-18F, you may pay a lower sticker price, but you get a less capable airplane, and you're unlikely to get anywhere near the same industrial participation. So you're almost certainly going to have to take money out of the Treasury to pay for them.
So do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face? If it comes down to money (which it will), you'd be very foolish to unpick the last decade of UK work that's gone into the JSF program, particularly if it's just because you've been playing Top Trumps with 'number of engines' or some other reason that hasn't been thought through terribly well. Just my 2p.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum. UK PLC stands to make a profit out of its participation in the JSF program.
We could all run around gnashing teeth about the sticker price of the airframes themselves (which are still cheaper than some other not-even-very-comparable-in-capability aircraft). Or you could step back and look at the industrial participation in a program that's going to churn out 3000+ airframes over the next few decades. Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, BAE Systems and literally dozens and dozens of second tier suppliers will do very well out of the UK's involvement in the JSF development program. The UK Treasury will get more money in tax from the sales of these components than it pays for the 138 aircraft we want. UK PLC as a whole does even better out of the deal. If the UK packs up its toys and goes Boeing, I wouldn't expect LM to be quite so keen to let contracts to UK firms when they come up for renewal.
If you go F-18F, you may pay a lower sticker price, but you get a less capable airplane, and you're unlikely to get anywhere near the same industrial participation. So you're almost certainly going to have to take money out of the Treasury to pay for them.
So do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face? If it comes down to money (which it will), you'd be very foolish to unpick the last decade of UK work that's gone into the JSF program, particularly if it's just because you've been playing Top Trumps with 'number of engines' or some other reason that hasn't been thought through terribly well. Just my 2p.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless we're effectively going to defer out F35 purchase to a later date (2020-2025), and buy something that we can afford, train on, and use now until the F35 comes on stream? Obsolecense then ceases to be a problem. I mean surely 2015 looks optimistic anyway?
Maybe we will be cutting our noses off to spite our face, but frankly a massive proportion of the cuts across ALL departments will involve cutting our noses off to spite our face! Probably to a point where in a normal economy the amount of cuts talked about would result in me paying hardly any tax, so I now wonder exactly what my tax money will be paying for in 5 years time cos I guarantee I wont see my tax decrease!!
As for Ocean, excuse my civvy ignorance, but I thought Ocean wasn't that old?! How can it be end of life already?? and what problems has it been encountering? I seem to think it wasn't built as a hardened warship as such, and built to commercial specification, but I don't know if I remember rightly there!
Maybe we will be cutting our noses off to spite our face, but frankly a massive proportion of the cuts across ALL departments will involve cutting our noses off to spite our face! Probably to a point where in a normal economy the amount of cuts talked about would result in me paying hardly any tax, so I now wonder exactly what my tax money will be paying for in 5 years time cos I guarantee I wont see my tax decrease!!
As for Ocean, excuse my civvy ignorance, but I thought Ocean wasn't that old?! How can it be end of life already?? and what problems has it been encountering? I seem to think it wasn't built as a hardened warship as such, and built to commercial specification, but I don't know if I remember rightly there!
Boeing is consistently referring to their new-model Super Hornet proposal as “Super Hornet International Road Map.”
There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum.
Hmmph. I know that there is a slagging contest between LockMart and the Pentagon auditors about estimated costs for the jet, but the cost numbers for the B/C according to the customer's accountants are scary. F-22-level.
Hmmph. I know that there is a slagging contest between LockMart and the Pentagon auditors about estimated costs for the jet, but the cost numbers for the B/C according to the customer's accountants are scary. F-22-level.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it isn't an aeroplane... nor a new model of an existing aeroplane.
What it is, is an "option package" that can be applied in any combination the customer chooses, to any existing or new-build Super Hornet.
A "new name" isn't rational for this... unless you use it like auto manufacturers: "Chevy Blazer with Cheyenne package"... "Super Hornet with Upgrade package A".
Oh, yes... they already have a system for that... the "block #" system.
What it is, is an "option package" that can be applied in any combination the customer chooses, to any existing or new-build Super Hornet.
A "new name" isn't rational for this... unless you use it like auto manufacturers: "Chevy Blazer with Cheyenne package"... "Super Hornet with Upgrade package A".
Oh, yes... they already have a system for that... the "block #" system.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And those accountants have been consistently wrong in their predictions of how much the various LRIP aircraft will cost... LM has consistently delivered them at well below the ever-increasingly-hysterical estimates.
Do we know what the real costs for full-production aircraft will be?
No, and neither do the accountants or Lockheed-Martin.
However, LM seems to be delivering aircraft at costs closer to their estimates than to the accountant's predictions, so I'm not all that worried... yet.
Do we know what the real costs for full-production aircraft will be?
No, and neither do the accountants or Lockheed-Martin.
However, LM seems to be delivering aircraft at costs closer to their estimates than to the accountant's predictions, so I'm not all that worried... yet.
"As for Ocean, excuse my civvy ignorance, but I thought Ocean wasn't that old?! How can it be end of life already?? and what problems has it been encountering? I seem to think it wasn't built as a hardened warship as such, and built to commercial specification, but I don't know if I remember rightly there"
She was built to commercial standards and has been worked very hard ever since. She was originally designed for a 20 year life (2018), but is by all accounts a maintenance nightmare and a lot of hassle. Ocean is a good example of what happens when you try to do maritime aviation on the cheap!
She was built to commercial standards and has been worked very hard ever since. She was originally designed for a 20 year life (2018), but is by all accounts a maintenance nightmare and a lot of hassle. Ocean is a good example of what happens when you try to do maritime aviation on the cheap!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone correct me if I'm wrong:
JORN has proved that even "stealth" aircraft can be observed by long range RADAR - at least under some circumstances.
The FA-18 in its proposed new form is fairly "stealthy" - at least low observable.
It is faster than earlier models
It is optimised as an attack aircraft
Other packages can be mounted on some specialised versions
It is available almost immediately
It is half the cost of the JSF
It will carry out most if not all of the RNs requirements of the JSF
It is likely to be usable beyond 2025
The new carriers can/will be fitted with electromagnetic catapults
It will fit into their lifts.
It will be available virtually simultaneously with the first of the new carriers.
Both the carrier and the aircraft could go to the USA for training.
While there may be a long-term financial return buying the JSF, our financial problems are immediate and need an immediate remedy.
While it doesn't do all the tricks of the JSF, it is a proven, extendable aircraft.
To my mind there is no argument. We need the FA-18 "stealthy" version and we should buy it now. Why is my logic faulty?
JORN has proved that even "stealth" aircraft can be observed by long range RADAR - at least under some circumstances.
The FA-18 in its proposed new form is fairly "stealthy" - at least low observable.
It is faster than earlier models
It is optimised as an attack aircraft
Other packages can be mounted on some specialised versions
It is available almost immediately
It is half the cost of the JSF
It will carry out most if not all of the RNs requirements of the JSF
It is likely to be usable beyond 2025
The new carriers can/will be fitted with electromagnetic catapults
It will fit into their lifts.
It will be available virtually simultaneously with the first of the new carriers.
Both the carrier and the aircraft could go to the USA for training.
While there may be a long-term financial return buying the JSF, our financial problems are immediate and need an immediate remedy.
While it doesn't do all the tricks of the JSF, it is a proven, extendable aircraft.
To my mind there is no argument. We need the FA-18 "stealthy" version and we should buy it now. Why is my logic faulty?
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
If we have paid our entry ticket for the JSF club then I don't see why we will not still reap some benefit of the forecast 3000 JSF sales. Just because we drop our measly 100 & something order should not mean that BAe etc can't benefit from the remaining sales. Granted RR will be a bit hacked off if the USMC cancel the STOVL version.
If we have paid our entry ticket for the JSF club then I don't see why we will not still reap some benefit of the forecast 3000 JSF sales. Just because we drop our measly 100 & something order should not mean that BAe etc can't benefit from the remaining sales. Granted RR will be a bit hacked off if the USMC cancel the STOVL version.
That might be a good title for a PowerPoint slide, but it's a rubbish name for an aeroplane. Even "Silent Hornet" is better than that!
Jimlad
One of the reasons that Ocean is a "nightmare" is that virtually no logistic support was included in the contract. By that I mean that tech pubs are limited to OEM catalogues (hardcopies only), limited or no training support and a complete b8ggers muddle of equipment. Imagine a ship where the sewage treatment plant can't even be serviced properly (because the design didn't include adequate isolation provision), where the system regularly blocks and where several hundred royals are regularly to be found processing their vittles on a daily basis. It's not the commercial standard thats the problem, but a cr@p design in the first place.
One of the reasons that Ocean is a "nightmare" is that virtually no logistic support was included in the contract. By that I mean that tech pubs are limited to OEM catalogues (hardcopies only), limited or no training support and a complete b8ggers muddle of equipment. Imagine a ship where the sewage treatment plant can't even be serviced properly (because the design didn't include adequate isolation provision), where the system regularly blocks and where several hundred royals are regularly to be found processing their vittles on a daily basis. It's not the commercial standard thats the problem, but a cr@p design in the first place.
Not A - totally agree, having spent plenty of time onboard her, I'm in no hurry to return! The only thing that can be said is she's an improvement over Argus who was trialled in the role previously!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF makes a fair point. I can't see the US or all the other export customers being happy that BAE and other UK companies continue to benefit from 3,000 shipsets of work when the UK is no longer a customer. I suppose that, if a smaller number are purchased just for the RAF, continued participation may be justified but, presumably, any purchase of F18s would scupper the F35 completely.