Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Okay out there, I know that there are plenty involved in the F/A-18E/F Rhino around here so I have a few questions for them.

1. I heard of a planned engine upgrade for 25% for thrust, is that maximum only or mil thrust too? Either way the Rhino will be a REAL hotrod when it happens. Loaded to internal fuel an upgraded Rhino would have a higher uninstalled T/W higher than a Raptor, and it has a low installation loss rate.

2. What is the progress of LO pylons? are there any LO munitions?

3. On the topic of LO, what is the reported RCS of the clean Rhino and how does it compare to the F-22? How badly does it increase when loaded? Drag doubles when loaded heavily so would the RCS of a regular A/C double, if so does the Rhino apear normal?

I hope I am not asking for classified info.

I admit that I used to be a looney Tomcat fanboy, and it is still one of the great aircraft, but the more I learn about the truth of the Rhino the more I am coming to respect it. I also happened to see it put on an awsome display in San Antonio.

F-16.net Sponsor

I gotta tell you: I'll never like the Super Bug being known as the "Rhino". That's reserved for the F-4.

huggy wrote:

I gotta tell you: I'll never like the Super Bug being known as the "Rhino". That's reserved for the F-4.

ditto

I was just thinking the same thing. There is only 1 Rhino and that is the mighty F-4

Make that 4.

okay okay I get it, everyone wants to call it the Super Bug, call it whatever you want, but does anyone have an answer to my question?

Did I mention that I'll always consider "the Rhino" to be the F-4? I don't like the fact that the Super Bug is...

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

what is the reported RCS of the clean Rhino and how does it compare to the F-22?
I hope I am not asking for classified info.

A quote I came across:
It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores. None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.
[/b]

thank you for an answer, I was wondering if it was an order of magnatude less than a "legacy" fighter or not, as if it isnt it would really be a waste of time. Stupid Logrithmic scales. lol.

In all seriousness, you should be able to dig/google around on the AW&ST/aviation/science websites, and find some good, if "unofficial", data that might be what you're looking for.

thanks for the tip, I was too busy trying to find stuff on the Boeing site, which never tells anything.

Anything dealing with L.O. is at least Secret. Sorry man.

I have secret clerance!! lol, It still wouldnt help me find info bc I dont "need to know" I only ask because people always seem to be spounting the F-22 as having an RCS of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 mm^2 (greatly exagerating)

Call the F/A-18 anything you want, just not a Rhino.

Phantoms Phorever.

-Cranky Old Men

Attention all!! McDonald Douglas would like to introduce to you a palne that will be flown in the front lines of combat by the USAF, USN, USMC, and even the UK. This amazing fighter will have the ability to fly at speeds exceeding Mach 2, carry up to 8 air to air missiles WHILE carrying 15 500lb bombs!! It will serve in the front lines for nearly 30 years! What is this amazing aircraft?? The good Ol' Double Ugly F-4 Phantom. JSF seems like a silly goal when looked at in that respect. sorry to get off topic, but I see all the Phantom Lovers are coming to this thread.

The SH is a dog. Current thrust figures on the spec sheet say 22k each engine. Tests found 20k each when installed. ( of course thrust differs by several conditions, alt, temp etc ) to an already overweight and draggy design.

Some Super Hornet myths knocked down:

1. Stealth ( this is alarming because that word is actually used in some of the recent print ads Shocked

and sales PowerPoint briefs). It has low observable appliances and engineering built into it's design. Smart and a good thing but NOT STEALTH. And not in any credible low observable category. When you hang weapons and gas on it, it isn't very L.O. and certainly not stealth. Rolling Eyes

2. 30-40% more range. Shocked

Yeah that one is still thrown around in congressional progress reports by clueless admirals Shocked

It has up to 40% ( + or - depending on E or F ) more internal fuel than a legacy Hornet in it but that does not translate to 30 to 40 percent more range on strikes even when hanging the bigger external tanks. GAO found a typical strike config radius with legacy around 410 miles and Super for 490 miles Wink

. Reason is it is a bigger air frame with a bigger wing and more weight for more drag. It is definitely a welcome improvement but lets not get too happy with the car brochure please.

3. Mach 1.8 top speed. Well it may have pulled that off in early tests clean or near clean.... Funny that even the Boeing site has pulled that down to Mach 1.6. Surprised

And with any weps load it will wheez trying to do mach below 10,000ft.

4. It wasn't prototyped and it was sold to congress as an upgrade to the Hornet ( congress believed it hook, line and sinker Laughing

) Where for the most part it is really a new design airframe. The wing is a mish-mash of compromises that required a band aid fix later. Hey... you want the low speed to get aboard ship didn't you?

5. Bringback, the ability of how much unexpended fuel and stores weight you can bring back to the ship.... This gets scary here as I have seen PowerPoint sales slides and reports to congress stating 3 times the bringback of the legacy Hornet. How about 38% -/+ more to be a bit more close. That is a far cry from 3 times Rolling Eyes

The bringback is certainly nice. Lets not pull out the crackpipe when making up briefing slides to gullible congress please.

6. Now that time has gone on so far you would think it was a perfect program. Being that things like the Collier Trophy are a military industrial complex joke I wouldn't crow too much. It is better than a sharp stick in the eye but older MD studies showed the big drop tanks could be put on legacy Hornet, that the always mentioned Super Hornet "growth potential" was NEVER fully explored in the legacy Hornet ( more MD studies ) and that given the peace dividend was so important to the post cold war U.N. lovers. New production legacy Hornets with improvements would have been "good enough" considering the direction Navy wanted to dumb down the carrier air wing. Super Hornet, for its cost, didn't bring enough improvements to the table to justify its cost in days of thin checkbooks ( I have seen the photos from the 1990s where several legacy Hornets were "canned" and put up on saw horses so that Hornets going out on fleet deployment had enough spares. Remember the goal is not what is good for a reasonable national defense but what is good to keep the military industrial complex fed and keep graft going to politicians.

7. The jet is slow enough that almost any current and many past combat jets can contempt of engage it. Someone forgot to tell the Navy that just because the Cold War ended, Big SU production didn't. A big SU can contempt of engage a SH. The reverse isn't true. Contemptible that admirals would let something like this get on carrier decks just because the going got rough. ( the ship building lobby always demanding their fief, A-12 failing, and the procurement holiday-peace dividend BS that happened in the 1990s. Carrier air power is a crown jewel asset. It deserves top aircraft.

I could go on. The engine upgrade is not funded by DOD but being looked at by GE. I will watch with great interest. As upgrades like this in an industry that uses the words, "low-risk", "cost", and "warfighter" way too much, means that the engine upgrade may give you a choice of more output with reduced reliability Wink

Have an engine guy explain that too you. Even if money is no object a current engine design may or may not give you both on a power upgrade. Matter of fact I think the GE website talks about this with the upgrade.

SH is a great Strike Fighter for what it is and the fact we have it. It has a new car smell at least. It does a lot of things well. We didn't have the money and only got weak admirals to push the project through. The days of Bull Halsey, Admiral Richover, Areigh Burke are over. What you get today are perfumed princes that go along to get along. So the Super Hornet is a perfect jet for them.

Block II Super Hornet makes a nice strike jet for the carrier deck. By the current plan we saved billions in carrier air wing operating costs over the years. Line maintenance on Super Hornet is also excellent in it's design.
In the end though, what SH gave us is a shorter strike circle around the carrier and no, no-peer air domination long range fighter. SH is taking new tech avionics and a few new design methods and melding it with a 1970's design jet. Avionics by them self do not make a macho combat jet.

With tons of the U.S. budget going to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Which... has had a drastic affect on JSF cost structure and significant production delays, now and even more in the future, Boeing is going full guns to sell more Super Hornets. Remember also Navy requested a slow down in JSF delivery. Legacy Hornets aren't getting any younger and there is effort now to buy more Supers and get them funded. Super Hornet may in fact be the major .... and if JSF funding gets worse considering we are funding the war on credit.... Super Hornet might be the only combat aircraft we see for the carrier deck for a long long time. Things like the Littoral Combat Ship program going on life support due to mis-management Surprised

and other numersous big programs of all shapes and sizes DOD wide being mercy killed with a pillow, means that future budget battles will have the service secretaries jumping into the ring ready to fight to get what scraps of funding are left for traditional big hardware purchases. It's going to get real bloody.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

A few Rhino questions