F-16 block 50/52+ RCS vs Super Hornet RCS

1) Just curious which has better LO... And if follow-on upgrades give potential on either model to be further reduced RCS, more than the other?

2) Also, what has better overall counter-measures... the best Viper package option, or the best CM package for SH? Thanks!

They're both "good-guy" jets.... Why would it matter?

I guess maybe bragging rights And maybe for sales potential based on both of those specs?

Well given that in the Blk 50/52+ Vipers it is almost an afterthought, and the F/A-18E/F/G was a new build with reduced RCS in mind, and that the Super hornet is a much larger airframe (more room for ECM), would have to say the Super Hornet takes the cake.

Anyone who really knows, knows better than to answer. Anyone who answers, is guessing.

LOL Roscoe, well I didn't think it was really a top-secret issue. And I asked it out of raw, academic interest. So yes, I'm just inquiring about rough estimated guesses as to what has lower RCS principles between latest F-16 blocks or Super Hornet and which has better CM... no prob.

I would think forinstance that discussions in past have concluded F-22 to be more LO than F-35, yet one could guess F-35 to have better CM?

Given India's MMRCA contest, it would presumably play into that as well. That is one serious fighter competition, between the F-16IN and F-18IN alone!

Back in 1992 when Northrop began detailed design of the F/A-18 E&F "SuperHornet" one challenge was to reduce the forward aspect RCS. In the new version the engine position was adjusted and the intakes were optimized for reduced cross section by duct shaping and incorporation of diverterless inlets. This approach was later incorporated into the design of the engine inlet ducts for the Joint Strike Fighter.

cristan,
Your info on DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) is wrong. The F-18 E&F as seen here has diverter channels on 2 sides of it's inlet.

The F-35 has none.

Here is a great writeup in Code One magazine about the F-16's role in developing and testing the concept of DSI.

Late to the original post but Geo, is wrong about the 50/52 RCS being an afterthought..

The Viper's RCS is very respectable. Not going into detail on the Super Hornet but lets just say the designers had to put a lot of lipstick on that pig.

Trust me...any RCS reduction done for the F-16 B50/52 or any other block was as an after-the-fact bolt-on kit.

Not going for a pissing contest here and I'm aware of the 'bolt ons'.

After talking with some of the aeroengineers from GD who worked on the light weight fighter design, the RCS of the Viper was a surprise. It was not in the intial design requirement to be what we term nowadays - LO. However, after the initial designs were developed and tested, the engineers found the RCS was very favorable. It had a much lower RCS than expected and was much better when compared to other designs of the day. GD began to develop bolt on's to market to the USAF (and other countries) for later production models. Excellent marketing on an already impressive design.

Now take the SH. The engineers had to design reduced RCS features onto that platform because it was so dirty to begin with. Lets just say they did reduces the RCS but it is just now in the F-16's League and by no means LO. Neither fighter is at all LO so don't confuse reduced RCS with LO.

Last point. Just because a fighter is larger doesn't mean it has better CM capacity or better ECM so don't think a larger fighter is going to excel over a smaller fighter in the CM department.

Geogen,

Reread my post from 6 Nov and realize I attributed you to the 'after thought' comment. It was sprstdlyscottsmn. Sorry about that.

Neither airframe is LO or even close and depending on what you are asking (mission loaded airframe or clean with no pylons) the Viper is better than the SH as currently designed from a majority of the look angles. As far as which has more potential to reduce the RCS well that probably goes to the clean SH since it currently is larger than the clean Viper.

Very simply...the Viper was a better-than-average airplane out of the chutes regarding RCS. That said, treatments were added to improve it. These treatments were further improved upon as time went one. However, the Block 50 was not significantly better than earlier blocks except that the treatments were included on the production line and did not require being added later. Note that with the same treatments, earlier blocks would have approx the same signature as the older blocks.

F16guy, I want trying to imply that either were LO, I never said as much, and I know that the shape of the F-16 lowers its RCS, but I also know that ECM pods are needed of Vipers for jamming, while the SH, IIRC, has it all internal as well as towed decoys, so it seems to me that if you are trying to compare the overall difficulty in tracking/hitting either jet that the SH would hold a bit of an edge. I could be wrong, just my two cents.

block 50/52+ also has internal jammers,not only SH