F-16.net

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Neno wrote:

Sorry boys, what is Rhino?? Question

Also the Rhino name for the Super Hornet is useful for safe flight operations around the carrier. Especially since we have a mix of new and legacy Hornets that make up a carrier air wing. Using "Rhino" in the flight ops over the radio and internal coms... lets everyone know what they are dealing with to safely handle an aircraft with a heavier weight and other things. Especially setting up the arrestor cables for each landing. A Rhino plus it's bringback weight vs. a legacy Hornet plus it's bringback weight are as you would know... very different.

F-16.net Sponsor

Tom Hahn, commander of the german MiG-29 said, that Superhornet has similar dogfight caracteristics, but lacks the brutal thrust weight ratio of the MiG-29. "Someone she (SH) has to drop her nose and than you get her."

http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Presse/Playboy.htm

I've seen MiG-29 an Typhoon in display many times, no doubt that typhoon is even better.

Btw.
IRIS-T missles are reported to shoot down incomming amraams in simulated engagements.

It's time for our american fellows to accept that europe has designed a fine fighter.

I'm really looking forward to se some DACT results Typhoon vs. F-22/35.

One last point on the Superhornet. French Rafale pilots liked it very much, because it was a tougher opponent than F-14s back in 2003.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Good info` ELP, was wondering why the "Rhino" name is used. RCS being spoiled by stores on any legacy jet is going to present problems!

I saw some Lockheed engineers who were involved with F-117 development talk about the early days... One particular test bird was showing very good LO on a test flight, suddenly, the radar returns jumped right up. The reason, and I sh@t you not, a screw head popped up on the fuselage increasing returns. That is what the guy said. Discovery Wings special on stealth and the development of the F-117, from the Hopeless diamond to GW1, Kosovo et al... Cool

Last edited by Thumper3181 on Feb 27, 2007 - 02:39 AM; edited 2 times in total

Quote Checksixx

Quote:

You apparently havn't seen a Raptor doing its thing...wait till you see the demo.

I can't wait to even see a Raptor in flight. I will be down around Langley this summer and am looking forward to doing some serious Raptor and Rhino spotting.

Snypa

Quote:

FOX toes the party line so effectively we would be better informed watching Sesame Street.

Again you mix up their commentary for their news reporting. Unlike in europe and some left wing (NY Times comes to mind) media outlets many reputable news outlets in the states still keep their editorializing separate from news reporting. There is no argument that FOX's editorial bent is right of center. Their news reporting is neither left nor right, just news.

Speak the Truth

Quote:

Thumper seeing as you insist to bring politics

It was not I who started it but you.

"Also remember the BBC are the ones who published the article, and my point still holds about them. Anything negative towards the government, civil service and even the forces (although they have changed their stance on that with Iraq, as they can use the 'poor troops in Iraq' to attack Mr Blair). I don't know if that article is true or not about the mock engagements."

Speak the Truth

Quote:

has something to attack Mr Blair

Which really is a shame. I don;t always agree with him but he was/is right in Iraq and he had the balls to do something about it. Rather than skewer him he should be held in very high regard. It's things like this that make me nervous about where the UK stands.

Elp

Quote:

RCS and Super Hornet are almost an oxymoron. Add stores to it and that goes away.

No it is not. Sure external stores add to RCS at some angles but the increase is relative and still serves to greatly reduce detection and lock range.

Quote:

Not only more drag but good luck on trying to be avoided by any other top kit radar out there. The "Super" in the Super Slow Hornet can't get around that.

How come those in the know don't share your opinion?

Checksixx

Quote:

It's time for our american fellows to accept that europe has designed a fine fighter.

Yes they have in some aspects but not when you consider the total package. Is the Tiffy going to give an Eagle fits, sure. The Eagle is 4th gen AC. Hornet is 4.5 Gen.

Quote:

IRIS-T missiles are reported to shoot down incoming amraams in simulated engagements.

Are you sure about that one?[/quote]

Last edited by PhillyGuy on Feb 27, 2007 - 01:41 AM; edited 1 time in total

Speak of the devil...

Quote:

Navy Details New Super Hornet Capabilities

The U.S. Navy's "Advanced Super Hornet" will tie together an electronic attack system with a powerful new radar that would allow the aircraft to find, deceive and, perhaps, disable sophisticated, radar-guided air-to-air, surface-to-air and cruise missiles. Moreover, it could do so at ranges greater than that of new U.S. air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

The newest version of the Boeing Super Hornet, equipped with an advanced, Raytheon-built APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, can spot small targets--even stealthy cruise missiles--at ranges great enough to allow an effective defense. Navy officials are loath to talk with any detail about the metrics of electronic attacks and admit only to "extremely significant tactical ranges" for EA effects against air-to-air and surface-to-air radars, Gaddis says. However, other Pentagon and aerospace industry officials say that while air-to-air missiles are struggling to reach the 60-100-mi.-range mark, some sophisticated electronic attack effects can reach well beyond that.

Source

So can we now officially call it the Super Duper Hornet or do we have to wait until the Block III to do that? That new engine and those new LO features will go well with the sensor/avionics package of the Block II.

Also some other things to point out, there is now way the CAPTOR performs better than the APG-79 in critical areas, range, fidelity, power, processing, multi-mode capabilities, time, LPI etc... Also the Typhoon will use the AIM-120C-5 until they get the Meteor (circa 2012) the Rhino uses the AIM-120C-7 and will get the D fairly soon.

Personally I would rate the Super Hornet as being in the top three, in terms of A2A fighters, F-22, F-35 Typhoon-Hornet tied for third (currently).

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

Checksixx

Quote:

It's time for our american fellows to accept that europe has designed a fine fighter.

Yes they have in some aspects but not when you consider the total package. Is the Tiffy going to give an Eagle fits, sure. The Eagle is 4th gen AC. Hornet is 4.5 Gen.

Quote:

IRIS-T missiles are reported to shoot down incoming amraams in simulated engagements.

Are you sure about that one?

[/quote]

Do me a favor and find out who said what you quoted above because it sure wasn't me...thanks...Check

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

PhillyGuy wrote:

Speak of the devil...

Quote:

Navy Details New Super Hornet Capabilities

The U.S. Navy's "Advanced Super Hornet" will tie together an electronic attack system with a powerful new radar that would allow the aircraft to find, deceive and, perhaps, disable sophisticated, radar-guided air-to-air, surface-to-air and cruise missiles. Moreover, it could do so at ranges greater than that of new U.S. air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

The newest version of the Boeing Super Hornet, equipped with an advanced, Raytheon-built APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, can spot small targets--even stealthy cruise missiles--at ranges great enough to allow an effective defense. Navy officials are loath to talk with any detail about the metrics of electronic attacks and admit only to "extremely significant tactical ranges" for EA effects against air-to-air and surface-to-air radars, Gaddis says. However, other Pentagon and aerospace industry officials say that while air-to-air missiles are struggling to reach the 60-100-mi.-range mark, some sophisticated electronic attack effects can reach well beyond that.

Source

So can we now officially call it the Super Duper Hornet or do we have to wait until the Block III to do that? That new engine and those new LO features will go well with the sensor/avionics package of the Block II.

Also some other things to point out, there is now way the CAPTOR performs better than the APG-79 in critical areas, range, fidelity, power, processing, multi-mode capabilities, time, LPI etc... Also the Typhoon will use the AIM-120C-5 until they get the Meteor (circa 2012) the Rhino uses the AIM-120C-7 and will get the D fairly soon.

Personally I would rate the Super Hornet as being in the top three, in terms of A2A fighters, F-22, F-35 Typhoon-Hornet tied for third (currently).

Super Hornets avionics especially with Block II are nothing less than stunning. However the threat in the Pacific Rim only shows more Flankers. The Flanker can contempt-of-engage this jet. Going after a Super Hornet strike package and trying to stop it is one thing. As we learn more about AESA, a Flanker may have some trouble. Where the problem is, is the reverse. Where on an intercept, you need speed and gas. Compared to a Flanker which can blow around a Super Hornet and contempt of engage it much like F-14s..... F-14s with 2-4 Mk83's .... could go around a legacy Hornet and there was nothing it could do to stop it if the F-14 applied contempt of engagement. The Hornet didn't have the speed. And a legacy Hornet is not slower than a Rhino.

The hot avionics in Block II Super Hornet allow it to do some wonderful things. However it can't graft on a new set of balls to make the weezbox Super Hornet... get up and go.

Super Hornet is a nice strike aircraft. Pressing it into things outside of it's skillset is dangerously risky.

Checksixx

Quote:

Do me a favor and find out who said what you quoted above because it sure wasn't me...thanks...Check

My sincere apologies Checksixx. It speaks volumes about a person who chooses such a deceptively similar name as yours and then basically posts drivel. I will be more carful with checksix in the future.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

Thanks man! Check

Last edited by PhillyGuy on Feb 27, 2007 - 05:46 AM; edited 1 time in total

elp wrote:

However the threat in the Pacific Rim only shows more Flankers. The Flanker can contempt-of-engage this jet.

Yeah... I'm not quite sure I buy that, in order for that to happen you'd need a LOT of gas and super-cruise capability, greater level of SA, no support aircraft (AWACS tankers), no buddy tank system and more importantly it has to be a one on one situation with no other available fighters or support platforms. With AEGIS ships on the move, dedicated tanker/AWACS support aircraft as well as a buddy tank system combined with multiple carries (a lot of fighters) running isn't going to work. You'll just prolong the inevitable while not even attempting to accomplish a given mission.

Speed and power do not matter as much nowadays, if it did then the F-16 couldn't have possibly killed Russian fighters with more speed and gas... We all know that just ain't so.

Anyway, the Block III Hornet will have a more powerful and efficient engine.

Quote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

However the threat in the Pacific Rim only shows more Flankers. The Flanker can contempt-of-engage this jet.

I did not say that. In fact I disagree with the staement as much as you do for all the same reasons.

My apologies to you Thumper, seems we're having quoting problems here, my excuse it that it was quite late here when I wrote that response.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

PhillyGuy wrote:

elp wrote:

However the threat in the Pacific Rim only shows more Flankers. The Flanker can contempt-of-engage this jet.

Yeah... I'm not quite sure I buy that, in order for that to happen you'd need a LOT of gas and super-cruise capability, greater level of SA, no support aircraft (AWACS tankers), no buddy tank system and more importantly it has to be a one on one situation with no other available fighters or support platforms. With AEGIS ships on the move, dedicated tanker/AWACS support aircraft as well as a buddy tank system combined with multiple carries (a lot of fighters) running isn't going to work. You'll just prolong the inevitable while not even attempting to accomplish a given mission.

Speed and power do not matter as much nowadays, if it did then the F-16 couldn't have possibly killed Russian fighters with more speed and gas... We all know that just ain't so.

Anyway, the Block III Hornet will have a more powerful and efficient engine.

The Pacific is damn big. Carriers can't be everywhere. And it isn't just the USN that the Flanker is a threat to. Considering that countries in that region are getting more and more wealthy.Ten.... twenty.... thirty years from now, that region is going to have more Flankers. Where... you can put just about anything you want as far as weapons and avionics on a Flanker. The tech advantage between 4th gen fighters is shrinking quickly. COTS hardware and software are being put in Flankers in a variety of creative flavors.... all with the help of Israeli, French, and Indian third party support. Super Hornet on the other hand doesn't have the growth room. It doesn't have near the performance. The upgrade engine you talk about putting in it is at least for the Navy maybe not export... unfunded at this time. Even if it got a few more pounds of thrust ( it is currently underpowered.... the current engine might produce 22k on a test stand, but not when put into that airframe ( air intake for one reason ). The airframe is bigger and dragger. The laws of physics don't change for the Super Hornet just because of a press release. Putting Super Hornet by itself, unsupported into the PacRim as time goes by, only invites more and more risk. AEGIS means nothing where most carrier ops are away games. Wait, until within the next 30 years when the various Pacrim countries, flush with cash, start buying and help funding the R&D for, .... all the fancy kind of long range weapons you can hang on a Flanker. NCW... net centric warfare is great. However, take out an AWACs or other airborne C2ISR node with a long range AWACs killing missile from a Flanker and you can start to see the problem. I am not too keen on Flanker fanboys. However, add all the above things up and it becomes a real problem. Do a head count of Flankers in the Pacrim. Now do a head count of what they will be as it gets sold more and more. Add more capability to them as time goes on with sensors, ESM, weapons, the whole shootin' match. Only a few of these have to leak through to make the 6 O'clock news very unpleasant. The menu of long range A2G weapons to hang on this thing is long. An oil facility, building of interest, land based long range radar and anything else can suffer.

Elp you have brought up some good points and they are some of the reasons why I wish it where 1990 again and Dick Cheney did not have a brain fart when he opted not to develop the Tomcat21 but it is not 1990 and fortunately the SH did not turn out too badly. Sure the SH has some shortcomings but it is nothing that cannot be mitigated.. Will it be up to task 30 years from now no one can say. What we can be certain of is that th US has a very large lead in avionics, EW, stealth and radar and it is not likely to change much. The SH will either be upgraded to meet the threat or UCAVs and the JSF will take it's place. The Navy seems to be pretty happy with the SH. You and I know darn well that if they where not they would be screaming bloody murder.

Quote:

COTS hardware and software are being put in Flankers in a variety of creative flavors

Maybe but most of the things done to the SH are not COTs.

Consider this. Way back in the good old days the big three built muscle cars. They did one thing well. Go very fast in a straight line. Thats a Flanker. Nowadays we may not have cars that are quite as powerful but they go fast enough and they can turn and stop and do it all in comfort.

The design philosophy behind the SH is truly brilliant. They took a lemon and made lemonade. Which is good.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Checksixx

Quote:

Do me a favor and find out who said what you quoted above because it sure wasn't me...thanks...Check

My sincere apologies Checksixx. It speaks volumes about a person who chooses such a deceptively similar name as yours and then basically posts drivel. I will be more carful with checksix in the future.

Have a look at my registration date.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Raptors in exercises with Eurofighters?