Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 18:09

lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?



Your also looking at modern systems that target and shoot down stand off weapons. That's what the whole A2AD notion is. Access denial. You have to orbit and pop missiles in there and hope they make it. With no BDA, follow on shots, ground support, it's basically impossible to hit anything moving etc.

Let's say the block 3 ASH happens. Its not even a 1 for 1 replacement for super Hornets let alone F-35s be shocked if the USN gets even 100 of them
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 18:11

southernphantom wrote:
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


By either using standoff-capable missiles with a disposable booster, allowing the missile to have sufficient energy to successfully complete an engagement, or being VLO.

Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


So the navy wants to use an airplane to plunk it's cruise missiles instead of ships?

It's not like the navy just has hundreds of sea borne platforms already loaded with 1,000s of long range surface to surface missiles amiright?

How silly would that be?

When do we figure out you can cut out the "middle man?" And the navy uses bigger stealthier missiles fired from ships?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 14 Feb 2017, 18:58, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2498
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 18:19

southernphantom wrote:Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


An X-47B, Phantom Ray (X-45C?) or derivative would seem to make so much sense as a missile truck, tanker, possibly an ISR / Early Warning aircraft.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1084
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 Feb 2017, 19:29

XanderCrews wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


By either using standoff-capable missiles with a disposable booster, allowing the missile to have sufficient energy to successfully complete an engagement, or being VLO.

Watch for LRS-B to act in this role, or for a VLO UCAV.


So the navy wants to use an airplane to plunk it's cruise missiles instead of ships?

It's not like the navy just has hundreds of sea borne platforms already loaded with 1,000s of long range surface to surface missiles amiright?

How silly would that be?

When do we figure out you can cut out the "middle man?" And the navy uses bigger stealthier missiles fired from ships?


I believe that we were referring to AAMs, for which the time delay imposed by using missiles on a surface combatant located up to several hundred miles away is...impractical. For surface targets, I agree that it makes far and away the most sense to have surface combatants doing the heavy lifting, with F-35s providing targeting.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2953
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post15 Feb 2017, 00:28

lamoey wrote:Missile Truck Question

To me the old artillery saying, "If the enemy is within range, so are you", seem a little to close to comfort. If a SH packed with missiles comes within launch range, it would be visible on any old radar, except perhaps under heavy jamming.

How can a missile truck stay out of harms way, while still within useful range to launch its missiles?


This.

And shooting at Rmax drives down the Pk and potentially obviates the benefit of the additional missiles.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Feb 2017, 22:18

US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades
15 Feb 2017 Stephen Trimble

"The US Navy has revived interest in studying a major upgrade of the engine that powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and two foreign fighters, including the possible addition of new technologies.

In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”....

...GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised.

“We believe this study would be an update of the previous work to include new technologies,” says GE, without elaborating.

A term in the title of the latest NAVAIR study — “core enhancement” — suggests the navy is focusing now on the three modules in the core of the engine, which include the high-pressure compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine.

Any new technologies would come on top of GE’s proposals for the F414 Enhanced Engine. In the core section, these included 3D aerodynamic shaping of the compressor blades and an improved cooling system for the turbine blades. GE had previously considered inserting ceramic matrix composites in the turbine of the F414 Enhanced Engine, but as of early 2014 had resolved to continue using metallic alloy blades...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gr-434227/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Feb 2017, 21:12

:devil: The GIFT that keeps on GIVING - another TRUMP negotiation via pre-emptive orders so don't worry 'bout anything USN.
Trump: 'We are looking seriously at a big order' of F-18s as the Navy's F-35 drags behind schedule
18 Feb 2017 Alex Lockie

"US President Donald Trump again teased the prospect of placing a “big order” of F/A-18 Super Hornets to a cheering crowd at Boeing’s South Carolina factory on Friday.

“We are looking seriously at a big order” of F-18s said Trump to applause from the crowd at Boeing, the company that builds the F/A-18....

...The advanced Super Hornet package offered by Boeing builds on the company’s reputation for delivering upgrades to the F-18, first built in the 1970s, on time and on cost.

This contrasts heavily with the Navy’s F-35C, made by Boeing rival Lockheed Martin, which has faced significant difficulties achieving readiness in the military.

Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 programs, told Business Insider that even with the coming F-35C naval variant, US carrier air wings would consist of a majority of F/A-18s into the 2040s. In fact, Boeing has contracts currently underway to update the F/A-18s."

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump ... 18s-2017-2
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 02:16

Does a service which claims it is suffering from severe fighter maintenance shortfalls really want to introduce
another fighter configuration?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 11:12

Some more BOING! Trumpet Blowing:

Trump flirting with big Super Hornet order 17 Feb 2017 Valerie Insinna,

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tru ... rnet-order
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 15:00

So am I supposed to believe that future super hornets will come in the block 3 configuration, I have nothing against the super hornet but it seems when I read about the block 3 upgrade it's just trying to be a worse f-35. conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapon pod, internal flir....f-35 comes with all that standard but does it better
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2498
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 15:32

les_paul59 wrote:So am I supposed to believe that future super hornets will come in the block 3 configuration, I have nothing against the super hornet but it seems when I read about the block 3 upgrade it's just trying to be a worse f-35. conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapon pod, internal flir....f-35 comes with all that standard but does it better


How much $$ and how long for testing of stores separation testing from the weapons pod?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1361
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 15:40

From the Aviation Week article further back in this thread, the newest vision for the Block 3 Super Hornet ("F/A-18XT") will not feature an enclosed weapons pod. Instead it will only feature a combined external fuel tank / IRST like the Talon Hate pod.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 16:11

Dragon029 wrote:From the Aviation Week article further back in this thread, the newest vision for the Block 3 Super Hornet ("F/A-18XT") will not feature an enclosed weapons pod. Instead it will only feature a combined external fuel tank / IRST like the Talon Hate pod.

Not even the conformal tanks? Sheesh, what's the point.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1361
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 17:01

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Not even the conformal tanks? Sheesh, what's the point.

No, the conformal tanks are included; it's just the weapons pod - Boeing stated that they believe they have a good mix of stealth and affordability or flexibility or something else. Reading between the lines I think they're just too concerned about either the pricetag of the pod, or they're too concerned about the timeline of having to perform separation testing from scratch for that pod.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Feb 2017, 17:37

Got it, thanks. Those CFTs will be a great benefit to the SHornet. Zero net drag when subsonic and while they do increase wave drag normal EFTs do as well. The joy of the SHornet is that each Block of modifications was designed to be done without needing a new airframe. You COULD upgrade a Block I to a Block III. The approach was very similar to what Grumman did with the Tomcat. Initial plane (Block I/A model) is a new airframe with proven avionics (AWG-9 was developed already for the Missileer) and engines (granted the F414 is qutie a bit more advanced than the F404 it was developed from, they do share the same footprint). Next (Block II/B Model) make a big upgrade (AESA Radar for the SHornet, better motors for the Tomcat). Then (Block III/D Model) make another big upgrade (CFTs and IRST-Tank ((needs the EPE though)) for SHornet and APG-71 for Tomcat).
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests