Super Hornet performance question

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 18:03
by edpop
I am reading a book on the development of the Super Hornet. The article says they enlarged the wing to add more weapons stations. A problem came up with the deployment of the weapons from these pylons so they had to angle the pylons outward at the leading edge by 3 or 4 degrees. This obviously increases drag and therefore range and performance. Any idea what kind of numbers we are talking about? 1%, 5%, 10% etc?????????????????? According to the book the Super Hornet still exceeds the range and weapons carrying ability of the legacy Hornet.

Thanks,
Ed

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 18:42
by southernphantom
I don't know the specific numbers, but the drag penalty and subsequent performance decreases are significant to the point that the E/F can allegedly not exceed M1.0 at sea level

RE: Super Hornet performance question

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 18:45
by weez
I'm not sure of actual percentages for you, edpop, but there is no doubt those canted pylons contribute significantly to the Super Hornet's drag. The Rhino still enjoys a range advantage and weapons bring back capability over the legacy aircraft, but the Hornet drivers pride themselves on their aircrafts superior acceleration and maneuverability.

Re: Super Hornet performance question

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 19:38
by aaam
edpop wrote:I am reading a book on the development of the Super Hornet. The article says they enlarged the wing to add more weapons stations. A problem came up with the deployment of the weapons from these pylons so they had to angle the pylons outward at the leading edge by 3 or 4 degrees. This obviously increases drag and therefore range and performance. Any idea what kind of numbers we are talking about? 1%, 5%, 10% etc?????????????????? According to the book the Super Hornet still exceeds the range and weapons carrying ability of the legacy Hornet.

Thanks,
Ed


When the publicity was first ramping up for the Super Hornet, much was made of the SH's two additional pylons. It was touted that with these pylons more weapons could be carried than on the regular Bug. The word "carried" was parsed very carefully, as were many of the claims for the SH early on. The statement was completely true. More weapons could be carried on the Super Bug due to the new weapons stations. What was not publicized was that powered weapons could not actually be fired from these two new stations due to clearance problems from the fuselage and possibly intake ingestion (not sure about the latter). As more and more critics caught on to this it became somewhat of an embarrassment, since in effect this meant that those pylons were simply to carry more external fuel. Plus, it limited what the plane could do. With the deaths of the F-14D and the A/FX (remember, F/A-18E/F was supposed to be an interim aircraft pending fielding of the latter), the Navy really had nowhere else to go. So, those inner pylons were toed outward, which solved the fuselage interference problem. Of course, that now meant there was an interference issue with the outer pylons so they were toed out as well.

While this had little impact on the SH with clean wings, it did increase drag when it was actually carrying weapons. I don't know the actual number, I've heard 4- 8%, but I don't have any hard data or reliable confirmation--may not have ever been revealed, and would vary with external load. This is significant because lowered drag is where most of the SH's increased range is supposed to come from (it also carries a lot of extra fuel, but the F414s have a higher fuel burn than the F404s). Now, since it was a Gov't initiated change that toed out the pylons, Boeing/NG can not be penalized if the SH range goes down, because supposedly the a/c met the final range requirement in the original configuration. How much that is over the regular Bug always was a matter of debate. The noted aviation writer James Stevenson has written that if you put the SH's larger external tanks on the legacy Hornet (yes, it can use them), the only scenario where the E/F exceeds the legacy Hornet's range is in the ground attack mission where the increase in radius is 64 miles. Dunno, don't follow it that closely anymore.

RE: Re: Super Hornet performance question

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2011, 06:26
by geogen
I'm wondering if some kind of composite 'plate' could be designed to fit the length of both heavy SUU-79 wing stations and bolt-on a single pylon somewhere between the two stations?

This way the Super could have a more aerodynamically streamlined heavy pylon instead of the outward toed pylons, as well as be able to arm the far outside wing pylons and the fuselage points too, without any additional drag other than normal stores drag? This would imply a CFT + centerline Tank configuration as opposed to the wing EFT load-out and could therefore free up the new central heavy point for other stores?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2011, 06:31
by edpop
Thanks for all your answers. I would assume on the Growler that the pylons for hanging all the electronic warfare equipment would not be angled out since that equipment stays with the aircraft all the time.????????

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2011, 06:55
by geogen
Nope, even under the current pylon settings, the Growler's 'pods' are 'angled out'.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 07:03
by aaam
geogen wrote:Nope, even under the current pylon settings, the Growler's 'pods' are 'angled out'.


Plus, it would reduce compatibility and be too expensive to have one design for the Super Bug and another for the Electric Bug.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2011, 20:52
by golden_eagle
The pods still have to leave the aircraft cleanly if necessary to jettison them...

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2011, 00:51
by haavarla
I'm not sure of actual percentages for you, edpop, but there is no doubt those canted pylons contribute significantly to the Super Hornet's drag. The Rhino still enjoys a range advantage and weapons bring back capability over the legacy aircraft, but the Hornet drivers pride themselves on their aircrafts superior acceleration and maneuverability.


Well you could have fooled me :devil:
http://www.youtube.com/user/KonstantinK ... nGQMWbbIxQ

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2011, 18:09
by aaam
haavarla wrote:
I'm not sure of actual percentages for you, edpop, but there is no doubt those canted pylons contribute significantly to the Super Hornet's drag. The Rhino still enjoys a range advantage and weapons bring back capability over the legacy aircraft, but the Hornet drivers pride themselves on their aircrafts superior acceleration and maneuverability.


Well you could have fooled me :devil:
http://www.youtube.com/user/KonstantinK ... nGQMWbbIxQ


Weez no doubt is referring to the acceleration and maneuverability of the regular Bug vs. the Super, not relative to a/c such as the SU-34. On the other hand, though, they have managed over a period of twenty years to crank out a few more Bugs than the SU-34 production quantity (as of Dec., 2010) of six.

Usually, it's us who are making the rationale, but in this case it would be the Russians, for a change, who would be saying, "The best they have isn't as good as what we haven't got".

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2011, 20:10
by haavarla
Weez no doubt is referring to the acceleration and maneuverability of the regular Bug vs. the Super, not relative to a/c such as the SU-34. On the other hand, though, they have managed over a period of twenty years to crank out a few more Bugs than the SU-34 production quantity (as of Dec., 2010) of six.


Strange.. AFAIK, the F-18 was not designed with a strike mission profile in mind, so its a moot point.
The Su-34 however are an direct competitor vs most of the Rhino mission profiles.. bar CV operation. Hense my post above.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2011, 22:07
by aaam
haavarla wrote:
Weez no doubt is referring to the acceleration and maneuverability of the regular Bug vs. the Super, not relative to a/c such as the SU-34. On the other hand, though, they have managed over a period of twenty years to crank out a few more Bugs than the SU-34 production quantity (as of Dec., 2010) of six.


Strange.. AFAIK, the F-18 was not designed with a strike mission profile in mind, so its a moot point.
The Su-34 however are an direct competitor vs most of the Rhino mission profiles.. bar CV operation. Hense my post above.


Assume your first sentence is about the legacy Bug. Originally there were to be two versions of the Hornet, the F-18, fighter, and the A-18, attack/strike. The Hornet group later said the aircraft was so versatile that the systems could be combined into one airframe equally good at both, thus the designation F/A-18.

The A-D models are more agile than the E/Fs.

SU-34 is set up for longer ranged strike but does retain its Flanker performance. As far as barring CV operation, don't forget that it is of the same family as the SU-27/33KUB.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2011, 22:07
by weez
haavarla wrote:
Weez no doubt is referring to the acceleration and maneuverability of the regular Bug vs. the Super, not relative to a/c such as the SU-34. On the other hand, though, they have managed over a period of twenty years to crank out a few more Bugs than the SU-34 production quantity (as of Dec., 2010) of six.


Strange.. AFAIK, the F-18 was not designed with a strike mission profile in mind, so its a moot point.
The Su-34 however are an direct competitor vs most of the Rhino mission profiles.. bar CV operation. Hense my post above.


aaam: That is exactly what I was trying to say, thank you. Perhaps I should have worded it better.

Having said that, I think I'm going to go find a thread about another fighter and randomly say how (fill in the blank) is better. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 00:28
by geogen
Regarding Super Hornet performance, it's better utility would probably be as a stand-off missile truck (in both a2a and a2g) and keep it under mach .85?

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 03:03
by aaam
geogen wrote:Regarding Super Hornet performance, it's better utility would probably be as a stand-off missile truck (in both a2a and a2g) and keep it under mach .85?


That's not really feasible in the environment in which the Navy has to operate. Remember, there are only so many armed a/c you can put on a carrier's deck, and for the near term, they're all going to be Hornets.

The SH isn't a pig, and its electronics are really advanced.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 08:40
by haavarla
It is an advance pig then. :)
Why makes such a good striker as the SH, and then put it on some CAP or Airsuperiority mission if you have other Jets like F-15C/F-22 hanging around?
If the SH is on a CV, i'll understand. It has to do CAP mission, but otherwise..

The Su-34 has ofcourse the same mission profile, and should never do anything else than Strike missions.
The Su-27KUB are nothing more then a Naval Trainer, the difference from a KUB to the Su-34 are quite extensive.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 18:00
by weez
haavarla, you keep wanting to draw comparisons between the Super Hornet and your ungodly looking SU-34. Okay. Perhaps since your airplane is strictly a striker why don't we compare apples to apples, hmm? Maybe we should compare overall strike effectiveness of your hordes of SU-34's versus our Super Hornets which have been putting ordnance on time on target for years now. Also how effective is your SU-34 going to be at hitting it's targets when you don't have air superiority (unlike some Caucasus flare up). The SH is more than capable of fighting its way to the target and fighting it's way out. And the advanced avionics combined with the superb APG-79 give it a lethal BVR air to air capability. But your airplane doesn't really do that all that well does it? Maybe a couple of archers for close in self defense but it's really nothing more than a monstrously large fighter sized bomber is it? And don't get me started at comparing Russian A2G weaponry versus their Western counterparts. It just wouldn't seem fair. I will concede that the SH has somewhat lackluster kinematic performance compared to many other multirole fighters, but its low speed high AOA performance shines. Combine this with JHMCS and high off-boresight AIM-9X and this seems to negate these kinematic disadvantages in a knife fight.

Also, on a personal note, I hesitate to refer to any airplane that defends MY freedoms as a, "pig". The only US fighter I'd call a, "pig," would be the A-10. Then I'd fondly refer to it as, "the Hog"!

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 18:19
by weez
Oops, I wasn't done yet. Hey haavarla, why did you bring the SU-34 into this thread anyway when the OP asked some simple questions about the Super Hornet?!? Seems really random and off topic to me. Here's a novel idea for you. Why don't you just...wait for it...start a NEW THREAD about your diminutive fleet of SU-34's. I have a title idea for you as well. Why don't you call it, "The SU-34 and why it does everything better than the Super Hornet, but not really.". Wait, that's probably too long. Maybe it could be, "SU-34...is niiiice," and we can imagine it in our best Borat voice. Oh well, I'm sure you can figure something out.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 20:23
by aaam
haavarla wrote:It is an advance pig then. :)
Why makes such a good striker as the SH, and then put it on some CAP or Airsuperiority mission if you have other Jets like F-15C/F-22 hanging around?
If the SH is on a CV, i'll understand. It has to do CAP mission, but otherwise..

The Su-34 has ofcourse the same mission profile, and should never do anything else than Strike missions.
The Su-27KUB are nothing more then a Naval Trainer, the difference from a KUB to the Su-34 are quite extensive.


Generally, F-15Cs and F-22s are not going to be around when the Navy or Marines need them. SH is all that's being bought for all those Navy missions, built is mainly a attack aircraft, which was what the Navy's crying need was when the A-12 got canceled. It wasn't envisioned when it was first mooted that it would be the only thing on the decks, but now here we are.

The point I was making about the SU-27/33KUB is that it shared a common ancestry and airframe design and performance with the SU-34 in response to your point about performance from a carrier plane. It's not carrier operation that would adversely affect the overall performance. In any case, bringing in the SU-34 is kind of off topic in a discussion about the SH.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 21:03
by haavarla
haavarla, you keep wanting to draw comparisons between the Super Hornet and your ungodly looking SU-34. Okay. Perhaps since your airplane is strictly a striker why don't we compare apples to apples, hmm? Maybe we should compare overall strike effectiveness of your hordes of SU-34's versus our Super Hornets which have been putting ordnance on time on target for years now. Also how effective is your SU-34 going to be at hitting it's targets when you don't have air superiority (unlike some Caucasus flare up).


Gee if i hurt you feelings, i'm sorry. The Su-34 has more in common with the SH than any other jet both in USN and VVS.
I have one question on SH performance, name me the mission profile of the RAAF SH today?


Oops, I wasn't done yet. Hey haavarla, why did you bring the SU-34 into this thread anyway when the OP asked some simple questions about the Super Hornet?!? Seems really random and off topic to me. Here's a novel idea for you. Why don't you just...wait for it...start a NEW THREAD about your diminutive fleet of SU-34's. I have a title idea for you as well. Why don't you call it, "The SU-34 and why it does everything better than the Super Hornet, but not really.". Wait, that's probably too long. Maybe it could be, "SU-34...is niiiice," and we can imagine it in our best Borat voice. Oh well, I'm sure you can figure something out.

Great.. what to respond here.. Just answer my question above. The Su-34 has more in common with both the F-15E and SH, they have the same mission profile, bar the CV operation.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 22:20
by weez
Okay, I'll play your silly little game, haavarla, and I assure you, you did not hurt my feelings.

First: To answer your question, the role of the Super Hornet within the RAAF is as a stopgap multirole fighter capable of undertaking A2A and A2G missions until their F-35's enter service. What's next, are you going to start quoting Kopp?!?

Second: You have said that the SU-34 has more in common with the Strike Eagle and SH but I would counter that both US aircraft have air to air component to their mission profile that far exceeds that of the Sukhoi.

My third and final point: You seem to be ignoring the fact that you intejcted your Sukhoi fan-boy-ism into a thread where it is simply and completely off topic. One moment we're answering someone's questions about the SH and then you decide to post a video about the platypus and start blabbering about how much better it is. Are you kidding?!? Dude, create a new topic about the darn airplane and I'm sure you'll get plenty of people to discuss it with you. Heaven knows there's plenty of Sukhoi fan boys on this forum.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:07
by haavarla
uhh.. :?:
Pls backtrack and show me exactly where i said anything of the kind?
Other than calling the SH an advance Pig, i actuall said the SH is a great Striker.

Another question. What kind of A to ship amunition has the RAAF?

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 03:45
by weez
haavarla wrote:uhh.. :?:
Pls backtrack and show me exactly where i said anything of the kind?
Other than calling the SH an advance Pig, i actuall said the SH is a great Striker.

Another question. What kind of A to ship amunition has the RAAF?


Anything of what kind?!?!? I suspect there is a bit of a language gap here so I'm trying to be patient with you. Please quote me on something and I'll be happy to respond to something specific.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 07:53
by haavarla
weez wrote:Second: You have said that the SU-34 has more in common with the Strike Eagle and SH but I would counter that both US aircraft have air to air component to their mission profile that far exceeds that of the Sukhoi.

My third and final point: You seem to be ignoring the fact that you intejcted your into a thread where it is simply and completely off topic. One moment we're answering someone's questions about the SH and then you decide to post a video about the platypus and start blabbering about how much better it is. Are you kidding?!? Dude, create a new topic about the darn airplane and I'm sure you'll get plenty of people to discuss it with you. Heaven knows there's plenty of Sukhoi fan boys on this forum.


About me blabbering the Su-34 beeing so much better? Nonsens, i have said nothing of the kind.

The Rhino still enjoys a range advantage and weapons bring back capability over the legacy aircraft, but the Hornet drivers pride themselves on their aircrafts superior acceleration and maneuverability.


So me posting an vid of the Su-34 in answer to this post is Sukhoi fan-boy-ism?
If that is so, then this post surly are McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ish.
Even the F-15E have longer range and payload here.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 17:31
by weez
About me blabbering the Su-34 beeing so much better? Nonsens, i have said nothing of the kind.


Well, you quoted me completely out of context for one. I'm guessing with regards to the, "range advantage and weapons bring back capability," comment I made in which I was intending to explain that the SH has a range advantage over the LEGACY Hornet, not all 4th gen strike fighters! Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, sorry! However, you quickly enter the conversation, quote me, and respond by saying, "Well you could have fooled me," with the devil emoticon, and posting your SU-34 airshow vid. How is anyone supposed to take that when we're all responding to some guys question about a specific airplane?!? I get it. I'm guessing you're Russian and you really like Russian airplanes. That's FINE. I'm actually okay with that. The point I'm making here is that you seemed to have taken me out of context and posted your comment and video in a thread where it DOES NOT BELONG. Further, you continued to degrade the SH by referring to it as a, "pig," and later an, "advance pig."

So me posting an vid of the Su-34 in answer to this post is Sukhoi fan-boy-ism?


Yes. It DOES NOT BELONG in this topic. You clearly like Russian airplanes (I've seen some of your other posts you know). Like I said before, I'm okay with that. I would argue that most people on this forum are fanboys of something. A lot of us are Viper fanboys (myself included). This is f-16.net after all. I consider myself a Viper, Strike Eagle, Raptor, Lightning II, Super Hornet, Gripen fan boy. Probably in that order. Everyone likes something different. That's okay, right?!? I don't mind that you're a Sukhoi fan boy, dude. It's okay.


If that is so, then this post surly are McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ish.


You are incorrect. The OP is reading a book about the Super Hornet and had some questions. Several of us were answering those questions. How does that translate to McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ism?!?!? How can I get you to understand this, haavarla? How can I make this any clearer to you? This argument is getting very tiring. The poor OP is probably getting notifications every time someone responds to his thread and probably thinking, "what a couple of clowns!"


Even the F-15E have longer range and payload here.


WHOA!!!!! Seriously?!?!? That was a HUGE revelation!!!!! (oozing with sarcasm in case you didn't notice).
:wink:

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 17:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The comment made before the posting of the video was that the Legacy Hornet has more agility while the Super Hornet has more range and payload. The posting of the Platypus was irrelevant as the comparison was only between the two Hornets. The comparison was only between F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E-G. And frankly the Su-34 has WAY more in common with the Su-27 (Su-30) family than the Super Hornet has with the Hornet. Su-34 has new nose (for side by side cockpit), new electronics, and canards. SH has new fuselage, new wing, new tails, new engines, new electronics, new cockpit. The SH is an entirely different plane with the exception of visual layout.

you beat me to it weez

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 18:03
by weez
Thank you, sprstdlyscottsmn. :D He doesn't get it, though.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 08:02
by haavarla
No just an advanced pig, it was Geogen whom refered it to a Pig(allthough not his words, yours), not me.
I didn't see the compairison was only between F-18 and SH, my bad.
Fine, sorry about the OT.
Weez, u need to step down from your high horse there.. u are way too Personly in your posting style.

Moving on.
Will the SH++ International Roadmap ever see daylight after it was out of the MMRCA? I guess there is the Brasil Tender left?

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 16:02
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The comment made before the posting of the video was that the Legacy Hornet has more agility while the Super Hornet has more range and payload. The posting of the Platypus was irrelevant as the comparison was only between the two Hornets. The comparison was only between F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E-G. And frankly the Su-34 has WAY more in common with the Su-27 (Su-30) family than the Super Hornet has with the Hornet. Su-34 has new nose (for side by side cockpit), new electronics, and canards. SH has new fuselage, new wing, new tails, new engines, new electronics, new cockpit. The SH is an entirely different plane with the exception of visual layout.

you beat me to it weez


I'm somewhat skeptical on the claims of agility advantages of the legacy Hornets vs Super Hornets, in terms of practical real world conditions. The Super Hornet has superior care free handling qualities, and better post stall agility. This allows the Super Hornet pilot to fly much more aggressively.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 17:05
by weez
I'm somewhat skeptical on the claims of agility advantages of the legacy Hornets vs Super Hornets, in terms of practical real world conditions. The Super Hornet has superior care free handling qualities, and better post stall agility. This allows the Super Hornet pilot to fly much more aggressively.


That is an interesting point, wrightwing. My understanding was that the legacy Hornet had the Super Hornet beat in terms of acceleration (and, thus, kinematic performance) but I had forgotten that the SH has a more advanced FBW system and is a more forgiving airplane to fly.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 17:41
by weez
haavarla wrote:No just an advanced pig, it was Geogen whom refered it to a Pig(allthough not his words, yours), not me.
I didn't see the compairison was only between F-18 and SH, my bad.
Fine, sorry about the OT.
Weez, u need to step down from your high horse there.. u are way too Personly in your posting style.

Moving on.
Will the SH++ International Roadmap ever see daylight after it was out of the MMRCA? I guess there is the Brasil Tender left?


You're right. I kind of jumped all over you there in an over zealous effort to garner your understanding. I apologize for being a little too rough.

That is a good question regarding the SH International Roadmap and Boeing's lost bid in the Indian competition. I really don't know. I believe Brazil's president favors French equipment so maybe the Rafale will win out there. For some reason I just don't see them choosing SH. Has the International version been offered to Brazil? The advantages the International SH brings to the table seem like a, "no brainer," decision for any foreign potential customer. Japan is another country considering the SH though I strongly suspect they will choose the F-35 not wanting to be out of the fifth gen game in the region.

Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 18:42
by wrightwing
weez wrote:
I'm somewhat skeptical on the claims of agility advantages of the legacy Hornets vs Super Hornets, in terms of practical real world conditions. The Super Hornet has superior care free handling qualities, and better post stall agility. This allows the Super Hornet pilot to fly much more aggressively.


That is an interesting point, wrightwing. My understanding was that the legacy Hornet had the Super Hornet beat in terms of acceleration (and, thus, kinematic performance) but I had forgotten that the SH has a more advanced FBW system and is a more forgiving airplane to fly.


And I've never seen a legacy Hornet do some of the feats, that I've seen Super Hornets perform. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be at certain airspeeds- aircraft A has advantages, and at other airspeeds- aircraft B has advantages. This is the case when trying to compare F-15/16s with Fulcrums/Flankers, etc... The Russian planes tend to have better low speed qualities, whereas the F-15/16 tend to have better transonic performance.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 18:51
by wrightwing
weez wrote: Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(


I suspect it'll be 5-10yrs before we hear of another major upgrade to the Super Hornets, just due to budgetary constraints. The international standard would certainly bring a lot of new capability, should it be needed.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 20:21
by aaam
wrightwing wrote:
weez wrote:
I'm somewhat skeptical on the claims of agility advantages of the legacy Hornets vs Super Hornets, in terms of practical real world conditions. The Super Hornet has superior care free handling qualities, and better post stall agility. This allows the Super Hornet pilot to fly much more aggressively.


That is an interesting point, wrightwing. My understanding was that the legacy Hornet had the Super Hornet beat in terms of acceleration (and, thus, kinematic performance) but I had forgotten that the SH has a more advanced FBW system and is a more forgiving airplane to fly.


And I've never seen a legacy Hornet do some of the feats, that I've seen Super Hornets perform. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be at certain airspeeds- aircraft A has advantages, and at other airspeeds- aircraft B has advantages. This is the case when trying to compare F-15/16s with Fulcrums/Flankers, etc... The Russian planes tend to have better low speed qualities, whereas the F-15/16 tend to have better transonic performance.



The SH has the best high AoA capabilities of any plane we've got, especially at lower speeds, except for the F-22. At airshows and in low speed contest this can be used to skid the plane around to point the nose radically. Also, since the SH is the Future, the demo teams are going to play that a/c up. There are some PR reasons for that. The legacy Hornet, though, is more agile overall (and also enjoys carefree handling). This is acknowledged by the Navy and MDD/NG, and I would wager that crews would flew both would say that as well, but would argue that the SH seems agile "enough" for the roles and missions for which it is intended (strike first and foremost) and has the more advanced strike electronics.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 20:34
by aaam
wrightwing wrote:
weez wrote: Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(


I suspect it'll be 5-10yrs before we hear of another major upgrade to the Super Hornets, just due to budgetary constraints. The international standard would certainly bring a lot of new capability, should it be needed.


If the F-35C comes to fruition, there's no need for the International Standard Hornet in the USN. Even if it doesn't, are the improvements worth the R&D cost, or would it be better to do something smaller and go to the next generation would be the question.

Part of the reason for the proposed International SH is that except for Australia, who basically did a paper analysis rather than full competition of what would be the most cost effective alternative to bridge between their Hornets and the F-35, the SH has never won a competition, and usually doesn't even make the finals. Clearly something major had to be done, especially with the availability of the Eurocanards, if they ever want to get export sales. Thus the "International Standard" Super Hornet. Now all they have to do is find someone who will pay for its development.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 20:58
by wrightwing
aaam wrote:
The SH has the best high AoA capabilities of any plane we've got, especially at lower speeds, except for the F-22. At airshows and in low speed contest this can be used to skid the plane around to point the nose radically. Also, since the SH is the Future, the demo teams are going to play that a/c up. There are some PR reasons for that. The legacy Hornet, though, is more agile overall (and also enjoys carefree handling). This is acknowledged by the Navy and MDD/NG, and I would wager that crews would flew both would say that as well, but would argue that the SH seems agile "enough" for the roles and missions for which it is intended (strike first and foremost) and has the more advanced strike electronics.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/d ... Hornet.htm

Myth #2 – "Bigger means faster." Fact – "Bigger means more ordnance, flying farther, staying airborne longer." The F/A-18E/F moldline changes that provide for improved range, payload, and carrier suitability also, however, contribute to a steeper drag rise at transonic speeds, resulting in slightly slower level accelerations to supersonic speeds. A clean (no external stores) Lot XIX C/D will nose out a clean E/F in a drag race from 0.85 to 1.2 at 35,000 ft. But F/A-18E/F subsonic performance in both MIL and MAX power is significantly superior to that of a C/D, and manifests itself in shorter takeoff distances, better climb rates, and faster accelerations. In unloaded, tactically representative accelerations, the two aircraft are indistinguishable. "Apples-to-apples" comparison of the two aircraft must be done cautiously, however. One must remember that the E/F moves the C/D’s ever-present external wing tank fuel into the fuselage and wings. Deploying with a single centerline tank (its projected typical carrier configuration), the E/F’s acceleration performance will be a substantial improvement over a cruise-configured (two fuel tanks on wing stations) C/D everywhere in the flight envelope.

Myth #3 – "Then, bigger means less maneuverable." Fact – "In the subsonic regime, the E/F performs as good as or better than a C/D in almost every respect." The challenge posed to the contractor was not to compromise the Hornet’s superb capabilities as a dogfighter. "As good as, or better than..." was the standard to meet. The result is that the turning performance charts overlay one another. At high angles of attack, the E/F’s agility truly shines, with superior roll performance and much more carefree handling.

The heritage Hornet was already the stand-out, high angle-of-attack (alpha) machine in the U.S. inventory. The E/F is "hands-down" superior in that environment. As of the end of July, the test program had completed the high-alpha and spin programs on the E-models for all symmetric loads, and on the F-model for fighter and centerline loadings. Lateral asymmetries and F-model stores testing are in progress.

There will be no angle-of-attack restrictions for the symmetrically loaded E or F models. Spin characteristics are benign, with a simplified recovery compared with that of the C/D, and no sustained falling-leaf departure exists in any stores loading tested.

My last flight in the E/F was in aircraft E4, loaded with three 480-gallon tanks and 4 Mk 83 bombs, and with the center of gravity ballasted to the aft limit of 31.8 percent. In that configuration, the airplane maneuvered without restriction from -30 to +50 degrees AOA, performed zero airspeed tailslides and spins to 120 degrees per second of yaw rate, and unsuccessfully attempted to generate a stable falling-leaf departure. We’ve engineered out all the known departure modes for rolls up to 360 degrees.


here were a few other reasons for my skepticism. It looks to me like the areas where the legacy Hornets were superior was in the M.85 to M1.2 race. The FCS on the Supers, is far more sophisticated too, as I'd alluded to, and it appears that in combat configurations, the legacy Hornets won't outmaneuver or outclimb a Super Hornet.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 09:34
by 1st503rdsgt
Some information on possible upgrades.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... nal%20F-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 11:56
by geogen
wrightwing wrote:
weez wrote: Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(


I suspect it'll be 5-10yrs before we hear of another major upgrade to the Super Hornets, just due to budgetary constraints. The international standard would certainly bring a lot of new capability, should it be needed.


That was one of the most forward-looking analysis and sound assessments made on the subject of realistic future US recapitalization strategy and planning. :shock:

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 23:12
by aaam
wrightwing wrote:
aaam wrote:
The SH has the best high AoA capabilities of any plane we've got, especially at lower speeds, except for the F-22. At airshows and in low speed contest this can be used to skid the plane around to point the nose radically. Also, since the SH is the Future, the demo teams are going to play that a/c up. There are some PR reasons for that. The legacy Hornet, though, is more agile overall (and also enjoys carefree handling). This is acknowledged by the Navy and MDD/NG, and I would wager that crews would flew both would say that as well, but would argue that the SH seems agile "enough" for the roles and missions for which it is intended (strike first and foremost) and has the more advanced strike electronics.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/d ... Hornet.htm



here were a few other reasons for my skepticism. It looks to me like the areas where the legacy Hornets were superior was in the M.85 to M1.2 race. The FCS on the Supers, is far more sophisticated too, as I'd alluded to, and it appears that in combat configurations, the legacy Hornets won't outmaneuver or outclimb a Super Hornet.


Keep in mind that CDR Niewoeher was part of the SH test team and does have to use the official position. While not questioning his integrity in any way, that has to be kept in mind. His story of how the SH came to be has been shaded in a few places, i.e. Hornet 2000 was a MDD study series of proposals designed for export growth versions of the Bug, not for a new naval version. A new enhanced strike naval version had been proposed a few years earlier, but had been rejected as inadequate for the Navy's needs (the A-6F was chosen instead).

Also, whenever you read about proclamations about the SH in the early days you've got to watch how carefully parsed they tended to be. We've already noted how before the toeout of the pylons, the Navy was very careful to say SH had tow new pylons that could carry weapons. Most assumed this naturally meant they could fire weapons, but the Navy never actually said that.

In your myth #3 quote there was more to that paragraph, one of the later statements says, "...adding the Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and a highly maneuverable off-boresight missile (AIM-9X) generates E/F total-system lethality that exceeds that available from a much more agile airplane with current missiles". This is absolutely true, but begs the question of why that's emphasized. Nobody except the Raptor beats theE/F in low speed high AoA, but that statement is true for any two a/c combinations you care to name. Originally the C/Ds were to get that system first because they were the real air-to-air birds. It was decided to reverse the order because the E/F would benefit more. Until it was canceled, USN made much of the fact that it was the AIM-152 that would compensate for any A2A concerns of the E/F (there was even an article about this in Aviation Week).

Remember, E/F is really a strike aircraft first and a fighter second. It wouldn't be surprising that the C/D would be somewhat more agile overall in the fighter role. Does it mean that the SH is a pig? Again, no.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 20:21
by geogen
aaam -

Curious what exactly is the "Transonic Flight Quality Improvement wing package" component of the proposed Super Hornet International Roadmap?

And fwiw... imho, Boeing should seriously consider an actual preliminary designation for naming this 'International Roadmap' fighter. Even for raw marketing sense, the 'International Roadmap' tag is fairly convoluted and broad and here and there and maybe later on and hoping to get this and we'll have wait and see, pending the possibilities, etc, etc... I'd personally feel they should sit down and put a more concrete and formulated 'Roadmap' proposal together with prioritized developments of interest and even rough timelines (given a joint-development partnership). But perhaps in the interim, just kick start the dang thing already with a single upgraded component to be fast-tracked and in-house developed (eg the CFT) and give it a recognizable name on record: eg F-18E+ increment 1. I mean, no offense but in a blink of an eye it could be 2013 with still little to go by but a brochure. Really wanting to be a Super Hornet fanboy on this... I'd have an 'F-18E+' with CFT flying at Paris Air show in 2012 with announced plans for an upgraded engine flight test by a determined date. :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 00:57
by bjr1028
aaam wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
weez wrote: Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(


I suspect it'll be 5-10yrs before we hear of another major upgrade to the Super Hornets, just due to budgetary constraints. The international standard would certainly bring a lot of new capability, should it be needed.


If the F-35C comes to fruition, there's no need for the International Standard Hornet in the USN. Even if it doesn't, are the improvements worth the R&D cost, or would it be better to do something smaller and go to the next generation would be the question


With the current budget environment, IF might be the question.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 18:03
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:
That was one of the most forward-looking analysis and sound assessments made on the subject of realistic future US recapitalization strategy and planning. :shock:


Well with the priority being F-16XLs with CFTs, large aperture IRSTs, AESA, advanced decoy/jammers, thrust vectoring, and uprated motors, there simply isn't enough money for more Super Hornet upgrades in the near term. :P

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 02:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
LOL

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 05:47
by 1st503rdsgt
geogen wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
weez wrote: Here's a big one.... Will the US Navy ever upgrade their Super Hornets to International standard? With budget issues and the F-35 on the horizon I just don't see it happening any time soon. :(


I suspect it'll be 5-10yrs before we hear of another major upgrade to the Super Hornets, just due to budgetary constraints. The international standard would certainly bring a lot of new capability, should it be needed.


That was one of the most forward-looking analysis and sound assessments made on the subject of realistic future US recapitalization strategy and planning. :shock:


I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but does geogen have to look like such a Boeing stooge?

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 18:48
by geogen
LOL, you got me WW...

Yeah, give me 20x souped up F-16XL and 20x F-15E+ armed with... you missed one thing... dual-moded AIM-162... and I'll see your 20x F-35 + 20x Super Hornet block II+ come as they are at Red Flag 2018. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 20:41
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:LOL, you got me WW...

Yeah, give me 20x souped up F-16XL and 20x F-15E+ armed with... you missed one thing... dual-moded AIM-162... and I'll see your 20x F-35 + 20x Super Hornet block II+ come as they are at Red Flag 2018. :D


When will the dual moded AIM-162 reach IOC, in this hypothetical scenario? :wink:

By the way, the F-35 with the AIM-120D+, will still have first look, first shoot, against modded F-16XLs, and F-15E+s, no matter what kind of IRST they have, even with AIM-162s.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 23:29
by geogen
Well assume R&D began last year under a fast-tracked Program of sorts. Given it 5 yrs.:thumb: The AGM-72 using off-the-shelf Rim-66 SAM and sticking a Shrike seeker in the nose could be a good baseline to work from.

From development to operational deployment in about 2 yrs. The hypothetical AIM-162 concept is a bit more complex, granted, and might need a modified Mod motor with a little less speed off the launch. A dual mode seeker could be a follow-on derivative... so maybe quicker and cheaper to start with two separate integrated seeker variants, eg an improved skin-searching NCADE IIR seeker variant and possibly the 2nd being a mmW seeker variant jointly developed from the PAC-3? A block C dual-mode variant could follow-on. The idea is... invest more in actual munitions ensuring higher pK as a counter vs next-gen air vehicles. The more expensive the air vehicle a potential adversary is flying, a proportionate investment in rounds per engagement should be increased too. There's no such thing as economy in the next-gen.. fewer airframes will be deployed, being much more capable and much higher cost per unit not to mention the expensive pilots. Engagements could be over very fast, if innovation and development is behind the curve. New systems capabilities of a competitor might not necessarily be known about in detail or underestimated.

With respect to the Super Hornet here... this type of munition would actually be designed with the Super Hornet in mind - not necessarily being the highest energy fighter in the field. Such a munition though would definitely amplify the SH's performance by offsetting weaker acceleration speeds sometimes required to maximize AIM-120's effectiveness. That is, why bleed so much vital gas from the Super, when the missile could be doing that work instead? Using the references made on the need for a SLAMRAAM-ER to equal the range of the ESSM, one could further hypothesize that an air-launched round from say Mach .7 and 30k would be similar to an AIM-120 launched from 50k @ Mach 1.5?

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 15:59
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:Well assume R&D began last year under a fast-tracked Program of sorts. Given it 5 yrs.:thumb: The AGM-72 using off-the-shelf Rim-66 SAM and sticking a Shrike seeker in the nose could be a good baseline to work from.

From development to operational deployment in about 2 yrs. The hypothetical AIM-162 concept is a bit more complex, granted, and might need a modified Mod motor with a little less speed off the launch. A dual mode seeker could be a follow-on derivative... so maybe quicker and cheaper to start with two separate integrated seeker variants, eg an improved skin-searching NCADE IIR seeker variant and possibly the 2nd being a mmW seeker variant jointly developed from the PAC-3? A block C dual-mode variant could follow-on. The idea is... invest more in actual munitions ensuring higher pK as a counter vs next-gen air vehicles. The more expensive the air vehicle a potential adversary is flying, a proportionate investment in rounds per engagement should be increased too. There's no such thing as economy in the next-gen.. fewer airframes will be deployed, being much more capable and much higher cost per unit not to mention the expensive pilots. Engagements could be over very fast, if innovation and development is behind the curve. New systems capabilities of a competitor might not necessarily be known about in detail or underestimated.

With respect to the Super Hornet here... this type of munition would actually be designed with the Super Hornet in mind - not necessarily being the highest energy fighter in the field. Such a munition though would definitely amplify the SH's performance by offsetting weaker acceleration speeds sometimes required to maximize AIM-120's effectiveness. That is, why bleed so much vital gas from the Super, when the missile could be doing that work instead? Using the references made on the need for a SLAMRAAM-ER to equal the range of the ESSM, one could further hypothesize that an air-launched round from say Mach .7 and 30k would be similar to an AIM-120 launched from 50k @ Mach 1.5?


The issue isn't so much the range of the missile, as how soon the plane can fire it. The F-35's situational awareness advantage will allow first shot against a non-stealthy target.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2011, 22:16
by geogen
I couldn't disagree more. The effective engagement zone of a particular modern missile is very much a relevant component to overall air-superiority employed by a given force structure. Absolutely, an aircraft which can fire first will have an advantage for numerous tactical reasons. But with respect to situational awareness goes, it's a matter of being 'good enough' in relation to the munition capabilities one is deploying, which is the relevant factor.

In a 1v1 frontal approach, no doubt the block III F-35 in Red Flag 2018 should have the advantage over a block II+ Super Hornet (even with an IRST), assuming both aircraft are armed equally.

But given the proper tactics in a multi-ship vs multi-ship contest, asymmetrically equipped and armed legacy aircraft can very easily take the 'frontal aspect' factor out of the equation and very possibly achieve a asymmetrical advantage in kind.

If you are questioning what sort of 'off-frontal' factor I am eluding to, it should be apparent in terms of next-gen sensor capabilities in relation to both the RF (emission and receiver) and IR signature spectrum.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2011, 02:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I have to disagree that any 4th gen, no matter how advanced, can get first look, much less first shot, on a flight of F-35s that are spaced dozens of miles apart allowing for a HUGE RF search volume and greatly increasing the odds that EODAS/EOTS will find everything in a hundred miles.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2011, 03:38
by navy_airframer
The matter of putting the 120-D on the F-35 is really only a matter of some software changes at the most.

I do think that other 4th gen aircraft could get the first look and first shot but it would mean some big mistakes on the F-35 drivers part or mabe some malfunctioning electronics. I think thats another factor to take into account. How reliable will all this new technology be.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2011, 04:19
by Prinz_Eugn
Geogen,
Any tactics or special techniques could also be used by the F-35s, nullifying any advantage the F-18s have. Heck, you could even put that air-to-air SM-6 or whatever on an F-35 as easily as a SH.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2011, 08:46
by SpudmanWP
Easier on the F-35 due to UAI, aka no need to do a new Blk upgrade :)

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2011, 18:14
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:I couldn't disagree more. The effective engagement zone of a particular modern missile is very much a relevant component to overall air-superiority employed by a given force structure.


The practical limits of engagement ranges, are the ranges at which your sensors can detect/identify/track a target, and provide targeting info to a weapons system. It doesn't matter if you carry a missile with a theoretical range of 500nm, if your sensors can't engage a target at more than 30nm. All of that extra range is wasted against a stealthy target. If the stealthy target can detect you at >100nm, and engage at >60nm, then the non-stealthy target will always be at the disadvantage.

In a 1v1 frontal approach, no doubt the block III F-35 in Red Flag 2018 should have the advantage over a block II+ Super Hornet (even with an IRST), assuming both aircraft are armed equally.


At extreme BVR ranges(beyond the ability of a laser range finder to laze), how exactly do you envision the targeting information to be provided to the missile? You need azimuth, elevation, speed, etc... info to get your missile within it's WEZ. A flight of F-35s will detect the Super Hornets long before they're detected either with IR or RF(remember- the F-35s have a radar advantage(both range and LPI), a lower IR signature, and sophisticate ESM systems to detect non-stealthy data-links, RF emissions, comms, etc.... ) Any tactics the Super Hornets can use, so can the F-35s. The F-35s will even enjoy a kinematic advantage, as they can launch missiles at a higher speed than the Super Hornets.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2011, 16:04
by geogen
Ww - the concept involving an 'asymmetrical' stand-off AAM system on a platform such as the Super Hornet can in part be justified given that the Super will NOT necessarily have the similar kinematics you note when up against potential adversarial air-to-air contests in say Red Flag, or otherwise. It would therefore be the main justification right there, as a means to OFFSET potential disadvantages inherent to the Super Hornet. As conjectured... such a munition if employed at 25k ' and mach .7 would offer equivalent performance capabilities of an AMRAAM employed at higher altitudes and at higher launch speeds, etc.

Something to also note: the Super Hornet will not necessarily always be up against an F-35 in such air-to-air contests and may have to deter and contend with more identifiable bogies at farther ranges. You're trying to box this into a "Since Super Hornet won't exploit this system vs an F-35 in the first place, then it is an invalid system for the Super" argument.

But again, the basis for this 'performance-multiplying' and capability offset is to allow for asymmetrical conditions to exist and is based under a scenario where the opposing force in Red Flag would NOT be equipped w/ such a system. As noted, if say the F-35 did in fact come equipped with such an equal load-out then absolutely, the advantage of such an extended range next-gen which the Super (or for argument sake, even another F-35) might have had, would be completely nullified.

Now, based on the actual theoretical Red Flag 2018 contest here... given standard equipped block III F-35A under a given fixed budget and equipped with standard C7 AMRAAM (possibly a 120D)... the argument would then be that a near-equal investment per unit would by definition allow the Super Hornet to enable said asymmetrical equipment. Thus, you can't just assume to simply upside the F-35s procurement budget too, to further match said asymmetrical Super Hornet, lol, nice try. If so, then even more proportionate offset budget could be directed to the Super, accordingly.

But I'll still have counter your assumptions that a simple formula is in play here with regards to your notional 30nm engagement zone (which will definitely increase once the first salvo is launched against the lead Super (or apparent SuperHornet), or afterburner is engaged and/or any turns are made by the F-35) in this 'Red Flag' contest.

Various tactics might come into play too, in which one could envision involving hand-off capabilities, where a more capable BVR munition could have greater terminal kinematics when chasing after a/c which are evading, feinting and or running, etc. The superior munition would flat out offer superior tactical flexibility to the crew and force the opponent into less advantageous positions accordingly. Now for good measure, couple this superior sized Blue Force package of Supers (per an equal investment value scale) with superior counter-measure equipment vs RF seekers and the equation will be further altered.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2011, 19:03
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:Ww - the concept involving an 'asymmetrical' stand-off AAM system on a platform such as the Super Hornet can in part be justified given that the Super will NOT necessarily have the similar kinematics you note when up against potential adversarial air-to-air contests in say Red Flag, or otherwise. It would therefore be the main justification right there, as a means to OFFSET potential disadvantages inherent to the Super Hornet. As conjectured... such a munition if employed at 25k ' and mach .7 would offer equivalent performance capabilities of an AMRAAM employed at higher altitudes and at higher launch speeds, etc.


You're changing the parameters of this discussion. It can always be argued that having long range is a good thing. The point I'm making, is that until the Super Hornet got the APG-79, it couldn't even fully exploit the range of the AMRAAM. My point is that there is a limit to the utility of having weapons that can shoot further than one's sensors can detect. With the C7/D, the Super Hornets aren't currently at a kinematic disadvantage against legacy threats. The JDRADM is under development, and will provide the additional range

But I'll still have counter your assumptions that a simple formula is in play here with regards to your notional 30nm engagement zone (which will definitely increase once the first salvo is launched against the lead Super (or apparent SuperHornet), or afterburner is engaged and/or any turns are made by the F-35) in this 'Red Flag' contest.


Remember- the shooter need not be the aircraft providing targeting info. An F-35 can speed up to M1.6, fire a salvo, get out of burner, and change heading, while another provides 3rd party targeting. The Super Hornet may briefly detect the shooter, but due to the extended ranges, will not be able to maintain a track.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2011, 02:35
by geogen
Remember- the shooter need not be the aircraft providing targeting info. An F-35 can speed up to M1.6, fire a salvo, get out of burner, and change heading..


Exactly, and that only adds to the case supporting asymmetrical advantages :wink:

ie the Super does NOT automatically have equal kinematic advantages vs another C7/D-equivalently equipped opponent. Besides, why would you want the Super in this hypothetical scenario to have parity in the first place? That's the whole point! :thumb:

Other aircraft types, eg the F-35 for this argument would in fact potentially have superior kinematic launch performance capabilities. Remember - the missile no escape zone kinematics is NOT just about the missile. It's also about the altitude launch point and launch speed that factors in.

One could easily ponder a disadvantage at some point in the engagement, even when missiles themselves are similar.

And another point being... the justification to plan now for an enhanced, 'Plan B' AAM capability in order to remain competitive - especially as a hedge in case the highly complex, tri-mode JDRADM you mentioned is for whatever reason delayed, or deemed unreliable, or too expensive by Congress, etc.

But in the interim... a Super Hornet for one, when facing an opponent (stealthy or otherwise) who's launching his AAMs at substantially higher velocities, will likely have better pK and performance capability only if an asymmetrically performing AAM is offsetting various inherent performance disadvantages that said slower platform might have. And p.s., vs a 'stealthy' opponent, it might be debated as well, as being advantageous to have a mix of seeker types in selection, if the tiny RF seeker in the AAM in question is not the most effective capability by itself. imho

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2011, 05:27
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:

But in the interim... a Super Hornet for one, when facing an opponent (stealthy or otherwise) who's launching his AAMs at substantially higher velocities, will likely have better pK and performance capability only if an asymmetrically performing AAM is offsetting various inherent performance disadvantages that said slower platform might have. And p.s., vs a 'stealthy' opponent, it might be debated as well, as being advantageous to have a mix of seeker types in selection, if the tiny RF seeker in the AAM in question is not the most effective capability by itself. imho


The interim missile will be the D+ AMRAAM. Aside from a Mig-31, I'm still not sure which foe would have kinematic parity/superiority at this point. The C7/D enjoys a range advantage against AA10/AA12s, and no foe is going to be using the Meteor(for the forseeable future). Your assumption is that in a CAP role, a SH would stay at low altitudes, and subsonic, to engage.

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2011, 14:07
by geogen
No, not assuming Supers will be low and @ subsonic, although any aircraft could be caught off guard at such a flight. What is relevant is that in many cases, other platforms, eg the F-35, could have an advantage in terms of practical/effective launch kinematics vs the Super's. Hence, weapons kinematics could be justified to offset the disadvantage in platform kinematics.

And btw, I'm curious which variant of 'AA-12' you are referring to? Are there additional BVR A2A munitions known or unknown too, which you could make assessment of and which could be operational within 5 or yrs?

For someone who is apparently confident of a silver bullet 'interim D+' AAM (not to be confused with a +D?) anytime soon, when even the D variant is delayed and still undergoing development, one might be curious about your analysis regarding other BVR developments as well?

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2011, 19:45
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:No, not assuming Supers will be low and @ subsonic, although any aircraft could be caught off guard at such a flight. What is relevant is that in many cases, other platforms, eg the F-35, could have an advantage in terms of practical/effective launch kinematics vs the Super's. Hence, weapons kinematics could be justified to offset the disadvantage in platform kinematics.


Supers would be operating in conjunction with AEGIS Cruisers/Destroyers(with SM-2/3/6), and E-2Ds. That combined with the already formidable capability of the APG-79, it's unlikely that any threat till after 2020, would be able to catch them by surprise.

And btw, I'm curious which variant of 'AA-12' you are referring to? Are there additional BVR A2A munitions known or unknown too, which you could make assessment of and which could be operational within 5 or yrs?


I've yet to see any ram jet powered AA-12s, and the C7 out ranges the current models, not to mention the D.

For someone who is apparently confident of a silver bullet 'interim D+' AAM (not to be confused with a +D?) anytime soon, when even the D variant is delayed and still undergoing development, one might be curious about your analysis regarding other BVR developments as well?


And you honestly believe that a new missile based upon the ESSM could be ready in a short time frame, if you're so sure that the D/D+/JDRADM are far off? The D model is currently in low rate production by the way.

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2011, 19:52
by navy_airframer
Being stationed at a Test and Evaluation Squadron, I can ensure to everyone that there is no shortage of upgrades coming down the pipeline for all the Hornet models. Weather its weapons, software or hardware changes.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 07:30
by geogen
ww, apparently the D is still undergoing final development with FY12 procurement being suspended due to FY11's backlog instead of pushing ahead with concurrency.

And I would beg to differ that Supers will always be operating within such an envisioned 100nm protection umbrella of Aegis ships and SM-2/6, etc. Not to mention, that if ever in a hostile air to air contest vs fixed wing threats to the fleet and closing fast at a range of 40-50nm to the Super, it would be difficult to say SM-6 would be launched in the vicinity 100nm away if by the time the rounds reached the terminal area both surviving Super and hostile were in fact already in the phone booth.

And yes, an initial single-mode seeker ESSM variant could probably be fast-tracked and delivered even with a modified propellant rocket mod, within 4-5 yrs time. It would seem to be a more affordable viable hedge and interim capability while waiting for potential JDRADM delivery later on. imho

ps, interesting to hear that info Nav framer... Keep 'em hornets flying. Thanks for your service.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 08:58
by navy_airframer
geogen wrote:ps, interesting to hear that info Nav framer... Keep 'em hornets flying. Thanks for your service.


Thanks for the kind words. I wont go into anymore details than that partly because I dont work hands on with virtually all the upgrades and partly because it isnt worth risking my clearance for. The Super Hornet especially the bl2 is one bad a$$ machine though and its only getting better.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 16:30
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:ww, apparently the D is still undergoing final development with FY12 procurement being suspended due to FY11's backlog instead of pushing ahead with concurrency.


Suspended at Lot 25.

And I would beg to differ that Supers will always be operating within such an envisioned 100nm protection umbrella of Aegis ships and SM-2/6, etc. Not to mention, that if ever in a hostile air to air contest vs fixed wing threats to the fleet and closing fast at a range of 40-50nm to the Super, it would be difficult to say SM-6 would be launched in the vicinity 100nm away if by the time the rounds reached the terminal area both surviving Super and hostile were in fact already in the phone booth.


I agree that it can't always be taken for granted that the Supers would have the AEGIS umbrella. You do have to factor in the new abilities the E-2D provide for over the horizon shots, from surface ships. This extends that umbrella considerably. Additionally, it's highly doubtful that a Super is going to get surprised by any non VLO fighter, especially with E-2D support. The Super is going to be able to get high and fast for a launch, and then can break away from the fight, while the C7/D uses 3rd party targeting. That's why I said the exception might be a 1 vs. 1 against a Mig 31(and even then, that Mig pilot is going to have his hands full).

And yes, an initial single-mode seeker ESSM variant could probably be fast-tracked and delivered even with a modified propellant rocket mod, within 4-5 yrs time. It would seem to be a more affordable viable hedge and interim capability while waiting for potential JDRADM delivery later on. imho


The ESSM variant may enjoy some nominal advantages in range, but the percentages of shots taking advantage of that range would be minimal. I could see looking into it, if there appeared to be significant technical challenges for the D/D+/JDRADM, where they were going to be delayed for years. You have to look at threat capabilities(which the USAF/USN do), when giving the statement of requirements for new weapons systems. You also have to look that internal carriage capacity for the F-22/F-35 for such a weapon, as they'll be the basis for any new weapons(as they'll eventually form the majority of our tactical air fleets). Finally, seeing as how budgets are going to be getting tighter, everytime we divert monies to fund new programs, it puts those that are the priority at risk

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 22:03
by SpudmanWP
It is lot 26 that faces a cut, not 25

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ut-358102/

http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/arc ... ct2011.pdf

Lot 25 Production Contract Award; $647M; 528 Missiles

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 17:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
more expensive than the Phoenix? That's ironic.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 18:46
by SpudmanWP
Inflation's a bitch :)

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2011, 03:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
indeed sir!

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 09:24
by geogen
WW -

The Super is going to have plenty of time to get high and fast in time to engage any non-stealthy opponent? I'm curious how fast assuming 2 outward toed EFT? And how fast has the Super been cleared to launch AMRAAM? Is there any public data on this envelope? Either way, the Super will more likely be at a kinematic BVR launch disadvantage compared to probable adversary BVR kinematics (not limited to Mig-31) within 5 years, if not already.

Regarding internal load-out requirements, 4x ESSM should be able to fit internally within both aircraft models.

Regarding 'tighter budgets', that's the whole point. The 'alternative' budget plan including asymmetrical systems and munition upgrade/integration would cost less than current stay the course procurement budgets.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 16:14
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:WW -

The Super is going to have plenty of time to get high and fast in time to engage any non-stealthy opponent? I'm curious how fast assuming 2 outward toed EFT? And how fast has the Super been cleared to launch AMRAAM? Is there any public data on this envelope? Either way, the Super will more likely be at a kinematic BVR launch disadvantage compared to probable adversary BVR kinematics (not limited to Mig-31) within 5 years, if not already.

Regarding internal load-out requirements, 4x ESSM should be able to fit internally within both aircraft models.


If the SH is on a CAP/Fleet defense profile, you can be assured that they aren't flying at 20k fteet. They'll already be at 40k+. The SH has no problems flying supersonic(or launching) with AMRAAMs. Which weapon do you envision these adversaries possessing? Not even the RuAF has ramjet variant AA12s, much less more likely foes, which means a C7/D armed SH won't have nearly the disadvantages you're implying. This is precisely why the USAF/USN haven't gone the ESSM variant route.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 19:13
by SpudmanWP
Here is the SH flight envelope. Notice that its max speed while caring on two BVRs (m1.57) is less than the F-35's. Start loading up on BVRs & tanks and the speed drops to the m1.2 range.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 18:50
by sprstdlyscottsmn
and that is a reason for needing the EPE if you ask me (which no one did honestly). If you are limited to M1.3 with 7AAM and no gas tanks...

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 20:00
by tacf-x
Ouch. No wonder the Super Bug has so many detractors when it comes to performance. The F-35 clearly is no slouch in kinematics despite what the naysayers say but IIRC the Super Hornet is notorious for being hideously underpowered for an aircraft its size. I'm with sprstdlyscottsmn. It's about time the EPE got fitted to the Rhino.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2011, 01:57
by geogen
WW-

I think you're searching for a scenario to fit your argument. Flat out, the Super will not have the same launch kinematic capacity as other modern multi-role or air superiority platforms. You're trying to paint the Super (or put lipstick on it) into something it unfortunately isn't.

It will need to punch EFT just to push into a low supersonic range if required to 'evade', or maneuver into a WEZ position'. Even with the EFT gone, due to platform drag, the fuel burn rate necessary to keep at supersonic will be unsustainable for any competitive duration.

Why do you insist in putting the Super at a disadvantage at 2017 Red Flag vs F-15, Euro Fighter, Rafale (with Meteor), possibly even F-16 in BVR, and for the remainder of the decade ? Let the missile offset the performance disadvantage, regardless of any justified engine upgrades the jet could receive.

And as far as your expectation that the AMRAAM C7/D + Super combo will maintain a dominant AAM EZ envelope for the next 5-8 years vs non-western, 'rest of world' competition... one can assume that defense planners are not assuming this.

I'll tell you what ww, since you're a nice guy I'll let you have 3 standard block 2.5 Supers, no IRST, equipped with 4x -120D for Red Flag 2017. I'll take 2 Supers configured with CFT, enhanced IRST and 4x AIM-162 (2 w/ a large mmW seeker + 2 w/ NCADE's IIR seeker). I'm curious to hear your reply.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2011, 19:20
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:WW-


It will need to punch EFT just to push into a low supersonic range if required to 'evade', or maneuver into a WEZ position'. Even with the EFT gone, due to platform drag, the fuel burn rate necessary to keep at supersonic will be unsustainable for any competitive duration.


The SH doesn't need to stay supersonic after launch. In fact it'll likely speed up, fire, then break off, while another platform guides the missile. This will give the missile improved kinematics, while simultaneously putting as much distance as possible between the SH, and target.

And as far as your expectation that the AMRAAM C7/D + Super combo will maintain a dominant AAM EZ envelope for the next 5-8 years vs non-western, 'rest of world' competition... one can assume that defense planners are not assuming this.
That's precisely what they're assuming with the D/D+ will dual pulse motor. The C7 enjoys noticeable advantages over current threats, and the D/D+ have a much larger envelope than the C7.
I'll tell you what ww, since you're a nice guy I'll let you have 3 standard block 2.5 Supers, no IRST, equipped with 4x -120D for Red Flag 2017. I'll take 2 Supers configured with CFT, enhanced IRST and 4x AIM-162 (2 w/ a large mmW seeker + 2 w/ NCADE's IIR seeker). I'm curious to hear your reply.
That's hardly what I'm saying. Naturally if you have 2 aircraft where all else is equal, then the one with the longer ranged missile will have the advantage. If however you have better sensors than your foe, and a lower RCS, then you can still engage first, with a shorter ranged missile. However in the case of the SH, it's not currently armed with a shorter ranged missile, than its foes. By the time foes get a missile that exceeds the Ds capabilities, the JDRADM will be online.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2011, 10:02
by geogen
Of course, for every hand-off tactic in Red Flag 2017 the Super could employ, so too could the faster sustained flying (superior evading) and faster dash speed flying opponent employ. Thus, it's still a kinematic disadvantage for the Super - all missiles being equal.

Hence the valid argument for justifying asymmetrical AAM capability to ensure air dominance vs superior performing platforms.

And with respects to your final statement, it would indeed be great to be able to schedule the competition's missile Program, to ensure your own superior advantage, but unfortunately those convenient aspects are not in one's control. One would assume defense planners do not assess things this way as well and one would assume that 'other' missile capabilities (eg Meteor and at least a couple others) will not remain static over the the next 5+ years either.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2011, 13:35
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:Of course, for every hand-off tactic in Red Flag 2017 the Super could employ, so too could the faster sustained flying (superior evading) and faster dash speed flying opponent employ. Thus, it's still a kinematic disadvantage for the Super - all missiles being equal.
My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.

And with respects to your final statement, it would indeed be great to be able to schedule the competition's missile Program, to ensure your own superior advantage, but unfortunately those convenient aspects are not in one's control. One would assume defense planners do not assess things this way as well and one would assume that 'other' missile capabilities (eg Meteor and at least a couple others) will not remain static over the the next 5+ years either.


The Meteor isn't a threat to the SH, and refer to my post above for the rebuttal of the second point you made.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2011, 13:42
by haavarla
My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.


Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2011, 15:51
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote:
My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.


Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..


What year can we expect the first Su-35 squadron to be operational? If the Flanker is using long range search, then the SH will likely be able to stay EMCON, and use it's ESM systems/third party targeting, to engage. It's highly doubtful that an Su-35 with a number of missiles hanging under the wing, will not have a higher RCS than a SH. If we assume that the USN acquires the CFTs, then that'll lower the RCS considerably. If they use the stealth weapons pods, then that would give the SH a considerable RCS advantage over any Flanker variant.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2011, 23:19
by thestealthfighterguy
Don't get me wrong here I'm a Hornet fan, But why is it called "Super" if it's climbs slower, flys slower and turns slower? Or do they mean Super radar hornet?

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 00:48
by tacf-x
It's super in the sense that it has far greater range, combat radius, payload capacity, endurance, etc. to give it a bomb truck type of performance to at least compensate for the retirement of the A-6 Intruder.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 04:36
by Thumper3181
wrightwing wrote:
haavarla wrote:
My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.


Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..


What year can we expect the first Su-35 squadron to be operational? If the Flanker is using long range search, then the SH will likely be able to stay EMCON, and use it's ESM systems/third party targeting, to engage. It's highly doubtful that an Su-35 with a number of missiles hanging under the wing, will not have a higher RCS than a SH. If we assume that the USN acquires the CFTs, then that'll lower the RCS considerably. If they use the stealth weapons pods, then that would give the SH a considerable RCS advantage over any Flanker variant.


Some facts:

The SU-35 is huge, much bigger then the SH. Just a few advantages in terms of RCS - The SH has plane form alignment, the inlets are shaped and use ram blockers. RAM is used extensively. What does the SU-35 use, how effective is it. Well other than marketing propaganda we don’t know but again we do know the US has had over 30 years of operational stealth experience. I would think they know better than anyone else how to make a plane stealthy, how to maintain that stealth in operation, and how to fight using it to advantage. Frankly, the SU-35’s eppenage is probably a greater contributor to RCS than any REMOVABLE pylon that the SH would be carrying. Lets keep in mind, unless you carry everything internally your RCS is big. The SU-35s just happens to be much bigger and the Super’s avionics and weapons carriage allow one plane to fly clean while directing the rest of the squadron’s missiles.

Look down range is but one factors that determiner’s a fighter radar’s potency. Some much more important characteristics is resiliency to jamming, target acquisition and discrimination in clutter and sharpness of beam. In fact the only better radar/FC combinations than the Super Hornet’s flying today are in the US and none of them are in squadron service other then the F-22 FCS. It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA. It’s much more than just the hardware, the software has as much if not more to do with potency than the equipment. The US has a 20 year head start on this technology and outspends everyone else on continuing development. So as far as fire control goes, unless the Russians pull a rabbit out of a hat the SU-35 will be severely disadvantaged in regards to fire control in relation to the SH.

Your point on legacy assets may be true but even Russia’s latest assets are in most respects inferior and will take years to field in active squadrons.

Now lets talk about those pylons and the SH’s supposedly slow speed. The plane is not under powered, far from it and anyone that doubts me can go search youtube to see any one of a number of demonstrations when the SH flies with 6 or 7 thousand pounds of external stores and its gear extended. The “drag” everyone tries to attribute to the slightly canted outward pylons is negligible. It’s the shape of the wing that has been optimized for high cruise speed and low speed carrier approaches that makes the plane draggy in the transonic range. But clearly it’s fast enough otherwise the Navy would have went for the upgraded engines. Perhaps they know something some of the turn and burn fan boys do not. Perhaps it’s the ability to detect, lock on and engage your enemy sooner than your enemy can that is the real strength of the SH in air to air?

Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 05:57
by destroid
It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA.


Well, if you ignore Australia's Super Hornet, Singapore's F-15SG, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 07:13
by SpudmanWP
The Super Hornet and F-15 are both US designed jets and the F-2, IIRC, has Federated not Integrated avionics.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 14:34
by Thumper3181
Case in point.

destroid wrote:
It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA.


Well, if you ignore Australia's Super Hornet, Singapore's F-15SG, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2.


Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 07:51
by geogen
WW your ~50km C7/D range superiority claim over potential opposition until the JDRADM flies into action is good for internet fanboy posts only, I'm sorry.

Otherwise, simply suspend F-35 procurement until a mature block 4 (and JDRADM) is proven and ready for mass production - save the procurement cash and accelerate SH procurement + -120D, -88E and JASSM-ER development/procurement..

Call it a day.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 15:59
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:WW your ~50km C7/D range superiority claim over potential opposition until the JDRADM flies into action is good for internet fanboy posts only, I'm sorry.



Even if a brand new variant came out tomorrow, matching the range, how many years do you think it'd take before it was widely proliferated? You're not the only person out there, that concerns themselves with threat weapons, and their capabilities compared to our systems. You have some intriguing views- our missiles aren't good enough, so we need to work on something new right away, but our aircraft are good enough, that we can wait 10yrs before we do anything.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 23:08
by haavarla
Some facts:

The SU-35 is huge, much bigger then the SH. Just a few advantages in terms of RCS - The SH has plane form alignment, the inlets are shaped and use ram blockers. RAM is used extensively. What does the SU-35 use, how effective is it. Well other than marketing propaganda we don’t know but again we do know the US has had over 30 years of operational stealth experience. I would think they know better than anyone else how to make a plane stealthy, how to maintain that stealth in operation, and how to fight using it to advantage. Frankly, the SU-35’s eppenage is probably a greater contributor to RCS than any REMOVABLE pylon that the SH would be carrying. Lets keep in mind, unless you carry everything internally your RCS is big. The SU-35s just happens to be much bigger and the Super’s avionics and weapons carriage allow one plane to fly clean while directing the rest of the squadron’s missiles.

Look down range is but one factors that determiner’s a fighter radar’s potency. Some much more important characteristics is resiliency to jamming, target acquisition and discrimination in clutter and sharpness of beam. In fact the only better radar/FC combinations than the Super Hornet’s flying today are in the US and none of them are in squadron service other then the F-22 FCS. It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA. It’s much more than just the hardware, the software has as much if not more to do with potency than the equipment. The US has a 20 year head start on this technology and outspends everyone else on continuing development.
So as far as fire control goes, unless the Russians pull a rabbit out of a hat the SU-35 will be severely disadvantaged in regards to fire control in relation to the SH.


And you would know the performance of the Irbis-E radar.. well then, just pull it out from you hat and show us.
If the Ribis-E will do as its promised from the manufactors. It will be harder to jam out due to wider bandwith, its more than doubled from the PERO radar. its got faster prossessors and more peak power, just as it isn't an AESA doesn't mean its automatical crap in performance.
The Irbis will be able to scann faster and scann much more volume.. hows that for disadvantage?

Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.


You can keep yor smart comments in you hat..

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2011, 05:45
by Thumper3181
haavarla wrote:Some facts:
The Irbis will be able to scann faster and scann much more volume.. hows that for disadvantage?


Yes, yes,. Of course comrade.

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2011, 20:56
by haavarla
That was very productive.. :doh:
One liners like these should be banned.

It is well known that any modern PESA radar has about twice as fast scann over the same volume.
Like it or not it is just one of the compromises that goes into any modern AESA.
And the AN/APG-79 has an Fixed Array, while the Irbis-E can steer it all over, hense it can scann much more volum. And as any fixed array, it will also get limit range at the corners of the scann area.
Is this so hard to understand?

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2011, 21:46
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote:That was very productive.. :doh:
One liners like these should be banned.

It is well known that any modern PESA radar has about twice as fast scann over the same volume.
Like it or not it is just one of the compromises that goes into any modern AESA.
And the AN/APG-79 has an Fixed Array, while the Irbis-E can steer it all over, hense it can scann much more volum. And as any fixed array, it will also get limit range at the corners of the scann area.
Is this so hard to understand?


2 issues here though.

It is a powerful radar, but will broadcast the position of the Flanker, from a considerable distance.

Being that it does have a gimballed antenna, at some point in the scan, it's going to present very reflective surfaces to an opponent. If you've noted, most AESA arrays are canted, so that the antenna doesn't provide a 90 degree angle to incoming radar beams.

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2011, 22:44
by haavarla
Well you are right about the canted issue.
However, i supose it can be done with the Irbis-E to some extend.
You just reflect it downward mechanical, and the ESA function will still be able to scann ahead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELuKJFDM80

Perhaps it can be done in a more passive search mode though..

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2011, 15:18
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote:Well you are right about the canted issue.
However, i supose it can be done with the Irbis-E to some extend.
You just reflect it downward mechanical, and the ESA function will still be able to scann ahead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELuKJFDM80

Perhaps it can be done in a more passive search mode though..


Then the issue is that you lose the azimuth advantage, and you still have a large beacon, for ESM systems to pick up.

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2011, 22:25
by haavarla
Losing any 'additional' azimuth advantage is a small price to pay for reduced detection wouldn't you say. :thumb:

The Irbis-E radar have several of the same features as any LPI radar have, see below.

Many features distinguish LPI radar from conventional radar. These include:

Low sidelobe antennas,

Irregular antenna scan patterns,

High duty cycle/wide band transmission,

Accurate power management,

Carrier frequency,

Very high sensitivity,

High processing gain,

Coherent detection,

Monostatic/bistatic configurations.

And this is the most interesting notion that any LPI radar, in fact will not have any more sucssess than any powerful PESA radar:

2. Sensitivities Required for Jamming.

The process of coding the information onto the radar waveform and decoding it inthe receiver is 6dB less efficient than a typical communication channel, which may itself be assumed to be 6dB less efficient than the Shannon limit. Therefore, 48dB SNR is needed to recover the required information from the signal. This is approximately equivalent to removing the 30dB increase in sensitivity obtained by going from an IFMtype receiver to a matched ES receiver. It can be hypothesized that the channelized receiver achieves an intermediate exploitation performance by being less lossy than the IFM type receiver in recovering the information, but that it will require additional SNR tostitch together the outputs of the different channels to recover all the information required(Stove, Hume, and Baker 2004, 249-260).The results derived above show that it is possible to exploit the radar’s transmissions. The simple radiometric detector is able to cope with any waveform, but at the cost of destroying most of the information contained within it. This makes it unsuitable for use in a busy environment, but it can be useful during normal ‘radarsilence’ when very few emitters will be present. In fact, in busy environments, it can beargued that the best way of transmitting covertly is to make the transmissions look like acommercial radar, such as a conventional marine radar or aircraft weather radar. Thus, they may not be noticed.

So in a jammer rich inviroment, any LPI pattern is unsuiteble..

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 02:00
by thestealthfighterguy
Question? As I understand it PESA's have a harder time discriminating between targets flying in close formation. Is this true?

Also, someone said something about Russian radar range. Maybe these will help. Not all the ranges match as some are estimates.

Thanks. TSFG

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 06:48
by Thumper3181
haavarla wrote:Well you are right about the canted issue.
However, i supose it can be done with the Irbis-E to some extend.
You just reflect it downward mechanical, and the ESA function will still be able to scann ahead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELuKJFDM80

Perhaps it can be done in a more passive search mode though..


Do some math before you start spouting off about things you read in sales brochures. Draw 120 degree angle (prototype Irbis E installation. Extend the lines out to 100km. Let me know if 1. Irbis E has ther processing power to scan all that sky and 2. Whether or not the jet will have enough fuel to change course and intercept any targets between 60 and 120 degrees assuming that target is doing anything other being on an intercept course. Hint, the answer to both questions is no.

The Russians know this as well. That is why the production (whenever that happens) Irbis E will be a fixed installation.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2568&catid=334

As for your LPI assertion, lets just say there are varying degrees of LPI and a PESA by it's very nature is not going to be very good at it. In simple terms a PESA can only transmit on a single frequency at a single point in time. So even if the frequency is jumping very quickly, the system is still pumping out X amount of KW's into the battlespace. therefore its LPI capability will always be limited. AESA's on the other hand transmit on over a thousand separate frequencies at any one time. So if a 1000T/R AESA is transmitting at 1kw, its only putting out 1 watt of EM energy at any point in time on any particular frequency. This makes them an order of magnitude more difficult to detect by RWR/ESM. Add to that IRBIS's huge power output (peak 21kw) on a single frequency and the LPI claim is a joke and you spouting off about it just confirms my suspicion that you haven't a clue and are merely regurgitating propaganda.

thestealthfighterguy, those range charts look like they came straight from APA. At any rate they are complete speculation and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Power output does not directly correlate to detection much less tracking range.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 10:06
by haavarla
The Russians know this as well. That is why the production (whenever that happens) Irbis E will be a fixed installation.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2568&catid=334


Dude, you are using APA related stuff as a source?
Go to NIIP.ru
Official specs state the Irbis-E have a gimbal slated array.

The second Irbis-E are on the second serial Su-35S.
Here:
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircra ... _su-35.wbp

The Irbis-E have lots of different mode, and what is the purpose of 4 four channel radar.
It means you can operate on mulitple modes at the same time.
Yes the search pattern is more focused on a PESA radar, but again the search pattern speed is much faster vs AESA radar.

Whenever an AESA are using its passive LPI mode in a heavy enviroment, it means the signal from any enemy(transmitting) signal will suffer signal distortion/degritation due to too much noise. It will have to change to a more active mode, meaning transmitting more power.
The LPI mode is the future roadmap to go, but it too has its limitations, as with every thing in aviation and avionics, pros & cons..

So what are you saying, that i can't use any official sales specs from NIIP, but you can use whatever comes out from Raytheon??
Nice double standard there.. and derby makes it impossible to dabate anything with you.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 14:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Your missing the point about LPI though. Everything you state points to a very advanced radar. No one is disputing that. But What makes AESA better for LPI is that each TR module is its own radar that changes frequency with each transmission. If the environment is clean and only one TR is needed to do the job then only one is used. If more are needed then more are pointed in the same direction, but all at different frequencies. If the situation is so EM saturated that it wont work then it turns off and just listens. Having a gimbled PESA is nice for volume search, but it also means that while you are looking at the -120 through 0 degree area you are blind to the 1 through 120 degree area. It does allow it to fly 60 degrees off from where it is searching, but then exposes the biggest RCS reflectors it has toward it's scan zone, the 15 foot tall vertical stabs. Having a PESA that moves only gives it one advantage over AESA, wider azimuth, but still has the limit of PESA, every module fires at the same time and at the same frequency, even if they are going different directions for different tasks.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 15:42
by haavarla
Well, i have never disputed that AESA do not have its advantage over any PESA radar.
I was only pointing out some limitation of AESA in LPI mode.. which i often see are misused on various forum as the ultimate bling bling to defeat any opposition party..

Question? As I understand it PESA's have a harder time discriminating between targets flying in close formation. Is this true?

Also, someone said something about Russian radar range. Maybe these will help. Not all the ranges match as some are estimates.

Thanks. TSFG


Yes, ultimatly an AESA radar will have more or higher resolution, and thus be able to see clearer, especialy in a busy enviroment.

However, PESA radars can use an mode in which they narrow the beam pattern. Mostly used if you know where to look(scann), be this in a Jammer rich enviroment or at extreme long range(BVR).
Works Even better If you have AWACS support and/or just network sentric between a group of fighters.

An AESA would simply put more Transmitters on the same area, and of course apply more power if needed.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 19:11
by thestealthfighterguy
Thumper3181 wrote:thestealthfighterguy, those range charts look like they came straight from APA. At any rate they are complete speculation and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Power output does not directly correlate to detection much less tracking range.


Yes. I know. That is why I said some are estimates. They even say est. on the charts. They are just to get a picture in your head. Although they are based on Russian data and you can ask Haav, I've said to him in the past, I always take Russian propaganda with a grain of salt. The U.S. aften "under" rates it's tech for tactical reasons well Russia often "over" rates for sales reasons. This is why I've said in the past "I'll belive it when I see it" about Russian specs.
TSFG

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 09:03
by geogen
Give me a 6-ship of F-18E+ w/CFT, ALQ-218(V)3 algorithmic-enhanced for aerial AESA geolocation, 280mm high-res LW IRST on the waist with a MALD-J on the other side, 3x AIM-174 (Tri-seeker) + 2x AIM-162 (IIR, mmW) and you will not want to be a 4-ship (2+2) consisting of F-22 and Su-35S in Red Flag 2017. Either with equivalent AWACS support or none. Back those babies off. :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 16:48
by haavarla
There are counter to everything.

Well then, i'll bring with me a quad formation of Mig-31BM.
That Zaslon-M radar will find those SH, and roast em before the Migs get into NEZ... :wink:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... me-346177/

Or two Su-35S and two Mig-31BM.
The Migs could function as painters and the Su-35 with its L175M Khibiny-M electronic-warfare self-defense system could shaddow the Migs until they get target feed.
Then fire up the Irbis-E at full power and let ripp its ordinance and turn home.

Anyway, i'm sure if the F-22 could talk with the Su-35S in a network centric enviroment, they would be hard to defeat..

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 17:00
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:Give me a 6-ship of F-18E+ w/CFT, ALQ-218(V)3 algorithmic-enhanced for aerial AESA geolocation, 280mm high-res LW IRST on the waist with a MALD-J on the other side, 3x AIM-174 (Tri-seeker) + 2x AIM-162 (IIR, mmW) and you will not want to be a 4-ship (2+2) consisting of F-22 and Su-35S in Red Flag 2017. Either with equivalent AWACS support or none. Back those babies off. :thumb:
Just a few observations- it's not just AESA that you're having to geolocate. It's LPI AESA signals. It's one thing if you already have APG-77 waveforms, in your digital library, but if you're starting from scratch, you're still going to have to deal with detection, identification, and trying to geolocate(remember, the shooter isn't necessarily the emitter). Secondly you're making some big assumptions on the effectiveness of the countermeasures vs. the F-22's systems(which may be conducting an EA themselves). Thirdly, while a F-22/Su-35 flight would be potent, if they had compatible datalinks, you'd be much better off with an AESA equipped F-15(and other associated mods, like IRST/Jammer). It's a bit optimistic to think that you'd get 2 new AIMs IOC by that time frame, seeing as how long it normally takes even to go from AIM-9M to AIM-9X Block II, or AIM-120C5 to AIM-120D. Lastly, seeing as how threat aircraft are known to have IRSTs, you have to assume that F-22 pilots practice tactics, which take this into consideration, not to mention reduced IR signatures.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 18:19
by tacf-x
Why use a mmW seeker? Aren't those incapable of detecting and tracking things from far away in a less than ideal environment? I read about this idea from Key and a lot of people panned it due to the fact that the waveform would be easily absorbed by adverse weather.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2011, 18:53
by wrightwing
tacf-x wrote:Why use a mmW seeker? Aren't those incapable of detecting and tracking things from far away in a less than ideal environment? I read about this idea from Key and a lot of people panned it due to the fact that the waveform would be easily absorbed by adverse weather.


That'd be for close in detection- the IIR ostensibly would do the longer range detection.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2011, 16:18
by duplex
http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/05/typhoon-malaysia/

Australian pilots don't seem to be satisfied with thier new SH's..

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2011, 16:43
by wrightwing
duplex wrote:http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/05/typhoon-malaysia/

Australian pilots don't seem to be satisfied with thier new SH's..


So an anecdote from a single Australian pilot= all Australian pilots?

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 03:53
by navy_airframer
Which Hornet type is he talking about? Shurely if he is on exchange he dont have to many if any flight hours in the Blk 2 SH.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 04:09
by wrightwing
navy_airframer wrote:Which Hornet type is he talking about? Shurely if he is on exchange he dont have to many if any flight hours in the Blk 2 SH.


Precisely! They just got the Super Hornets, so it's doubtful this pilot has any experience with them.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 05:49
by navy_airframer
Deleted.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 13:08
by duplex
wrightwing wrote:
navy_airframer wrote:Which Hornet type is he talking about? Shurely if he is on exchange he dont have to many if any flight hours in the Blk 2 SH.


Precisely! They just got the Super Hornets, so it's doubtful this pilot has any experience with them.




The first five RAAF Super Hornets arrived on March 26, 2010 so they didn't just got them...You may eventually remember that the SH was not the preffered choice of the RAAF..

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 15:15
by wrightwing
duplex wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
navy_airframer wrote:Which Hornet type is he talking about? Shurely if he is on exchange he dont have to many if any flight hours in the Blk 2 SH.


Precisely! They just got the Super Hornets, so it's doubtful this pilot has any experience with them.




The first five RAAF Super Hornets arrived on March 26, 2010 so they didn't just got them...You may eventually remember that the SH was not the preffered choice of the RAAF..


It wasn't the preferred choice of Carlo Kopp. He wanted F-111s, with F-22 engines, and various other Dale Brown modifications.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 20:28
by navy_airframer
I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 03:17
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No airframer, you are perfectly justified in your statement and I welcome hearing your point of view. We had a SH pilot join a few years back, dont recall what happened to him.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 14:32
by southernphantom
navy_airframer wrote:I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.


Fair enough. The RAAF would likely have been better-served by a Strike Eagle derivative (losing the Growler ability, unless a jammer-Eagle was developed), but the SH is a perfectly good aircraft. It's an avionics fighter, not a kinematic fighter, which works fine unless you're fighting 5th-gen wackiness. And in that scenario, you'll very probably have USAF Raptor support.

Though I will point out that a Greek F-4 can carry that payload (IRIS-T in place of 9X) and then some.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 15:33
by wrightwing
southernphantom wrote: Fair enough. The RAAF would likely have been better-served by a Strike Eagle derivative (losing the Growler ability, unless a jammer-Eagle was developed), but the SH is a perfectly good aircraft.

The question though, is how quickly could they have acquired advanced Eagle variants, establish the logistical base/infrastructure, get pilots trained up(it's much easier transitioning from a Hornet to a Super Hornet, than another aircraft type). Additionally, how many Eagles would they be able to afford vs. the Super Hornet? The Eagle is considerably more expensive to acquire/maintain.

It's an avionics fighter, not a kinematic fighter, which works fine unless you're fighting 5th-gen wackiness. And in that scenario, you'll very probably have USAF Raptor support.

Though I will point out that a Greek F-4 can carry that payload (IRIS-T in place of 9X) and then some.


This is a good point. An F-4 with modern avionics and weapons, can still be formidable. A Super Hornet has significantly better agility than an F-4, and state of the art avionics. It's nothing to be trifled with, especially when the fight is at the systems level, and not the platform level.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2011, 23:14
by packer18
navy_airframer wrote:I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.


Thanks navy airframe....I lover hearing from people that actually work or fly the SH.....but from my knowledge and from speaking with pilots of the SH and Hornet, the SH has very good acceleration and transonic performance....better then the Hornet from what I have been told straight from SH pilots. I know the supersonic performance it struggles but who goes Mach 2.....please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for great forum boards!!! Love this site!!!

I know I'm on a f16 site...but SH and Hornets forever!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 01:46
by tacf-x
Most fighters would struggle significantly to achieve a speed of mach 2 with any sort of useful payload. The drag is just too much and the SH's engines aren't strong enough to overcome the inherent problems set forth by said drag as well as the raw mass of the plane. For example when an F-15 is loaded with a combat loadout it struggles to get past mach 1.4 due to drag alone. I'm not sure the Super Bug can get to mach 2 even without external stores regardless. The super hornet also uses those canted weapon stations which I would imagine would case a large amount of drag so I don't really think the super hornet would be what you would want when fighting enemies in ACM.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 04:46
by geogen
wrightwing wrote:
duplex wrote:http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/05/typhoon-malaysia/

Australian pilots don't seem to be satisfied with thier new SH's..


So an anecdote from a single Australian pilot= all Australian pilots?


Let's just say I'll hire Navy Airframer to configure my Red Flag 2017 SH with Type 4+ computer, CFT, IRST pod on left waist station, Litening SE pod on the centerline, ALQ-218 V3 on the tips and 4x AIM-162 on SUU-80 pylons. Call it a day.

At the very least, RAAF will probably upgrade to Type 4 computers, Litening SE and radar EA mode upgrade. Call it a day.