Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Long time reader, first time poster to the website. And as my subject line states, I have a question about the long talked about GE upgrades to the F414 engine, either producing a 20-25% increase in thrust or improving the longevity and maintenance costs of the engine. Now from everything I have been able to read, all the people I have been able to talk to over the years, the Rhino is obviously held back in its performance and range with the current setup. And so my question is this: do you think the US Navy will ever opt for the EPE, or increased thrust, version of the engine over the cost savings of the decreased maintenance version?

I've read that Boeing and GE were recently looking to test out the increased thrust version through foreign sales, but things as they pertain to the US Navy's position seem rather gray. I know the military would love anything that would offer a cost benefit in reduced maintenance, but it seems to me that if they were to purchase the increased thrust version, they would find themselves with a Rhino that has better speed performance, longer legs, and according to GE a better fuel consumption rate. Going from 22,000 lbs per engine to 26,750 lbs is a sizable gain that I think the Navy would be foolish to pass up.

I know that the AN/APG-79, the multitude of new sensors like the ALE-55 and improvements to BVR and HOBS missiles are the calling cards for not messing with the SH, but you would think that given the chance the Navy would opt to get every bit of possible performance from the airframe. The SU-33/35 series is in another weight class, but with its (and now the J-10) multiplying around the East with steady improvements and serious performance, can we really neglect this option? The advertised 390nm combat radius of the SH plus the stories I've heard about it needing to ride afterburners at altitude just to maintain cruising speed seem to answer that for the Navy. Even with all the tanker support around, it needs better performance.

So do you think that they will ultimately upgrade the fleet with the improved engines? I've read that it's a redesigned core that gives it the gains in maintenance costs, but that it is a newly designed fan that is the catalyst for the increase in thrust. Is this something that could possibly be retrofitted to all the F414's the Navy has already purchased, or would something so changed require them to buy new engines outright?

Thank you for bearing with me on this incredibly long post, my first. I appreciate any and all replies people may have. Thanks again.

F-16.net Sponsor

Well current F414's cost about $4Mil each; that is $8Mil per Super-bug.

Now multiply $8Mil over the fleet of Super-bugs, and that is a WHOLE lot of engine maintenance...

On the other hand; why would the NAVY admit that the Super-bug's motors aren't up to the job? After all they didn't 'compete' the engine with other OEMs during it's development, nor did the NAVY consider an alternate engine, just in case the F414 ran into issues during the life of the program, or grounding of a substantial portion of the USN's fleet... LMAO

If they need a new engine for the Super-Bug, maybe they should talk to PW about an engine competition or alternate engine? Kinda' like the USAF wanted something with more power for the C/D Vipers? Rolling Eyes

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

I would love to see the increased thrust in a SuperBug. The Ideal SuperBug (clean w/ int fuel) has a 1/1 T/W. Give it a 25% increase in thrust, it jumps to 1.25, making the HORNET the most powerfull fighter in the air!!?? Seriously, it could use more oomf behind it, maybe 10% but Maintenace is always better and it would have to be a retrofit to existing 414s to save money. as TEG mentioned, engines are expensive.

orbital080 wrote:

So do you think that they will ultimately upgrade the fleet with the improved engines?

Not in the Navy side of the house, so I don't know personally. But the answer will depend on:

(1) Cost

(2) If the Navy is satisfied with the "Super" Hornet's performance in relation to cost and treats (current and projected).

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Seriously, it could use more oomf behind it,

I've heard that more than once...from Navy guys.

Yeah, lift the Super Bug makes plenty of, but thrust it what it needs. What is the single engine climb rate with a long range bomb load? probably not too stellar.

More thrust certainly would help.

I talked to an engineer friend of mine at the big "B" and asked his input. I'm not going to repeat everything he said but he emphasized that a combination of things (draggy design, weight and motors) is what's holding back the regular and "Super" Hornets compared to other 4th Gen designs in several KPPs. The problem is compounded with the "Super" Hornet's larger and longer design along with greater weight.

He said it's unfortunate that the original USAF YF-17 Cobra LWF prototype design was changed to meet the naval requirement when it morphed into the Hornet because the Cobra's design was minimal. It followed certain design principles to be essentially a "light weight fighter" and thus could outperform either of today's F-18s in many areas.

My friend did say though that the F-18s of today did retain the great maneuverability, especially at high alpha, and that the upgrades and capabilities of today's F-18s, both in hardware and software, were unthinkable back in the YF-17 days. This pays tribute to the design's flexibility and the engineer's ingenuity to make it happen.

For what the navy needs it will never happen. Would it be nice? Yes, but its a fine plane even without the increased thrust. I heard an F-18E pilot after he flew an F-16 say that it was really fun but he'd stick with the super-bug in a real fight. It has great electronics, amazing maneuverability, and a great multi-role capability. So it'd be fun but for what its worth it's smarter for the Navy to stick with what it has for now until they get thier f-35s.

Depends on who you talk to as the E and F models have very different missions. The attack guys coming over from regular Hornets are alright with it. The fighter guys coming over from Tomcats are screaming for the extra thrust.

An F-18E would destroy a tomcat no matter the speed. Plus I was comparing the viper and super-bug.

Well, many claim the Super Hornet is the leading contender in India's MMRCA Competition. Plus, the fact that India just put out a request for a new engines for the LCA MK2. (F414 or EJ-200) Which, can only improve the odds of the Super Hornet Winning..............Regardless, I wonder if India would prefer the more powerful F414 (EPE) in either case????

froe wrote:

An F-18E would destroy a tomcat no matter the speed. Plus I was comparing the viper and super-bug.

While, the Super Hornet is clearly more agile. The Tomcat has much better speed and range than the former. Plus, the room for more capable Avonics................Of course it would be more expensive to own and operate.

Nonetheless, thats another debate........ Wink

can EDE and EPE be combined into one engine? More thrust and more reliability?

discofishing wrote:

can EDE and EPE be combined into one engine? More thrust and more reliability?

IIRC, the EDE upgrade to the F414 allows either higher thrust or lower maint cost at the expense of the other. It's core has the ability for more thrust, but by restricting it to the current level, the parts last longer, so there's your savings. Why don't they do a VMax switch type situation where you can get the extra performance at the cost of core life if needed, but for day to day ops, just use the lower rating?

if that would be possible it would be the best solution ever and should be employed on all engined that have greater capability.

froe wrote:

An F-18E would destroy a tomcat no matter the speed. Plus I was comparing the viper and super-bug.

I talked to a F/A-18F pilot who was in RAG Squadron 123, in the later phase of converting from the F-14B. He preferred the performance of the F-14B but, he was totally in love with the many modes of the APG-79 of which he could control from the pilot's seat. The pilot relies on the RIO less in the F/A-18F as oppose to the F-14B. Plus the Super Hornet is a lot easier to get back onboard the carrier!

Corsair1963 wrote:

While, the Super Hornet is clearly more agile. The Tomcat has much better speed and range than the former.

The performance of the E/F is great for those who prefer the the low speed/energy dogfight, I prefer energy anyway I could get it. (The A-10 points its nose well also!) I would take the Viper or Tomcat over the Super Hornet. (I only wish the USN had supported the F-14 as well as the USAF supported the F-15E!)

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F/A-18 E/F EPE Engine Upgrade