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

[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 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]

Typhoon radar

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/gener...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


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]

Radar L-O.

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 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;




and

[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 kind of Bristols, you dirty-minded pigs.