F-35 vs F/A-18 XT

[playloud]

I'll buy 0.1m2 clean. Let's go with that for the sake of the argument. How much would externals change the RCS?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

An order of magnitude for a light A-A load, maybe two for a large A-G load.

[ricnunes]

The 0.1m^2 comes from a Boeing or USN statement a while back, claiming that the Super Hornet's RCS was an order of magnitude smaller than the Hornet's. The Hornet's RCS is disputed, but I've seen it quoted as 1 or 3m^2.

Of course, "an order of magnitude" when it comes to marketing rarely means an exact 10x, so the general consensus is that the Super Hornet has an RCS between 1m^2 and 0.1m^2.

Well, while I could end up having to "eat my own words", I still think that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Super Hornet has a RCS of 0.1m^2, not even clean and not even in it's frontal aspect.
I'm saying this also by looking at the Sukhoi T-50 which even the Russians admit that it will have a RCS of 0.5m^2 (or at best 0.3m^2 according to some other sources). Yes, I'm aware that the Russians lag way behind the Americans in terms of Stealth (and not only) however as opposed to the Super Hornet, the T-50 was designed to be a Stealth aircraft from the beginning while the Super Hornet (despite having some RCS reduction in mind when it was designed) it was not.
And like many already said and quoted here before, Stealth isn't something that you can "retrofit" in a non-stealth aircraft.

Therefore, I simply don't believe that the Super Hornet (even "clean") will have a lower RCS than the T-50. (Please don't get me wrong)

In the meanwhile I'll try to find the source where I found that the SH RCS is around 0.9m^2 (I believe that it was in a Combat Aircraft magazine issue).

Edit: Also, when you consider the RAM usage (particularly in wing leading / trailing edges), use of radar blockers, sawtoothing & edge alignment of various panels, etc, it's not that hard to believe.

What I do believe is that due to what you mentioned the Super Hornet is the fighter aircraft with the lowest RCS of all "non-stealth" 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and many others that preceded these aircraft.
And again, I don't believe that the SH RCS is any lower than the RCS of a T-50 or a J-20.

[arrow-nautics]

Apologies for asking this question & using this thread although it seemed the best option.

I read recently that the F-35A has a lifecycle cost of (not including procurement) 355 million while the SH or a possible XT is at 335 million. Now I've lost it. I've searched and searched and was hoping there was a link or info on these costs.

Little help? Thanks

[ricnunes]

Apologies for asking this question & using this thread although it seemed the best option.

I read recently that the F-35A has a lifecycle cost of (not including procurement) 355 million while the SH or a possible XT is at 335 million. Now I've lost it. I've searched and searched and was hoping there was a link or info on these costs.

Little help? Thanks

I don't know where you get that information but regarding to the subject that you brought up the only thing that comes in my mind is the publically released information about the Danish competition which you can download it here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwK-B ... UJSQWxabzg

If you look at the document that I shared above in page 8, you'll see that the Danes reached the conclusion that in the lower end or the best case scenario the sustainment cost (same as lifecycle cost, I assume) for a fleet of 28 F-35As is 24.9 Billion Danish Krona (DKK) while for a fleet of 38 Super Hornets the sustainment cost is 26.8 Billion DKK. This means that the sustainment (lifecycle?) cost for a single F-35A is 889 Million DKK or $138 Million USD at todays exchange while the same for a single Super Hornet is 705 Million DKK or $109 Million USD.

But again these are best case scenarios and if you see in the document above (page 8 again) the total cost can go higher however if you look at the same page you'll see that the difference between "best case scenario" versus "worse case scenario" is much higher (the double or more) with the Super Hornet compared to the F-35 which makes all sense since investing in the Super Hornet is far more riskier due to for example slower production rates which means slower rate production of spare parts as well which means costlier maintenance in the future.

This means that the sustainment/lifecycle is likely to be higher for the Super Hornet compared to the F-35A in the future.

[arrow-nautics]

Thanks ricnunes

This will teach me to save or bookmark any and all references in the future. I usually do this but didn't on this occasion. I read it somewhere but forgot where. Your post generally is similar to what I had seen elsewhere.

Thank you thank you

So in essence this de facto illustrates the SH & F-35A are virtually on par in procurement & lifecycle. Not 100% but it's darned close.

Shhh, don't tell maus

[ricnunes]

Thanks ricnunes

This will teach me to save or bookmark any and all references in the future. I usually do this but didn't on this occasion. I read it somewhere but forgot where. Your post generally is similar to what I had seen elsewhere.

Thank you thank you

You're welcome!

Yes, that also happens to me more often than I would desire (forgetting to bookmark links/sources), so you're not alone here.

So in essence this de facto illustrates the SH & F-35A are virtually on par in procurement & lifecycle. Not 100% but it's darned close.

Shhh, don't tell maus

They (SH & F-35A) may be "on par" in terms of procurement & lifecycle/sustainment today but they certainly won't be tomorrow (which is what really matters) with the SH only becoming more expensive (and more expensive than the F-35A) for the reasons that I mentioned in my last post and often mentioned around here.

We really don't need to tell Maus anything, reality or real life should take care of it

[bring_it_on]

What is the performance penalty for carrying a permanent 480 gallon centerline tank on the SH?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

What is the performance penalty for carrying a permanent 480 gallon centerline tank on the SH?

That depends on the rest of the load.

[bring_it_on]

I was trying to find out what the impact of the center line tank is on performance, so essentially a tank vs no tank on a clean aircraft. This is important because the Navy has essentially made a trade to permanently retain the Center line tank by mounting a fairly expensive IRST sensor..plus it now carries less fuel. Overall, I guess they may be able to substitute the other two EFTs with CFTs and get range and performance benefits of that but I'm pretty sure on the net, the added capability degrades the SHs performance on the block III compared to the block II.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

essentially a tank vs no tank on a clean aircraft.

Okay, well for starters it adds 3597lb to the plane when full and 381lb when empty. On a clean aircraft it adds a DI of 19 for the tank. The Pylon adds another 183lb and 1 DI. So we are looking at roughly 560-3800lbs of weight and 20 DI. IF we are assuming this is now an IRST tank then the minimum weight will likely go up, lets just say 850, but the maximum is not likely to change much as the lost fuel volume is replaced by electronics, maybe 3900lb. This results in a roughly 0.12M reduction in top speed, an additional ~75 seconds to accelerate from ~.61M to 1.35M at 30,000ft, and a reduction in specific range of .012nm/lb. This is nominally an 11% increase in fuel burn with 23% more fuel. We are losing some of that fuel and we don't know how much.

[bring_it_on]

essentially a tank vs no tank on a clean aircraft.

Okay, well for starters it adds 3597lb to the plane when full and 381lb when empty. On a clean aircraft it adds a DI of 19 for the tank. The Pylon adds another 183lb and 1 DI. So we are looking at roughly 560-3800lbs of weight and 20 DI. IF we are assuming this is now an IRST tank then the minimum weight will likely go up, lets just say 850, but the maximum is not likely to change much as the lost fuel volume is replaced by electronics, maybe 3900lb. This results in a roughly 0.12M reduction in top speed, an additional ~75 seconds to accelerate from ~.61M to 1.35M at 30,000ft, and a reduction in specific range of .012nm/lb. This is nominally an 11% increase in fuel burn with 23% more fuel. We are losing some of that fuel and we don't know how much.

Thanks a ton.

[XanderCrews]

Basically the demand and fix that USN avaition has put itself in, along with its unique operations aboard ships. demands more super hornets.

So the question of which one an air arm should buy, should have a flow chart that goes like this:

Are you the US Navy?

Yes----> upgrade your super hornets to keep up with F-35s

No-----> buy F-35s, not super hornets

.have we noticed the trend that the SH is always trying to catch up to the F-35? And not the other way around? Anyone see F-35s trying to be more like SH?

[playloud]

.have we noticed the trend that the SH is always trying to catch up to the F-35? And not the other way around? Anyone see F-35s trying to be more like SH?

[spazsinbad]

1 day there will be 6 internal 'babies' in the F-35 - then some 'yet to be developed 'new missiles' (shark gestation time).