F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet

The first Block III Super Hornets are slated to enter service in 2019

The new configuration will improve the heads-up display and computing capabilities of the Super Hornet, while also modestly upgrading the stealth and radar cross section. The multirole fighter will receive "advanced network architecture" in the form of a new computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN). A large new display in the cockpit will help pilots monitor the additional information they receive. New Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) will also improve the Super Hornet's information pipeline so more data can be transmitted to and from the jet.

The improvements to stealth include possible low-observable coating, and new Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are planned to replace the Super Hornet's current external fuel tanks. The CFTs will improve radar cross section slightly, but they are primarily intended to reduce aerodynamic drag. The Navy is also planning a long-range infrared sensor for the Super Hornet for early threat detection

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26833/us-navy-approves-boeings-f-1-8/
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/874724248711024640

The big question is “Why now?” said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, who said it would be tough to pinpoint a specific bid that the company lost that might have spurred the reorganization. “My candidates would be either it’s classified or…the bomber loss is something that has resonated within the organization and they feel that they maybe need some tighter attention to stuff.” http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/06/boeing-cut-executives-reorganize-defense-business/138644/
 
Pitkä artikkeli Super Hornetien käytöstä ja päivityksistä.

It’s Better When F-35s and Super Hornets Work Together
The U.S. Navy sees stealth jets teaming up with F/A-18s
2164372-970x350.jpg


WIB air June 18, 2017 Sebastien Roblin

F-3530 U.S. Navy21
In June, the U.S. Navy released a budget allocating $264.9 million towards upgrading its roughly 600 F/A-18E and F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler fighters to the new Block III standard, which includes some of the enhancements proposed for the Advanced Super Hornet. This is intended to coincide with a service-life extension program meant to increase the type’s flight hours from 6,000 to 9,000.

The first of the upgraded aircraft are expected to enter service in 2019, and the Pentagon is now talking about keeping its Super Hornet fleet active through 2046.

A few days later, the Navy also announced plans to purchase an additional 80 Super Hornets over the next five years for $7.1 billion. All in all, it would seem that Boeing has successfully redirected defense dollars away from the expensive new F-35 stealth fighter by emphasizing the lower price of maintaining the Super Hornet fleet.

However, it would be mistaken to say the Super Hornet proved it could replace the F-35. In fact, the Block III upgrade should help the Super Hornet team up with the stealthier F-35 when taking on tougher opponents.

The single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F are larger, higher-performing evolutions of the 1980s-era F/A-18 Hornet attack plane. Though comparable in many respects to such excellent fourth-generation fighters as the F-15 Eagle, the Super Hornet has a lower maximum speed and is slightly less agile due to the engineering compromises necessary for taking off and landing on Navy carriers.

On the plus side, the Super Hornet does come with more modern avionics and a unique advantage baked into its airframe–a reduced radar cross section estimated to be around one square meter from the front, a fraction of that of an F-15 and one of the lowest on any fourth-generation jet fighter.

However, that’s still too conspicuous to be a proper stealth fighter. At best, the Super Hornet’s stealth advantage will modestly decrease the range at which it can be detected and tracked by powerful modern radars. Thus the Pentagon’s push to adopt the F-35 Lightning, which has a radar cross section of around .001 square meters—potentially three orders of magnitude smaller than the Super Hornet’s.


With a genuine stealth fighter like the F-35, U.S. pilots could pick off enemy fighters and air defenses radars from long range with little risk of detection and retaliation—or, at least, so the theory goes. Supposedly, this strategy has been borne out by the lopsided 15:1 kill ratios or better in recent Red Flag exercises pitting the F-35 against non-stealth aircraft.

However, the F-35 program’s spiraling costs, technical problems and delays have reached nearly legendary proportions—at a projected lifetime cost of around $1.5 trillion, making it literally the most expensive weapon program ever. The F-35’s flight characteristics have also been a source of criticism. Pres. Donald Trump unusually used his presidential podium to attack the F-35 and boost the idea of replacing it with cheaper, upgraded Super Hornets.

Now the U.S. Navy plans on operating a mixed force of two squadrons of F-35Bs and two of F/A-18s on each carrier, though initially that ratio will be weighted at three to one toward the Super Hornet.

F-35C and two F/A-18E/F Super Hornets during a 2015 integration exercise. U.S. Navy photo
The fourth-generation fighter remains vulnerable to a full range of increasingly sophisticated air- and ground-launched anti-aircraft missiles when compared to the F-35. However, the Navy has a strategy to cope with this deficit–F-35 stealth fighters could “ride point,” safely flying deeper into enemy radar range while using their advanced sensors to gather data on enemy aircraft and air defenses. Then they could relay this data to Super Hornets waiting in the “back field.”

With their radars already cued to quickly acquire their targets, the Super Hornets could maneuver to an advantageous attack position and dart within firing range to lob their long-range missiles from a distance at which their own weaker stealth features might still be somewhat effective.

All of the Block III upgrades basically make this strategy easier to pull off—particularly those made to the Super Hornet’s avionics.

While the Super Hornet already comes with a datalink, new Tactical Targeting Network Technology allows it to share vast amounts of data at very high speeds with friendly aircraft and ships—up to 10 times the computing power currently onboard the EA-18. Furthermore, the system enable the Super Hornet to become a contributor, not just a consumer, of such data, which may have useful applications when combined with the Super Hornet’s new Infrared Red Search and Track sensor.

Another system, the Distributed Targeting Processor Network, allows the Super Hornet’s computer to compare sensor images it receives with a geo-registered database to deliver precise long-range strikes against ground targets—which might help it deal with air defenses from a safer distance. To help pilots cope with information overload, the cockpit is also a receiving a new Elbit 10-by-19-inch touchscreen flight display, replacing several smaller monitors in one go.

The most expensive part of the Block III upgrade pays for a Conformal Fuel Tank, or CFT, which addresses the Super Hornet’s troublesome short range on internal fuel. Indeed, the Hornet’s limited combat radius of 400 to 500 miles on just internal fuel puts carriers at risk by forcing them to sail closer to hostile shores bristling with new ship-killing weapons.

Currently, Super Hornets rely on up to three drop tanks—two underwing, and one under the fuselage—to extend their striking range, as well as aerial refueling by by Super Hornet tankers. However, drop tanks enlarge the Hornet’s radar cross section, cause additional drag, degrade flight performance and occupy hardpoints that could be carrying weapons.

A conformal tank, on the other hand, is bolted on to “hug” the fuselage at minimal cost to aerodynamics and radar cross section, giving the upper fuselage a “hulked out” appearance.

The Super Hornet’s CFT weighs only 870 pounds empty and can carry up to 3,500 pounds of fuel, extending the combat radius by 130 nautical miles to around 690—which just so happens to put it closer to the combat radius of an F-35 using only internal fuel. The CFT reportedly creates no additional drag at low speeds, and only minor amounts approaching supersonic or higher.

Furthermore, it even slightly reduces the Super Hornet’s radar cross section, and when fitted to the EA-18 Growler electronic attack plane, causes less obstruction to its ALQ-99 or Next Generation Jammer pods than underwing tanks would.

An F/A-18C Hornet launches from the carrier USS ‘Carl Vinson.’ U.S. Navy photo
The CFT upgraded seems especially pitched to preserving the F-18’s stealth characteristics. Indeed, Boeing has claimed a “50 percent improvement” to frontal aspect stealth while using the new tank.

However, this statement also presupposed the use of another technology offered by Boeing that is not in the Block III upgrade, the Enclosed Weapon Pod. Underwing weapons are decidedly conspicuous on radar, so the pods could conceal up to 2,500 pounds of bombs or missiles in a stealthy fuselage-mounted container.

The Navy may be skeptical that there is enough benefit to be gained in improving the stealthiness of a non-stealth airplane. Still, some sources suggest that the Block III upgrade may include applying coatings of radar-absorbent materials to the more reflective surfaces of the Super Hornet.

Another proposed upgrade the Navy has passed on for now would involve installing improved F414-400 turbofan engines. These would reduce fuel consumption by three to five percent, generate up to 20 percent more thrust and operate two thousand additional flight hours before requiring an overhaul. Boeing claims the expensive upgrade would pay for itself by saving $5 billion in fuel and maintenance costs over subsequent decades.

On the other hand, the Super Hornet has already begun receiving new Infrared Search and Track 21 sensors. An IRST system is a discreet alternative means of detecting adversaries, though earlier IRST systems had very limited range compared to radar. However, newer IRSTs on aircraft such as the Su-35 can track targets up to 50 miles away or farther.


Infrared sensors still have a shorter detection range than the powerful and low-observable AESA radars aboard U.S. fighters, but they could be extremely useful for detecting hostile stealth fighters and for operations while under heavy jamming.

Super Hornets will now able to network their IRST sensors with friendly aircraft and “fuse” infrared sensor data into the overall picture—potentially allowing fighters to stalk opponents with their radars off, minimizing their own detection range while relying on the IRST to home in for the killing blow.

It’s worth qualifying that the F-35 could arguably do most of the things the Super Hornet can, in addition to being much harder to detect and kill. It can travel nearly as far on internal fuel as a Super Hornet equipped with external tanks. If non-stealthy back fielders are needed to carry heavier weapons load, an F-35 can mount the same maximum weapons load as a Super Hornet by using underwing racks.

The F-35 will eventually receive its own IRST sensors. In return, the Super Hornet’s stealth capabilities are hardly on par with the Lightning’s.

However, the F-35 costs a lot more, and is rife with issues. For now, the Navy has judged that a mixed force will be more than adequate for its needs. When facing threatening adversaries, the two aircraft types could potentially synergize well, with the F-35 confined to lighter internal weapons loads when flying in a stealthy configuration, ferreting out targets for the Super Hornets to slug away at from a relatively safe
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

http://warisboring.com/its-better-when-f-35s-and-super-hornets-work-together/
 
Huhta kirjoitti:
Muut HX-ehdokkaat eivät taida voida rehennellä ilmataistelussa testattuina? :cool:

Joo, Rafale ampui Libyassa yhtä konetta, mutta se oli jo ehtinyt laskeutua ja "pudotus" tehtiin ilmasta-maahan ohjuksella.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
No, ruotsalaiset muistuttavat kyllä kysyttäessä Gripenin lentäneen kuitenkin "sotatoimialueella" joka on heille jo lähellä ilmasotaa. :)

Tuo Rafalen ampuma ohjus oli ohjautuva pommi AASM "Hammer".
 
magitsu kirjoitti:
The New Bug in Town – Versions for Finland
https://corporalfrisk.com/2017/06/20/the-new-bug-in-town-versions-for-finland/
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Kyllä tämä vain on ehdottoman hyvä juttu! Kannattaako meidän edes lähteä soitellen sotaan? Mitä jos F-35 on uusi NH-90 ja saadaan niistä tyyliin vain 25% lentokuntoon samanaikaisesti ja tulee vikoja yms. Miettikää, kun tulee joku fiba jossain jenkeissä ja koko F-35 fleet groundataan maailmanlaajuisesti? Sit mennään Hawkeilla. Super Hornetille tuskin tulee näitä ongelmia, kun on koeteltu kone. Eiköhän niitä 60 x F/A-18E + 6 x F/A18F + 6 x EA-18G = 72 konetta tilaukseen ja hoidetaan homma kottiin :D
 
Viime aikoina on hypoksia-fibasta saanut nautiskella molemmat. Samanlaiseen harkintaan ne menee maailmanlaajuisesti onnettomuuksien myötä. Kuten esim. silloin kun Norjassa tipahti Eurocopter.

2021 mennessä alkaa olla aika hyvä kokemus F-35:sta.

Ehkä kannattaisi kysyä ennemmin entä jos Gripukkaan tulee fiba? Siitä ei ole edes ilmasta maahan -toiminto käytössä ennen vuotta 2023!
 
Einomies1 kirjoitti:
Kanada on hallinnon puolesta samanlainen käsittämätön ja kykenemätön sekasikiö kuin Sveitsi, vaaleilla äänestetyt poliitikot eivät kykene tekemään päätöksiä vaan ovat kenen tahansa vietävissä. Sveitsissäkään ei hallitus uskaltanut päättää mitään yksin vaan hävittäjistä kysyttiin vielä varmuuden/epävarmuuden vuoksi kansaltao_O. Tämä farssi vielä puuttuu Kanukeilta mutta eiköhän sekin vielä nähdä tässä skandaalissa.

Onkohan ranskalaisuuden juurilla jotain tekemistä tämän sekoilun kanssa? :D
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Ei Sveitsin hallitus mitään kansalta kysynyt.

Sveitsissä "kansalaisliike" keräsi 50 000 nimeä vaatimukseen kumota rahoituslaki Gripen-hankintaan. Viisikymmentätuhatta ääntä vaaditaan Sveitsissä sitovaan kansanäänestykseen. Tässä meni laki kumoon 52% vastaan 48% .

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-gripen-idUSBREA4H05920140518
 
ajs178 kirjoitti:
Ja tämä on 2023 MIKÄLI ei tule viivästyksiä...paljonko ensi lento viivästyi alkuperäisistä suunnitelmista?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Kahteen kertaan siirrettiin. Voisi arvioida noin 2 vuotta. Mutta siihen toki ruotsalainen vastaa, että "aikataulussa ollaan" vedoten monenlaisiin kuvioihin. Esim. siviilistandardointiin, "helppouteen" siirtymässä C/D:stä....
Eihän sille mahda mitään, että Sveitsin kaupan romahdus pisti suunnitelmat uusiksi. Brassit piti saada mukaan, että eteni yhtään jälleen.
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top