| Author |
Message |
|
bjr1028
|
Posted: Sep 23, 2010 - 11:29 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
|
|
discofishing wrote:
Anyone see a chance that these proposed upgrades will be applied to existing US Navy Super Hornets?
Possibly. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 11:14 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
discofishing
|
Posted: Sep 23, 2010 - 07:48 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Nov 07, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 1303
Status: Offline
|
| I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
Posted: Sep 24, 2010 - 02:38 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1375
Status: Offline
|
|
bjr1028 wrote:
I don't know, but Boeing claims the CFT and Stealthpod give it a 10% range boost over a similar mission profile with the 3 external tanks.
That should be a good indicator how draggy the "Super" Hornet's design is...
discofishing wrote:
Anyone see a chance that these proposed upgrades will be applied to existing US Navy Super Hornets?
IMO, if they're smart, the CFTs and radar at least. The others are not as urgent. |
_________________ I'm watching...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lightndattic
|
Posted: Sep 24, 2010 - 03:56 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 497
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
discofishing wrote:
I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the block I SH don't have the cooling necessary for the APG-79. That's what those exhaust are between the tails of the block II SH's are for. I wonder how difficult those airframe changes would be to retrofit to the block I's. If they can't be fixed, you're in the same boat as the F-22- you have different capabilities between the blocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
geogen
|
Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 05:30 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2815
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
|
Lightndattic wrote:
discofishing wrote:
I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the block I SH don't have the cooling necessary for the APG-79. That's what those exhaust are between the tails of the block II SH's are for. I wonder how difficult those airframe changes would be to retrofit to the block I's. If they can't be fixed, you're in the same boat as the F-22- you have different capabilities between the blocks.
I've personally promoted and supported the concept of RACR AESA sets for the block 1... as those would probably be a more plausible 'plug-in' upgrade..
Something will likely have to give though: either the SLEP hornets, (or substantial reduction in SLEP'd hornets), or F-35C (or substantial reduction in F-35C acquisition)... in order to see any significant near-term blkII Super upgrades and any new-build Super next-gens, to include CFT and F414EDE, etc. (IRST center tanks will apparently be the existing Super's upgrade in that respect). imo. |
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
discofishing
|
Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 07:28 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Nov 07, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 1303
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
I've personally promoted and supported the concept of RACR AESA sets for the block 1... as those would probably be a more plausible 'plug-in' upgrade..
I'm thinking that would be a great alternative, but what kind of logistics and maintenance burden does it create? On the other hand, I have read that the RACR shares 90% commonality with the APG-79, so maybe not. This might be the best we can put into early block Super Hornets given the current budgets. I know that AESA radars in general are ultra reliable when compared to the mechanically scanning radars which means that a RACR upgrade may very well pay for itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bjr1028
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2010 - 07:41 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
|
| Some kind of AESA upgrade path for the Block Is and A-D export customers might not be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Oct 01, 2010 - 03:52 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
|
madrat wrote:
Whatever pod goes under the Silent Hornet should be compatible on other aircraft, otherwise it seems like a colossal waste of effort.
The link isn't working for me, any idea what capacity is for the CFT's?
Whatever stealthy pod designed for the Hornet would be suitable only for the Hornet. You can`t just hang a Lo Pod off of another aircraft and get the same results as far as Lo is concerned. That is in the realm of luck.
For example, hanging the Hornet pod on an F-16 may produce a huge radar reflector simply because the aircraft are different shapes.
If they can build them cheaply, worth it. However, is anything stealthy, cheap? |
_________________ "I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bjr1028
|
Posted: Oct 01, 2010 - 04:21 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
|
| You also couldn't because even the legacy hornets can carry much larger centerline pods than the Falcon. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
madrat
|
Posted: Oct 01, 2010 - 10:41 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 987
Status: Offline
|
| So the original F/A-18 has more clearance than the F-16? Amazing that the F-16 can lug around 600 gallon tanks underwing whereas the F/A-18 cannot. I always figured it was because the F/A-18 was squatted lower to allow it to fit its folding wings in the tight interior spaces of aircraft carriers. Where can we find out the clearances underneath aircraft? That's a topic I've always wanted to explore. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
snypa777
|
Posted: Oct 02, 2010 - 01:28 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Actually, I just picked the F-16 as an example, insert into this space "........." whatever aircraft you want.
Madrat, not sure on clearances. |
_________________ "I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|