F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 03:34
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-440676/

Boeing outlines India F/A-18 E/F offering

30 August, 2017
BY: Greg Waldron

Boeing is actively promoting its F/A-18 E/F fighter for a future Indian naval requirement, with promise of a major industrial program. The US air framer recently discussed its bid for an Indian navy requirement for 57 fighters at a media event in New Delhi. Presentation slides the company provided to FlightGlobal showed that its "Block III" Super Hornet offering includes signature improvements to reduce the jet's radar cross section, an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor situated in a centerline fuel pod, and conformal fuel tanks to boost the aircraft's range. Also included is an updated cockpit with a single, large panel display. The package resembles Boeing's Super Hornet International Roadmap offering, which it promoted for India's former Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition for 126 aircraft for the air force. This deal was ultimately won by the Dassault Rafale, and although MMRCA ultimately fell through, New Delhi still ordered 36 Rafales.

A big part of Boeing's offering is its industrial package, a key requirement under New Delhi's 'Make in India' initiative. One slide notes that current production of the type in the United States employs 60,000 people and involves 800 suppliers. For India, Boeing is offering final assembly, the opportunity to "maximize indigenous content," and the chance to participate in the type's global supply chain. In a video interview with Indian defense site Livefist, Dan Gillian, vice president, F/A-18 & EA-18 programs at Boeing, said the Super Hornet is capable of operating from India's existing carriers, having determined this through simulations with the Indian Navy. "We think we can move around the deck, be fully operational, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load out to give the navy what they need," Gillian told Livefist. "We think we can bring the power of Boeing and what we've learned on F-18 to build a next generation factory for India, which will also allow India to build its next generation aircraft as well."

India operates a single aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, which operates RSK MiG-29K fighters. Unlike US carriers, which use a catapult to launch aircraft, it launches aircraft via a ramp, in a short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) configuration. Another STOBAR carrier, the INS Vikrant, is under construction. A third carrier, IAC-II, is being designed. This ship could have a CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) arrangement similar to US carriers.
:)

Has the F-18E/F qualified off a ski-jump?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 04:20
by SpudmanWP
In simulations only

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 17:40
by mixelflick
I thought the Indians picked the F-16, or is that mis information/fake news?

I can see them opting for the Super Duper Hornet though. Especially if they need a backup to the Mig-29k... reading about all sorts of problems with that one...

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 18:09
by tincansailor
There was a strange Super Hornet story yesterday. The American President claimed Finland had agreed to buy a large order of Super Hornets. The Finnish President stood there looking surprised, because there is no such deal. Very strange.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -disagrees

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 19:24
by white_lightning35
Sometimes I wonder if "the American president" talks about hallucinations he has. He is perhaps in a drug-induced stupor that makes him speak like a retarded chimp? Does he have advisors to tell him to think before he speaks, or have they just given up?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 19:59
by wrightwing
white_lightning35 wrote:Sometimes I wonder if "the American president" talks about hallucinations he has. He is perhaps in a drug-induced stupor that makes him speak like a retarded chimp? Does he have advisors to tell him to think before he speaks, or have they just given up?

We'll build Super Hornets, and make Finland pay for them!!

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 20:30
by white_lightning35
They'll be tremendous planes, folks, simply tremendous. Did you know they have these things called radars? I know all about them, even better than the generals do, let me tell you.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 19:52
by southernphantom
mixelflick wrote:I thought the Indians picked the F-16, or is that mis information/fake news?

I can see them opting for the Super Duper Hornet though. Especially if they need a backup to the Mig-29k... reading about all sorts of problems with that one...


This is for the Indian naval air arm. A carrier-capable F-16 does not exist, as far as I know.

The Super Bug would be a huge step up compared to the MiG-29. This would be a smart purchase for India, if the SH can function off a ski jump.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 23:16
by tincansailor
southernphantom wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I thought the Indians picked the F-16, or is that mis information/fake news?

I can see them opting for the Super Duper Hornet though. Especially if they need a backup to the Mig-29k... reading about all sorts of problems with that one...


This is for the Indian naval air arm. A carrier-capable F-16 does not exist, as far as I know.

The Super Bug would be a huge step up compared to the MiG-29. This would be a smart purchase for India, if the SH can function off a ski jump.



I'm sure it will be a big improvement. However the F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations. The F-35B would be much more effective. The problem with selling the F-35B is security, and technology transfer. India is too close to the Russians, and they might let them have a peak. We have the same problem with Turkey.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2017, 05:26
by southernphantom
Agreed on both points, tincan.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2017, 07:15
by geforcerfx
tincansailor wrote: The F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations.


I guess that depends on if the block III is still getting the 414EPE engine. When they first showed off the advance super hornet/block III it had CFT's and the epe engines, so power wise it would be around a F-15C while weighing around 3-4,000lbs more at loaded weight.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2017, 08:29
by tincansailor
[
quote="geforcerfx"]
tincansailor wrote: The F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations.


I guess that depends on if the block III is still getting the 414EPE engine. When they first showed off the advance super hornet/block III it had CFT's and the epe engines, so power wise it would be around a F-15C while weighing around 3-4,000lbs more at loaded weight.

[/quote]

Do you think even with the improved engines an ASH could takeoff at max takeoff weight without catapult launch? You'd need a lot of wind over the deck. Carrier running at 30kt into a 30kt wind. I've always wondered if hitting a takeoff ramp is hard on the landing gear? Just seems to me like a Doolittle type takeoff. Over the bow, while it's pitching up, and pray you don't hit the water. Near as I can find the max takeoff weight runway needed for an F-18C is 4,500ft. Min weight is 2,300ft. If it can be done it's got to be close.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2017, 17:32
by mixelflick
This is going to be interesting. LM is going to try real hard with their F-16, Boeing with their F-18, Super Duper Hornet and of course the euro canards.

I see the Super Duper in their future though. Will certainly measure up quite well vs. the Mig-29K...

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2017, 21:40
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:I see the Super Duper in their future though. Will certainly measure up quite well vs. the Mig-29K...


I see the rafale M being the better choice over the super hornet since they will have parts/training commonality with the air force birds, but that's logical and India hasn't shown much logic in there procurement capabilities. I mean 12 different type of aircraft is a good idea right. :doh:

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 02:32
by tincansailor
[
quote="geforcerfx"]
mixelflick wrote:I see the Super Duper in their future though. Will certainly measure up quite well vs. the Mig-29K...


I see the rafale M being the better choice over the super hornet since they will have parts/training commonality with the air force birds, but that's logical and India hasn't shown much logic in there procurement capabilities. I mean 12 different type of aircraft is a good idea right. :doh:

[/quote]

It's the same question with the Rafale M, can it operate effectively without catapult assisted launch? The only jets that have ever operated off a carrier without catapults are VSTOL, or STOVL aircraft. Some jets have used rocket boasted takeoff systems. I don't think anyone would want to take the risk of using strap on rockets on carrier based aircraft. They might take the risk if they think they have no alternative, but I don't think it would be anyone's first choice.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 05:13
by SpudmanWP
Seriously, Please review your post AFTER you hit submit.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 07:40
by geforcerfx
tincan something to consider is the next carriers (INS Vishal) from India are suppose to be CATOBAR, they aren't just buying these for the current classes, they are looking a decade down the road. Vishal is expected sometime in the mid 2020's any aircraft they decide on in the next year or two wouldn't be in service until 2020 at the earliest, so 5-7 years later they have the CATOBAR carrier ready and they already have CATOBAR aircraft ready with experienced squadrons. As far as non CAT launches I see no reason why either the super or the rafale couldn't launch off there current carriers, if the Mig-29k can than what's stopping the two catorbar designs. Can they launch them at 70,000lbs> No, but improved reliability and sensors upgrade they would have over the 29k would make it worth operating them still, even with a lower range and payload.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 16:12
by wewuzkangz
I'm sure it will be a big improvement. However the F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations. The F-35B would be much more effective. The problem with selling the F-35B is security, and technology transfer. India is too close to the Russians, and they might let them have a peak. We have the same problem with Turkey.[/quote]

So what is so interesting about an aircrafts IRST that is based off the F-16 or a radar based off an older GaAS model from an F-22? India is a neutral country and they are still complaining about costs being too high for T-50s which are cheaper than F-35s and there is nothing restricting the US from selling them for India nor is there any restrictions for India purchasing them . Still they are getting the sh*t version of SU-57s but still dont want to buy F-35s........Turkey is becoming restricted from Congress of getting F-35s purchased because of their recent actions.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 17:41
by tincansailor
geforcerfx wrote:tincan something to consider is the next carriers (INS Vishal) from India are suppose to be CATOBAR, they aren't just buying these for the current classes, they are looking a decade down the road. Vishal is expected sometime in the mid 2020's any aircraft they decide on in the next year or two wouldn't be in service until 2020 at the earliest, so 5-7 years later they have the CATOBAR carrier ready and they already have CATOBAR aircraft ready with experienced squadrons. As far as non CAT launches I see no reason why either the super or the rafale couldn't launch off there current carriers, if the Mig-29k can than what's stopping the two catorbar designs. Can they launch them at 70,000lbs> No, but improved reliability and sensors upgrade they would have over the 29k would make it worth operating them still, even with a lower range and payload.



Your very correct about the future Indian Carrier, and I'm sure you know more about the subject, then I do, but do have some Questions, about none CATOBAR operations. I think it would help our discussion if we know at what weight the MIG-29K operates at. The F/A-18E/F/G is heavier then the MIG-29K, but it does have more powerful engines. I also don't know the acceleration rates of the aircraft, and their stall speed. I do know the F-18 comes in hot, so it may have a higher stall speed then the MIG-29K. Higher stall speed means higher take off speed. I just don't know if we know all the variables.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 17:45
by tincansailor
wewuzkangz wrote:I'm sure it will be a big improvement. However the F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations. The F-35B would be much more effective. The problem with selling the F-35B is security, and technology transfer. India is too close to the Russians, and they might let them have a peak. We have the same problem with Turkey.


So what is so interesting about an aircrafts IRST that is based off the F-16 or a radar based off an older GaAS model from an F-22? India is a neutral country and they are still complaining about costs being too high for T-50s which are cheaper than F-35s and there is nothing restricting the US from selling them for India nor is there any restrictions for India purchasing them . Still they are getting the sh*t version of SU-57s but still dont want to buy F-35s........Turkey is becoming restricted from Congress of getting F-35s purchased because of their recent actions.

[/quote]

I don't know if India has shown no interest in the F-35, or that we just haven't offered it for sale to them. Very glad to hear that Congress is restricting F-35 sales to Turkey. Do you have anymore details on that? Thanks in advance.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 19:22
by wewuzkangz
tincansailor wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:I'm sure it will be a big improvement. However the F-18E will still be restricted to low payload operations. The F-35B would be much more effective. The problem with selling the F-35B is security, and technology transfer. India is too close to the Russians, and they might let them have a peak. We have the same problem with Turkey.


So what is so interesting about an aircrafts IRST that is based off the F-16 or a radar based off an older GaAS model from an F-22? India is a neutral country and they are still complaining about costs being too high for T-50s which are cheaper than F-35s and there is nothing restricting the US from selling them for India nor is there any restrictions for India purchasing them . Still they are getting the sh*t version of SU-57s but still dont want to buy F-35s........Turkey is becoming restricted from Congress of getting F-35s purchased because of their recent actions.



I don't know if India has shown no interest in the F-35, or that we just haven't offered it for sale to them. Very glad to hear that Congress is restricting F-35 sales to Turkey. Do you have anymore details on that? Thanks in advance.[/quote]

here is Turkey source with other articles making same mention. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ssy-brawl/

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 19:33
by zerion
India requested info about the F-35 a number of years ago (2013-14?) but the Obama administration never responded.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 23:19
by talkitron
Preventing Turkey from purchasing the F-35 when they have been a major NATO and F-35 program member for many years would be a major escalation in political conflict between Turkey and the US. Turkish companies presumably are subcontractors on the program as well. President Trump is a wildcard but I doubt National Security Adviser Kelly and Secretary of Defense Mattis would be in favor of such a move.

India has a much deeper defense relationship with Russia than Turkey does. The Turkish purchase of the S-400 SAM system is relatively new and the S-400 is considered to be a leader in its class. I also believe Turkey continues to cooperate in SAM development with France and Italy.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 20:02
by tincansailor
talkitron wrote:Preventing Turkey from purchasing the F-35 when they have been a major NATO and F-35 program member for many years would be a major escalation in political conflict between Turkey and the US. Turkish companies presumably are subcontractors on the program as well. President Trump is a wildcard but I doubt National Security Adviser Kelly and Secretary of Defense Mattis would be in favor of such a move.

India has a much deeper defense relationship with Russia than Turkey does. The Turkish purchase of the S-400 SAM system is relatively new and the S-400 is considered to be a leader in its class. I also believe Turkey continues to cooperate in SAM development with France and Italy.



Turkey is on the way out of NATO. Their moving into a Russian alliance. The country is becoming an anti-democratic, anti-liberal society. Having elections doesn't mean your a democracy. Liberal democracy doesn't mean left wing thinking. It means independent courts, and rule of law, separation of legislative, and executive powers, free media, freedom of speech, assemble, religion, and expression, multi parties, guaranteed minority rights. Turkey is rapidly losing all of these freedoms.

To let a country like that have first strike aircraft, that can attack any of their neighbors, with virtual impunity, and let them pass that technology to our advisories would be foolish. If Turkey gets the F-35 we will all live to regret it. We will not be helping the cause of peace in the region. Helping Russia, and China advance their stealth technology will put the whole free world in greater danger. There is no up side to this. LM can sell F-35s to a lot of other countries.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 02:04
by KamenRiderBlade
I'm with TinCanSailor on the assessment of not letting the F-35 be sold to Turkey.

They used to be a Liberal Democracy, but given the Regime change and the Authoritarian nature of it's current government, I'm not for supporting them.

Honestly, what does Turkey have now on the F-35 currently is what I'm worried about.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 07:49
by tincansailor
wewuzkangz2 wrote:http://www.popsci.com/planes-zhuhai-j-20-gets-news-but-there-is-much-much-more-from-new-bombers-to-marsupial-drones "

"KLJ-7A Developed by the Nanjing Electronics Technology Research Institute, the KLJ-7A AESA radar is powerful despite its small size, with a range of 170km, and enough processing power and capability to track fifteen targets, while targeting four. Its addition to the JF-17 fighter will make it a much more attractive export prospect"........In some sense I do believe the Chinese will greatly benefit from an avionics standpoint but as for stealth I have no idea on what material each country uses for their aircraft to determine stealth. One of them gave up stealth for agility in which Japan might be doing the same considering what the ATD-X prototype uses.



I'm not sure what point your making? Are you saying China will be exporting lots of these new aircraft? Who do you think will be buying them? What will China benefit from, regarding their avionics technology? Are you suggesting Japan will emphasize agility over stealth? Are the Chinese doing the same thing? Can you clarify?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 20:46
by tincansailor
New Super Hornet news. The president announced today that Kuwait will be buying a number of F/A-18 Super Hornets. He didn't say how many, or what model, but this time it seems to be true, unlike the last time when he said Finland would be buying them. I could only guess these will be Block III birds, or Advanced Super Hornets. It seems there's still some life left in the program after all. With sales of F-15SA, and new F/A-18's Boeing will still be in the fighter business for years to come. LM won't have the whole market to themselves.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 20:59
by SpudmanWP
There has been a Blk2 SH order in the works for a long time.

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/file ... _16-21.pdf

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 06:25
by popcorn
Trump and the SuperHornet... Kuwait, Finland.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabo ... b8aa0a3254

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 01:43
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... da-441067/

US clears suspended Super Hornet export to Canada

13 September, 2017
BY: Leigh Giangreco

The US State Department has approved a potential sale of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Canada, but bad blood between the Canadian government and Boeing may have already spoiled the deal. The proposed sale would include 10 single-seat F/A-18Es and eight two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, along with a host of equipment including 100 Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II missiles, according to the 12 September State Department notice. Canada announced plans last year to buy 18 Super Hornets as an interim solution for replacing a subset of the CF-18 Hornet fleet due for retirement within five years. The government submitted a letter of request for the Super Hornet to the US government in March, but suspended negotiations three months later after Boeing initiated an anti-dumping trade case against Bombardier Commercial Aircraft at the Department of Commerce.


The recent State Department approval does not indicate relations have patched up, but that US government continued with its process to respond with a letter of formal proposal. “Our position on Boeing has not changed, and as a result of the current trade challenge, Canada is reviewing military procurement that relates to Boeing and has suspended direct engagement with the company,” a spokeswoman from the Canadian Minister of National Defence office tells FlightGlobal. “In this case, our engagement is not, and has never been with Boeing, it’s been with the US Government, through the US Foreign Military Sales Program.” As the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency states with all arms export approval notices, Canada is under no obligation to purchase the aircraft. The government will continue exploring options to supplement its aging CF-18 fighter fleet until a permanent replacement fleet is fully operational, the spokeswoman says. One of those options could include procuring used Boeing F/A-18A/Bs. Last week, Canadian defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the government visited Australia to inspect the F/A-18A/Bs, which the Royal Australian Air Force intends to phase out when Lockheed Martin F-35 deliveries begin in 2018.
:)

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 02:46
by SpudmanWP
$290 Millon each..

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2017, 15:06
by mixelflick
What is it about the Hornet that gives it 9 lives?

I was the the LOSER in the USAF's LWF competition. It has the dubious distinction of being the ONLY US teen fighter to LOSE to enemy Mig's in combat (Speicher's F-18C, downed by an Iraqi Mig-25). And let's not forget, the F-18 was designed a generation after the Mig-25. It shot down 2 Mig-21's en route to bomb a target, then completed the mission? Big deal. Beating up senior citizens isn't very impressive. Never was, never will be.

Yet here we are in 2017, and a US president is championing more Hornets for both the US Navy and foreign governments? US Navy commanders want MORE F-18's? For what?? To fly into contested airspece that'll turn it into spare parts in every conflict from present day out to 2035 and beyond?? We want more of this??? It's already inferior to the aircraft many rival nations currently field, not to mention what's on the drawing board. And as America's front line deck fighter, chances are it'll be up against an adversary vs. any other platform we field.

The hornet sets a dangerous precedent: We no longer aspire to give our men the absolute best fighter money can buy. Instead, we're content with giving them "good enough". That mentality has already cost lives...

The day the last one of these turkeys comes off the production line, I'm buying a round for everyone here. The day the last one flies off into the sunset, I'm throwing the biggest party this board has ever seen (but chances are, I'll be dead by then)..

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 02:52
by southernphantom
mixelflick wrote:What is it about the Hornet that gives it 9 lives?

I was the the LOSER in the USAF's LWF competition. It has the dubious distinction of being the ONLY US teen fighter to LOSE to enemy Mig's in combat (Speicher's F-18C, downed by an Iraqi Mig-25). And let's not forget, the F-18 was designed a generation after the Mig-25. It shot down 2 Mig-21's en route to bomb a target, then completed the mission? Big deal. Beating up senior citizens isn't very impressive. Never was, never will be.

Yet here we are in 2017, and a US president is championing more Hornets for both the US Navy and foreign governments? US Navy commanders want MORE F-18's? For what?? To fly into contested airspece that'll turn it into spare parts in every conflict from present day out to 2035 and beyond?? We want more of this??? It's already inferior to the aircraft many rival nations currently field, not to mention what's on the drawing board. And as America's front line deck fighter, chances are it'll be up against an adversary vs. any other platform we field.

The hornet sets a dangerous precedent: We no longer aspire to give our men the absolute best fighter money can buy. Instead, we're content with giving them "good enough". That mentality has already cost lives...

The day the last one of these turkeys comes off the production line, I'm buying a round for everyone here. The day the last one flies off into the sunset, I'm throwing the biggest party this board has ever seen (but chances are, I'll be dead by then)..


Contested airspace?

It's a very nice thought experiment, but I am legitimately unsure if the US will ever deal with truly contested airspace again during its existence. For plinking Toyotas, structures, and the odd armored vehicle, attack helicopters and UAVs are more than sufficient. On some level, I've started questioning the relevance of tactical jets to modern conflicts.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 04:09
by XanderCrews
southernphantom wrote:
Contested airspace?

It's a very nice thought experiment, but I am legitimately unsure if the US will ever deal with truly contested airspace again during its existence. For plinking Toyotas, structures, and the odd armored vehicle, attack helicopters and UAVs are more than sufficient. On some level, I've started questioning the relevance of tactical jets to modern conflicts.


It's going to be RPGs and IEDs forever eh?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 09:52
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:What is it about the Hornet that gives it 9 lives?

I was the the LOSER in the USAF's LWF competition. It has the dubious distinction of being the ONLY US teen fighter to LOSE to enemy Mig's in combat (Speicher's F-18C, downed by an Iraqi Mig-25). And let's not forget, the F-18 was designed a generation after the Mig-25. It shot down 2 Mig-21's en route to bomb a target, then completed the mission? Big deal. Beating up senior citizens isn't very impressive. Never was, never will be.


Sure, but F/A-18A-D Hornet has also won competitions against F-16 and other competitors. Of course F-16 has been bought by more operators and in larger numbers and has been more successful especially commercially. I think major reason for that was winning that LWF competition though as in many cases F-16 was selected without real competition. In all competitions both have been found to have been excellent fighter aircraft (for their time) and selection has depended on what qualities have been emphasized and what exact versions are compared.

I also think that Speicher incident is so isolated that we can't make any real judgement about combat capability from that. I'd say the same about that MiG-21 shootdown. It is true that F-16 and especially F-15 has shot down more enemy aircraft, but major reason for that has been tasking (no F-16 shot down anything during DS for example, AFAIK) and opportunities as far more F-16s and F-16 missions have been flown in combat areas with enemy aircraft present than F/A-18C/D.

Of course Air-to-Air is only one part of aerial combat. Both F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet were (and still are) very good multi-role aircraft.

mixelflick wrote:Yet here we are in 2017, and a US president is championing more Hornets for both the US Navy and foreign governments? US Navy commanders want MORE F-18's? For what?? To fly into contested airspece that'll turn it into spare parts in every conflict from present day out to 2035 and beyond?? We want more of this??? It's already inferior to the aircraft many rival nations currently field, not to mention what's on the drawing board. And as America's front line deck fighter, chances are it'll be up against an adversary vs. any other platform we field.

The hornet sets a dangerous precedent: We no longer aspire to give our men the absolute best fighter money can buy. Instead, we're content with giving them "good enough". That mentality has already cost lives...

The day the last one of these turkeys comes off the production line, I'm buying a round for everyone here. The day the last one flies off into the sunset, I'm throwing the biggest party this board has ever seen (but chances are, I'll be dead by then)..


I definitely agree that Hornet and Super Hornet are at the end of their life cycle and future is F-35 in all variants. I don't see any good reason to buy Super Hornets instead of F-35 for example. Well, maybe to replace attrition to keep whole squadrons combat capable and even that is somewhat dubious. I think Super Hornet was a good idea and it has proven to be one of the most capable 4th gen jet. Of course it's not F-22 in air-to-air but for multi-role fighter it's very good one still. F-35 is naturally far better at pretty much everything, but I see SH being very credible fighter aircraf for the next 15-20 years. There will be rather low number of more capable fighter aircraft in potentially hostile nations until then. I see AD systems being much more of a threat and there F-35 will really be needed.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 16:13
by XanderCrews
[quote="hornetfinn"]

Sure, but F/A-18A-D Hornet has also won competitions against F-16 and other competitors. Of course F-16 has been bought by more operators and in larger numbers and has been more successful especially commercially. I think major reason for that was winning that LWF competition though as in many cases F-16 was selected without real competition. In all competitions both have been found to have been excellent fighter aircraft (for their time) and selection has depended on what qualities have been emphasized and what exact versions are compared.

One of the interesting points sales wise I heard (though it may not be 100 percent true) is that the Hornet had the edge early on with the AIM-7 integration. Once the F-16 got full up on the Aim-7 the F-16 pretty much took the rest.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 18:03
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:What is it about the Hornet that gives it 9 lives?
Yet here we are in 2017, and a US president is championing more Hornets for both the US Navy and foreign governments?


Not that I agree with trading Shornets for F-35s, because that certainly isn't a good deal. But these F/A-18E (block 3s) are not to be associated with the YF-17 that lost to the YF-16 in any way, shape or form. These Rhinos are light years better than that prototype that lost the LWF program.

Talking to some Rhino pilots, these aircraft are absolute monsters and in A-A they are confident that they can achieve total air dominance with them even against today's high end threats.

in fact some Navy drivers I've talked to admit that the F-22 is a better platform for A-A overall (a testament to the Raptor's greatness) but that they can beat it with enough practice using their Rhinos.

These are not the low cost day time fighters that are there just to augment the smaller numbers of F-14s anymore.

These reduced RCS, highly advanced, AESA equiped warbirds capable of ungodly slow speed nose pointing abilities supported by powerful jamming variants in the EA-18G can really do some serious damage to an enemy's IADS zones.

No I'm not saying they will be as good as F-35s and F-22s, but what I am saying is that if you're not going against China or Russia in 2026 onwards. These planes as they are now are good enough, against NKorea, Iran or Syria they are still dominating. Against today's Russia or China, they are still on par and lets face it, at least today they are still cheaper than F-35Cs

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 20:49
by neurotech
zero-one wrote:in fact some Navy drivers I've talked to admit that the F-22 is a better platform for A-A overall (a testament to the Raptor's greatness) but that they can beat it with enough practice using their Rhinos.

The Rhino can bleed energy easily and force an overshoot in a knife fight, remaining in complete control. The IRST/FLIR pod can also track a Raptor quite easily. Similarly, Aggressor F-16s have been seen with FLIR pods for engaging a Raptor. Also, the Rhino pilots are using JHMCS to cue the AIM-9X onto the Raptor, with or without the IRST pod.
zero-one wrote:These reduced RCS, highly advanced, AESA equiped warbirds capable of ungodly slow speed nose pointing abilities supported by powerful jamming variants in the EA-18G can really do some serious damage to an enemy's IADS zones.

The Rhino can fire a HARM for lock-on emitter source, with or without the Growler support. AESA also provides for high definition Synthetic Aperture Radar modes, which also support counter-IADS engagement.

zero-one wrote:No I'm not saying they will be as good as F-35s and F-22s, but what I am saying is that if you're not going against China or Russia in 2026 onwards. These planes as they are now are good enough, against NKorea, Iran or Syria they are still dominating. Against today's Russia or China, they are still on par and lets face it, at least today they are still cheaper than F-35Cs

Remember that a lot commentators are comparing the cost of an F-35A with the notional F/A-18EF Block III+ (eg. $70m apparently.. more like $85-90m fully loaded) that I doubt is actually significantly cheaper than a F-35A. Compared to a F-35C, the Rhino has the cost advantage.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 11:27
by hornetfinn
XanderCrews wrote:One of the interesting points sales wise I heard (though it may not be 100 percent true) is that the Hornet had the edge early on with the AIM-7 integration. Once the F-16 got full up on the Aim-7 the F-16 pretty much took the rest.


That definitely affected some early customers for Hornet, namely Canada, Australia and Spain. However Hornet was also selected during 1990s by Finland and Switzerland (along with Kuwait and Malaysia, but I don't know much about those) because Hornet proved to be better at BVR engagements mostly due to more capable and flexible radar and higher missile load (important for small country with low number of airframes). At least in Finnish comparisons and evaluations Hornet was clearly the best in BVR overall compared to Mirage 2000-5, JAS Gripen A and F-16 Block 40 (GE engine with then latest AN/APG-68(V)5 variant). Of course Hornet then benefited from much more capable AN/APG-73 radar and -402 engines which were not available during earlier competitions/evaluations. It definitely would've needed those upgrades earlier to win more contracts. F-16 was probably better overall before that happened. Then Hornet production ended in 2000 (because of SH) but F-16 production continued and it still sold pretty well.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 13:47
by wrightwing
neurotech wrote:

[
Remember that a lot commentators are comparing the cost of an F-35A with the notional F/A-18EF Block III+ (eg. $70m apparently.. more like $85-90m fully loaded) that I doubt is actually significantly cheaper than a F-35A. Compared to a F-35C, the Rhino has the cost advantage.


The Block III Super Hornet won't be cheaper than an F-35, at any time.

Re: F-18E/F for India

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 14:24
by marsavian
Boeing to set up a new facility for F/A 18 Super Hornet production in India if ordered by India

https://idrw.org/big-boost-to-make-in-i ... -in-india/

US aerospace major Boeing has offered to set up a new production facility in India for the production of its F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters if the company gets contracts for large number of fighters for both the Indian Air Force as well as the Indian Navy. Also, since the Indo-US defence and security ties have been on an upswing, the company does not foresee any issues related to transfer of technology (ToT). Dan Gillian, vice president of F/A-18 and E/A-18 programs at Boeing, while discussing the Block III Super Hornet’s capabilities, with Financial Express Online, said that “India-US relationship is uniquely positioned and we are working on setting up a new production facility for building the next generation aircraft in India. We have a robust ToT plan.” With the US Navy making major investments in Block III, F/A-18 Super Hornet has a long life ahead. “The Super Hornet is the most advanced fighter that India could manufacture here and this will help the Indian side to make the AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) air plane,” he said.

The Advanced Medium Combat aircraft (AMCA) could be a fifth-generation plane being developed by the state owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Since the time India has been designated as “Major Defence Partner” by the Trump administration in 2016, the defence trade and technology sharing with India has been elevated to a level of its trusted allies and partners. To a question if the company is focusing on the Indian Navy’s planned acquisition of 57 multi-role carrier-borne fighters, the company official said that F/A 18 Super Hornet would be the ideal machine for the Navy’s carrier, as no modifications will be required. Companies including the French Rafale of Dassault Aviation, F/A-18 Super Hornet of US based Boeing MIG-29K of Russia, F-35B and F-35C of Lockheed Martin, US and Gripen from Saab, Sweden are in race for the Naval order.

According to Gillian the company is also offering F/A 18 Super Hornet for the Indian Air Force requirement of 114 fighter aircraft. Boeing Company which has been present in India for several decades has been working to set up 21st century ecosystem for aerospace & defence manufacturing in India, which will help in making Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative in the defence and aerospace sector a success. According to Gillian, “The Company through its Indian partners has been building parts for helicopters and aircraft here in India. And we have more than 160 Indian suppliers.” This will lead to also lead to maximizing indigenous content in the production of the F/A-18 in India for its armed forces. And, he added that there are tie ups with state owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Mahindra Defence Systems (MDS) for manufacturing the F/A-18 Super Hornet in India for its armed forces and will also work towards jointly developing of future technologies. “Depending on the order from the Indian side for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the number of suppliers can go up higher and we are already in talks with them as all of this depends on the requirements,” he added ...

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 23:31
by charlielima223
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... te-457459/

In March 2019, the company secured a three-year contract from the US Navy (USN) for 78 F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets, with a total contract value of about $4 billion. That follows a $1.8 billion order by the service in 2018 for 24 examples. The Block III is the most modern variant of the fighter.
***
The new airframe sales come in addition to Service Life Extension work on the USN's existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs. In 2018, Boeing was awarded $73 million to reinforce and update an initial set of four aircraft. The company expects to receive numerous follow-on contracts over a 10-year period. To support the fleet-wide modernisation programme, it plans to establish a dedicated production line in San Antonio, Texas, in addition to its facility in St. Louis, Missouri.
***
While the service still has plans to order many more F-35s, it is becoming apparent that it no longer sees stealth technology as a cure-all. Instead, it is buying a mix of aircraft, with no expiration date in sight for classic fighters such as the F/A-18E/F. The US Air Force is pursuing a similar policy by buying Boeing F-15EXs.
***
It might be the era of fifth-generation stealth fighters, but Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is selling just fine. In March 2019, the company secured a three-year contract from the US Navy (USN) for 78 F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets, with a total contract value of about $4 billion. That follows a $1.8 billion order by the service in 2018 for 24 examples. The Block III is the most modern variant of the fighter.

The new airframe sales come in addition to Service Life Extension work on the USN's existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs. In 2018, Boeing was awarded $73 million to reinforce and update an initial set of four aircraft. The company expects to receive numerous follow-on contracts over a 10-year period. To support the fleet-wide modernisation programme, it plans to establish a dedicated production line in San Antonio, Texas, in addition to its facility in St. Louis, Missouri.
***
While the service still has plans to order many more F-35s, it is becoming apparent that it no longer sees stealth technology as a cure-all. Instead, it is buying a mix of aircraft, with no expiration date in sight for classic fighters such as the F/A-18E/F. The US Air Force is pursuing a similar policy by buying Boeing F-15EXs.
***
"Being that stealthy didn't help us close the kill chain for the navy nearly as effectively as being a networked fighter," says Dan Gillian, program manager for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler. "Things like an internal [infrared search and track] or an enclosed weapons pod, they kind of fell to the bottom of the list."
Instead of more stealth, the Block III aircraft is essentially a flying and heavily armed node in the USN's network. It comes with an advanced processor, called the Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) computer and a robust communications link from Rockwell Collins, called Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT). The cockpit also has a large 21in touchscreen display. The aircraft's computer hardware is designed to run next-generation sensors and software, says Gillian.
***
Block III Super Hornets also come with an external Block II Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor, which, when used by two aircraft at once, can create a targeting solution for an air-to-air missile. Boeing declines to say what the IRST's range is, but claims it is longer than adversaries' air-to-air radar. The new aircraft also have shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks, which reduce drag and carry about 1,588kg (3,500lb) of fuel, extending its range by about 120nm (222km).
Legacy Super Hornets that undergo the Service Life Extension programme receive essentially the same configuration as brand-new Block III airframes, plus their lifespan is extended from 6,000h to 10,000h via component replacements and structural reinforcement. Boeing says it expects those additional flight hours to give each aircraft 10 to 13 extra years of life.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 08:52
by wil59
charlielima223 wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-super-hornets-find-place-in-stealth-fighte-457459/

In March 2019, the company secured a three-year contract from the US Navy (USN) for 78 F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets, with a total contract value of about $4 billion. That follows a $1.8 billion order by the service in 2018 for 24 examples. The Block III is the most modern variant of the fighter.
***
The new airframe sales come in addition to Service Life Extension work on the USN's existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs. In 2018, Boeing was awarded $73 million to reinforce and update an initial set of four aircraft. The company expects to receive numerous follow-on contracts over a 10-year period. To support the fleet-wide modernisation programme, it plans to establish a dedicated production line in San Antonio, Texas, in addition to its facility in St. Louis, Missouri.
***
While the service still has plans to order many more F-35s, it is becoming apparent that it no longer sees stealth technology as a cure-all. Instead, it is buying a mix of aircraft, with no expiration date in sight for classic fighters such as the F/A-18E/F. The US Air Force is pursuing a similar policy by buying Boeing F-15EXs.
***
It might be the era of fifth-generation stealth fighters, but Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is selling just fine. In March 2019, the company secured a three-year contract from the US Navy (USN) for 78 F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets, with a total contract value of about $4 billion. That follows a $1.8 billion order by the service in 2018 for 24 examples. The Block III is the most modern variant of the fighter.

The new airframe sales come in addition to Service Life Extension work on the USN's existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs. In 2018, Boeing was awarded $73 million to reinforce and update an initial set of four aircraft. The company expects to receive numerous follow-on contracts over a 10-year period. To support the fleet-wide modernisation programme, it plans to establish a dedicated production line in San Antonio, Texas, in addition to its facility in St. Louis, Missouri.
***
While the service still has plans to order many more F-35s, it is becoming apparent that it no longer sees stealth technology as a cure-all. Instead, it is buying a mix of aircraft, with no expiration date in sight for classic fighters such as the F/A-18E/F. The US Air Force is pursuing a similar policy by buying Boeing F-15EXs.
***
"Being that stealthy didn't help us close the kill chain for the navy nearly as effectively as being a networked fighter," says Dan Gillian, program manager for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler. "Things like an internal [infrared search and track] or an enclosed weapons pod, they kind of fell to the bottom of the list."
Instead of more stealth, the Block III aircraft is essentially a flying and heavily armed node in the USN's network. It comes with an advanced processor, called the Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) computer and a robust communications link from Rockwell Collins, called Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT). The cockpit also has a large 21in touchscreen display. The aircraft's computer hardware is designed to run next-generation sensors and software, says Gillian.
***
Block III Super Hornets also come with an external Block II Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor, which, when used by two aircraft at once, can create a targeting solution for an air-to-air missile. Boeing declines to say what the IRST's range is, but claims it is longer than adversaries' air-to-air radar. The new aircraft also have shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks, which reduce drag and carry about 1,588kg (3,500lb) of fuel, extending its range by about 120nm (222km).
Legacy Super Hornets that undergo the Service Life Extension programme receive essentially the same configuration as brand-new Block III airframes, plus their lifespan is extended from 6,000h to 10,000h via component replacements and structural reinforcement. Boeing says it expects those additional flight hours to give each aircraft 10 to 13 extra years of life.

Block III Super Hornets also come with an external Block II Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor, which, when used by two aircraft at once, can create a targeting solution for an air-to-air missile. Boeing declines to say what the IRST's range is, but claims it is longer than adversaries' air-to-air radar. it's a joke? Irst>aesa radar lol

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 19:44
by SpudmanWP
Depends on the environment, ROEs and opponent tech.

If it's in the clouds, good luck with an IRST.

If ROEs are not a thing then you could shoot at an airliner, private plane, etc for all you know.

IF the enemy has a VLO airframe then an IRST will likely see, and more importantly, identify him sooner than a radar.

But there is a catch, the use of two IRSTs requires a datalink and the datalink on the F-18 is not directional. This will give their position away to any decent ESM in the area.

Darn, if only the DoD had come up with a tactical fighter that is VLO, has an AESA radar, has a very good ESM, has an IRST, and has a directional datalinks that would allow it to take advantage of both situations (hunter and the hunted). :mrgreen:

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 09:42
by wil59
SpudmanWP wrote:Depends on the environment, ROEs and opponent tech.

If it's in the clouds, good luck with an IRST.

If ROEs are not a thing then you could shoot at an airliner, private plane, etc for all you know.

IF the enemy has a VLO airframe then an IRST will likely see, and more importantly, identify him sooner than a radar.

But there is a catch, the use of two IRSTs requires a datalink and the datalink on the F-18 is not directional. This will give their position away to any decent ESM in the area.

Darn, if only the DoD had come up with a tactical fighter that is VLO, has an AESA radar, has a very good ESM, has an IRST, and has a directional datalinks that would allow it to take advantage of both situations (hunter and the hunted). :mrgreen:
Thank you for your explanation.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 11:26
by hornetfinn
It does indeed depend totally on the target and conditions. Against very hot objects like rockets and missiles during boost phase, IRST systems will detect them at far longer ranges than fighter radar could.

Against non-stealthy aircraft, radar will detect them at longer ranges usually. Usually, because radars are much more susceptible to enemy countermeasures like jamming and chaff (if used in large quantities). However in most cases modern radars will still see further than IRST system. Especially during search where FoV needs to be kept fairly wide to cover decent patch of the sky. During tracking phase IRST might see the target further away if it has very narrow FoV. But then it's totally fixed to that one target and doesn't see anything else.

Against VLO targets, it gets really interesting. I think it's pretty plausible that IRST could detect such targets earlier than radar could. Especially if EW is also used against the radar. But that naturally depends on exact situation and sensor systems used.

All this leads to reason why sensor and data fusion is so important. All sensor technologies have their pros and cons and fusion can make a huge difference as it can combine the strengths of each technology.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2019, 05:31
by Corsair1963
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super HORNET Block III Nuclear Capable by 2025

During the bi-annual Pre-Paris Air Show Media Tour in St. Louis, Boeing executives informed MONCh that their F/A-18E/F Super HORNET Block III multirole fighter jets will be be more stealthy, pack a more powerful punch, fly with increased stamina and carry a more robust communication and targeting system, as the US Navy awarded the company a U$4 billion contract for the production of 78 Block IIIs (61 single seat E’models and 17 two seat F models) to start being delivered by 2022.

"This year, Block III transitions into production and the last two Kuwaiti jets will be test jets delivered to the US Navy at end of this year," Boeing executives said in St. Louis.

F/A-18E/F Super HORNET Block III complements capabilities of E/A-18G & E-2D to optimize carrier air wings with an increased range (via conformal fuel tanks, over the wings in low drag configuration, opening up new weapon stations) and enhanced situational awareness via new advanced glass cockpit systems, flying today with the first Kuwaiti aircraft. Further features include advanced network connectivity via satellite communication (SATCOM), a 9,000 hour airframce and significant reduced signature (lower radar cross section) with coating on few additional hotspots. A common tactical picture is also added, i.e. long wave/range Infrared Search And Track Systems (IRST) (Program of Record independent of Block IIII), Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTP-N) open architecture, multi-level secure processor and Collins Aerospace's Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link

Two jets are to be delivered this year and, according to Boeing, "all Block IIs will become Block IIIs via an upgrade program, delivered through 2033; 550 Block IIIs altogether."

As the Block III Super HORNET (and incidentally the E/A-18 GROWLER) will be offered to Germany to replace its fleet of aging TORNADOs, Boeing states during the Media tour that, "by 2025 we will have nuclear capability." The German Ministry of Defense is looking at the non-stealthy Eurofighter TYPHOON and F/A-18 Super HORNET and to replace Germany's 90 TORNADO aircraft set to retire in 2035, but the jets will have to carry nuclear weapons. The TYPHOON is not nuclear capable yet ,but a purchase of 45 Super HORNETs could complement 143 TYPHOONs.

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/5450-f18blk3.html

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2019, 07:36
by krieger22
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-03-01 ... rnet-Fleet

Boeing Receives U.S. Navy Contract to Modernize F/A-18 Super Hornet Fleet

ARLINGTON, Va., March 1, 2018 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] has been awarded a contract to modernize the U.S. Navy F/A-18 fleet, extending the life of existing Super Hornets from 6,000 to 9,000+ flight hours. In the early 2020s, Boeing will begin installing initial updates to the aircraft that will convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration.

The Block III conversion will include enhanced network capability, longer range with conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, signature improvements and an enhanced communication system. The updates are expected to keep the F/A-18 in active service for decades to come.

“The initial focus of this program will extend the life of the fleet from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours,” said Mark Sears, SLM program director. “But SLM will expand to include Block II to Block III conversion, systems grooming and reset and O-level maintenance tasks designed to deliver a more maintainable aircraft with an extended life and more capability. Each of these jets will fly another 10 to 15 years, so making them next-generation aircraft is critical.”

The indefinite-delivery contract is for up to $73 million. Work begins in April on an initial lot of four aircraft at Boeing’s St. Louis production center. An additional production line will be established in San Antonio, Texas in 2019. Additional follow-on contracts could be awarded over the next 10 years. The U.S. Navy fleet consists of 568 Super Hornets.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 00:22
by marsavian
US Navy flies F/A-18F Super Hornet with Infrared Search & Track Block II pod

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 60.article

The US Navy (USN) for the first time in late 2019 flew an F/A-18F Super Hornet carrying an Infrared Search & Track (IRST) Block II pod under the centerline of its undercarriage.

The IRST Block II is in the risk reduction phase of development, says Boeing on 15 January. Flights at Boeing’s facilities in the St. Louis, Missouri area are to be used to collect data on how the hardware is performing.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III upgrade programme also includes enhanced networking and communication capabilities, conformal fuel tanks that extend the aircraft’s range [radius ?] by about 120nm (222km), a cockpit with a 21in touchscreen display, and a more powerful mission computer.

Boeing expects the IRST Block II pod to be delivered to the USN in 2021. It should reach Initial Operational Capability soon after the service receives it, the company says.


Image

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 02:11
by madrat
What happens when you carry three tank-mounted IRST's?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 03:45
by h-bomb
madrat wrote:What happens when you carry three tank-mounted IRST's?


IR Holograms??

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 04:55
by marsavian
Or slightly better passive range accuracy ?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 05:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
you lose the ability to drop all three tanks instead of just one?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 15:10
by mixelflick
Who the hell thought this was a good idea? An IRST on the tip of a fuel tank, which can't be jettisoned. I would have thought an IRST probe on the engine nacelle hardpoints would have been a much better idea. Maybe I'm missing something, but this idea sounds pretty dumb.

Clearly not all jets will be carrying one, probably one or two in a formation. So they need to "hope" those particular F-18's don't get shot down, lest the IRST eyes be lost. I also question its actual utility. Has there ever been a truly effective IRST put on a fighter? I mean up until the advent of the F-35.

It sounds from reading like the Typhoon's PIRATE is one of the better ones, but even that capability seems marginal (compared to what it's advertised as)??

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2020, 01:45
by 35_aoa
mixelflick wrote:Who the hell thought this was a good idea? An IRST on the tip of a fuel tank, which can't be jettisoned. I would have thought an IRST probe on the engine nacelle hardpoints would have been a much better idea. Maybe I'm missing something, but this idea sounds pretty dumb.


There were a lot of other (better) options, which were explored. Unfortunately, budget has the ultimate final say. The USN will always be perpetually caught in a battle of competing priorities, and we still have CVN, SSN/SSBN, CG and DDG to build which are monumentally expensive as you know. This concept saved a lot of money and got it to the fleet faster. That's the long and short of it.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2020, 03:58
by madrat
Does AIM-9X with the search while scan function of its IIR seeker tie into the rest of the sensors in Super Hornet? While not as capable, I'd hope it would help Super Hornet, too.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2020, 08:43
by geforcerfx
35_aoa wrote:There were a lot of other (better) options, which were explored. Unfortunately, budget has the ultimate final say. The USN will always be perpetually caught in a battle of competing priorities, and we still have CVN, SSN/SSBN, CG and DDG to build which are monumentally expensive as you know. This concept saved a lot of money and got it to the fleet faster. That's the long and short of it.


Other than drag is there any limits on your G, roll, or AOA with a empty tank on centerline? I know centerline has the least drag since it's not canted like the wing tanks so drag penalty has got to be a lot lower and the CFT's should give a nice range boost over a 3 tank config used now.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 02:26
by wrightwing
geforcerfx wrote:
35_aoa wrote:There were a lot of other (better) options, which were explored. Unfortunately, budget has the ultimate final say. The USN will always be perpetually caught in a battle of competing priorities, and we still have CVN, SSN/SSBN, CG and DDG to build which are monumentally expensive as you know. This concept saved a lot of money and got it to the fleet faster. That's the long and short of it.


Other than drag is there any limits on your G, roll, or AOA with a empty tank on centerline? I know centerline has the least drag since it's not canted like the wing tanks so drag penalty has got to be a lot lower and the CFT's should give a nice range boost over a 3 tank config used now.

An empty centerline shouldn't have much if any restrictions. Performance should be far better now without the 2 wing tanks.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 02:27
by 35_aoa
geforcerfx wrote:
35_aoa wrote:Other than drag is there any limits on your G, roll, or AOA with a empty tank on centerline?


No, there are not. Like you said, CL and CFT's would/will likely be a nice combo.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 02:53
by marsavian
IRST21 is big, the Legion Pods which house them for F-15/F-16 are 16" in diameter so at least the F-18 is getting some fuel with the sensor.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... n-pod.html

Image

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 03:48
by geforcerfx
Would wingtip based IRST pods be useful at all? I always thought having targeting pod out there might give them a better view compared to the spots they typically run, you could also incorporate EW or extra sensors for missiles warnings or some type of basic DAS system for covering the side and rear hemispheres.


Also thanks for the answer 35 aoa

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 10:38
by hornetfinn
geforcerfx wrote:Would wingtip based IRST pods be useful at all? I always thought having targeting pod out there might give them a better view compared to the spots they typically run, you could also incorporate EW or extra sensors for missiles warnings or some type of basic DAS system for covering the side and rear hemispheres.


That's an interesting idea and it could give some interesting capabilties. It could give pretty good stereo vision with widely spaced sensors for the IRST system meaning that it could do passive ranging much better than with having only one sensor. They would also give wider FoV or even 360 degree coverage. Possibly have both long range IRST sensor (with narrow FoV) and two short range ones (with wide FoV) to allow MLD/MAWS functionality. One would be facing forward along with the long range sensor and the other would look back. Each one would have similar coverage to EODAS in F-35. With modern small, light and effective uncooled sensors this might be doable even in small wingtip mounting.

Real targeting pod would likely be too large for wingtip mounting and I doubt it would give much benefits there either. You'd need two pods for balance and coverage and I don't think that's better than having one larger targeting pod on the center.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 18:13
by geforcerfx
hornetfinn wrote:They would also give wider FoV or even 360 degree coverage. Possibly have both long range IRST sensor (with narrow FoV) and two short range ones (with wide FoV) to allow MLD/MAWS functionality. One would be facing forward along with the long range sensor and the other would look back. Each one would have similar coverage to EODAS in F-35. With modern small, light and effective uncooled sensors this might be doable even in small wingtip mounting.

Real targeting pod would likely be too large for wingtip mounting and I doubt it would give much benefits there either. You'd need two pods for balance and coverage and I don't think that's better than having one larger targeting pod on the center.


That's actually where the idea kinda came from was a cheaper easier solution to give our 4th and 4.5 gens some DAS capabilities to improve survivability and improve the pilots SA (would be a nice upgrade on the Super Hornets imo). I always thought the targeting pods on the smaller aircraft were carried to one side and the intake/fuselage would block the views of the other side but looking at some pictures and videos again I guess not to much. I know the F-14, F-15 mounted there's for almost perfect forward sector vision.

Do you really think they would be wide enough apart to do passive ranging? I figured a few hundred feet or more would be needed from what i read on earlier threads 35-50 seems pretty small.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 19:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
geforcerfx wrote:Do you really think they would be wide enough apart to do passive ranging? I figured a few hundred feet or more would be needed from what i read on earlier threads 35-50 seems pretty small.

yeah, with an angular resolution of 0.0225 degrees per pixel (4kx4k with 95deg FOV) two sensors 35ft apart will only see an angular difference at ranges under 14nm. Meanwhile, two planes 10nm apart can cooperatively range out to "infinity" (24,000+nm)

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 20:11
by madrat
Rather than dedicated wingtip irst how about dropping a IIR-equipped MALD to fly about 5 or 6 miles off your wing?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2020, 20:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
or just network with your wingman the way the F-35 does?

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2020, 09:57
by hornetfinn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Do you really think they would be wide enough apart to do passive ranging? I figured a few hundred feet or more would be needed from what i read on earlier threads 35-50 seems pretty small.

yeah, with an angular resolution of 0.0225 degrees per pixel (4kx4k with 95deg FOV) two sensors 35ft apart will only see an angular difference at ranges under 14nm. Meanwhile, two planes 10nm apart can cooperatively range out to "infinity" (24,000+nm)


Sure it's a lot better to range co-operatively with wide spacing between aircraft like F-35 does. However this was supposed to be relatively cheap and straightforward upgrade to 4th gen fighters without similar data links or sensor fusion engines. Another thing is that the ranging could be done with narrow FoV sensor like regular IRST systems do. Of course for MLD/MAWS functionality a wide FoV sensor would be needed (like EODAS in F-35 or DDM-NG in Rafale). However I don't think 4kx4k sensors could be used as those need to be cooled AFAIK. In this we might use 1kx1k uncooled sensors (because of restrictions in weight, cooling and space) with say 3 degree FoV for the IRST sensor and at least 95 degrees for the MLD/MAWS sensor. Naturally this kind of system would be a lot more expensive than current IRST upgrades for F-15 and SH.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2020, 16:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
hornetfinn,

The F/A-18C-G already have Link-16 for datalinking ownship positions as well as radar contacts. And as I even type this I realize the sheer magnitude of contacts spherical systems track and the processing power it takes to classify them. This is not "Hey, I see a hot pixel as az1/el1, what do you see?" followed by some basic geometry.

I withdraw my "Do what the F-35 does" statement. It was built from the ground up for that.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 10:23
by hornetfinn
I agree that F-35 is really unique when it comes to networked sensor fusion. It has superior sensor system with superior sensor fusion engine and all connected with superior networking capability. I think it's really difficult to understand how much of a difference all that makes when it comes to SA and also providing that SA to others (especially C2I nodes). We could probably install (and likely will) some of those capabilties to 4th gen fighters with recent advances and cost reductions in Link 16, IIR sensors and computing systems. Super Hornet seems like good candidate for such upgrades as those will be used for some time and has advanced 4th gen avionics suite already. But even IRST21 required some other upgrades (new mission computer, networking IIRC) even when it has only single IRST sensor. Legion pod seems to be good system but it's pretty big, so it might not be easy to do wingtip mounted systems with good enough performance in comparison. Those seem to have their own pod to pod data links and sensor fusion system to do stuff like triangulation and passive ranging co-operatively.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 13:31
by madrat
If you're tracking within 14nm then it makes sense to not use expensive wingtip solutions. But if you are searching in a directional manner only then it may as well be mounted on a location where fuel mass can be used to regulate temperature in them. Are they so expensive where mounting on each side of the fuselage or on a wing (tiseo-like) is impractical? The chinese seem obsessed with adding a MAWS-like system on future Flanker derivatives to keep them relevant. And most of their Flankers are two-seat versions, so their system is likely a nod to situational awareness and survivability being important to them. It looks like Dassault opted for improving the basic Rafale to where fleet numbers suffered, but the ability of each aircraft increased. Having a better aircraft at some point is more important than raw numbers.

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2020, 00:47
by geforcerfx
In a surprise announcement, the U.S. Navy revealed on Tuesday that it had successfully flown tests involving unmanned versions of the EA-18G Growler electronic attack fighter. The tests involved a single manned EA-18G controlling two unmanned versions of the same aircraft, opening up the possibility that the U.S. Navy could fly armed unmanned aircraft sooner than originally thought


https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... nned-navy/

Re: F-18E/F 2017

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 04:28
by Corsair1963
Air Weapons: LRASM Challenges Tomahawk

March 16, 2020: Australia has become the first export customer for the new American LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile), which entered service in 2018. Australia order3ed 200 LRASM, 11 LARSAM training versions, as well various other training and maintenance items plus training and extended maintenance and tech support. The total cost of the Australian purchase is nearly a billion dollars. Australia will employ LRASM on its F-18E jets fighters.

In the U.S. LARSM was first deployed in late 2018 for U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers. LRASM was familiar to air force personnel because it is basically a new version of the existing AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile). This was recognized in 2015 when the air-launched version of LRASM was given the official designation of AGM-158C. This followed a 2014 decision to take the LRASM research project and put it into service as a stopgap until a more advanced successor to the Tomahawk cruise missile is ready in the mid-2020s. The air force is equipping other bombers and fighter-bombers to use LRASM. Deliveries of the naval version began later in 2019, first for the carrier based F-18E. This is the one Australia will get for its land-based F-18Es.

While LARSM is a cruise missile, it evolved from smarts bombs that had small wings added to enable them to glide long distances. After that a small jet engine was added it was a cruise missile. In contrast, the Tomahawk was designed, forty years ago, as a cruise missile and is one of the earliest examples of a guided missile that was originally designed for heavy bombers eventually going on to be a weapon for surface warships, submarines and shore-based systems. Cruise missiles designed for use on bombers and fighter-bombers are increasingly popular for other uses. Thus in 2017, the U.S. Navy carried out a successful test of its LRASM launched from a container mounted at an angle on the deck of a ship. This version of LRASM used the same fire control hardware and software used for the VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells built into many new warships. The deck-mounted LRASM makes it possible to install this anti-ship missile on older ships as well as some new ones (like aircraft carriers) that don’t have VLS.

One popular feature LRASM lacks is a high-speed final approach. Russia pioneered this feature to overcome close-range defenses already in use to take down subsonic anti-ship missiles. Adding the supersonic final approach makes missiles heavier (by 50 percent or more) and even more expensive. There has not been enough actual combat experience to decide which approach is more cost/effective. In any event, LRASM is a lighter, less expensive alternative to Tomahawk.

LRASM is based on JASSM missiles, which are 1,045 kg (2,300 pound) weapons that are basically 455 kg (1,000 pound) JDAMS (GPS guided bombs) with a small turbojet added. JASSM was designed to go after enemy air defense systems or targets deep in heavily defended (against air attack) enemy territory. LRASM was based on JASSM ER, the version with the longest range (930 kilometers). Because of the additional sensors and electronics LRASM weighs 1,100 kg (2,500 pounds) with a 450 kg (1,000 pound) warhead and a range of 560 kilometers. The air-launched version used from ships or land has a booster rocket added to get the LRASM moving and high enough into the air so that the turbojet engine can take over. With the booster, added LRASM weighs 2,000 kg (4,400 pounds).

LRASM began in 2009 as a research project to develop a stealthier cruise missile. LRASM was part of an effort to develop autonomous hunter-killer missiles that can seek out targets without remote control and in the midst of enemy countermeasures (electronic and otherwise). LRASM underwent its first field test in 2013 when one was launched from a B-1B bomber and sent off in the direction where three destroyer size unmanned ships were moving about. LRASM flew via GPS waypoints for several hundred kilometers and then began flying a search pattern, seeking electronic or visual signs of one of the target ships. One was found and LRASM, armed with an inert warhead hit it.

LRASM is not just equipped to seek out targets in a general area (of several thousand square kilometers) but is also fitted out with electronics to resist GPS jamming and other anti-missile electronic defenses warships carry. LRASM also has a highly accurate INS (inertial guidance system) that cannot be jammed and serves as a backup to GPS. The ultimate LRASM design will also incorporate stealth features like a special shape and largely passive sensors. The original LRASM development model was basically an existing long-range bomb (JASSM ER) with a much improved guidance system and that turned out to work.

One reason JASSM was selected as the basis for LRASM was that JASSM went through a pretty tortuous development process itself. Work on JASSM began in the late 1990s and was expected to enter production by 2002 but that was delayed two years. Then there were more delays, lots of delays. From 2006 to 2009 the U.S. Department of Defense was on the verge of canceling the $6 billion JASSM program. Lobbying, pleading, large orders from Australia and South Korea, and the growing possibility that the missile would be useful against Iranian, Chinese or North Korean air defense systems, gave the program a few more lives.

The only problem JASSM had early on was that, well, it often didn't work. Until 2009 the tests had been mostly failures. But the manufacturer was able to identify all the problems and convinced the government that these were the result of poor manufacturing. This issue, the builder promised, was fixed. Fortunately, tests in late 2009 were over 90 percent successful. That kind of good news has arrived just in time and JASSM finally entered service. Although the U.S. Air Force had ordered the AGM-158 JASSM into full production in early 2004 only a few were produced because of test failures. Air force purchasing plans were cut way back because of the reliability problems, and this delayed shipment of the missiles to combat units until 2011.

JASSM is stealthy and uses GPS and terminal (infrared) guidance to zero in on heavily defended targets (like air defense sites.) The terminal guidance enables the missile to land within three meters (ten feet) of the aiming point. If there were a war with North Korea, for example, JASSM would be essential to taking out enemy air defenses, or any other targets that have to be hit early in a war. This capability is apparently what attracted the South Koreans, who now have F-15K aircraft that can carry JASSM.

JASSM/LRASM was designed to handle the most modern Russian surface to air missiles, which are also being sold to China. North Korea has older stuff, and can't afford the newer Russian SAMs. But even these older air defenses can be dangerous and are best addressed with long-range missiles. So there is a need for a missile like JASSM/LRASM, at least one that works.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 00316.aspx

LRASM.jpg



Super-Hornet-LRASM_2750.jpg