Advanced Super Hornet Brochure PDF (5Mb) 27 Aug 2013

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23335
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 21:18

Advanced Super Hornet Brochure PDF (5Mb) 27 Aug 2013

http://news.usni.org/2013/08/27/documen ... per-hornet
Attachments
163474043-Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief.pdf
(4.75 MiB) Downloaded 1377 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2499
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 22:15

Like the proposed new cockpit. Very F-35-ish. 8)

Thought page 12 was interesting. All the attack scenarios were along the coast of China. Hmmmmmm...... :whistle:
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 23:10

Like the CFTs, new engines, and avionics (especially for the 2-seaters)... pod is a waste of time/money.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 13:10

So this version of Super Hornet would have quite similar fuel load to F-35A, although it'd definitely be heavier and draggier. With CFTs it'd still have about 10 percent less fuel than F-35C and with one weapon pod it'd weigh pretty much the same. With CFTs and one EWP and uprated engines, it'd have better T/W ratio, but would still likely be draggier.

I think for USN with F-35C (which should be operational by the time this Advanced SH is), the EWP might not be that important as it'd be probably be easier and better to just use F-35C for those missions that might require such a pod.

This should increase SH capabilities quite a lot as CFTs would increase range/endurance about 25 percent and CFTs should also lower the RF signature compared to carrying multiple drop tanks. Of course more powerful engine, avionics and cockpit upgrades are important and increase combat capability. Overall this Advanced SH seems like a rather good aircraft and would likely be quite effective aircraft until 2030+ as envisioned. I wonder if Australia would like to upgrade their Super Hornets with these?
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 15:56

The E/F/A-18 E/F/G series has been doing a lot of testing this month.

A F/A-18F was fitted with CFTs and a weapons pod has shown to reduce its radar signature by 50%, and increased its combat radius to ~700nm (slightly better than what is projected for the F-35C.)

A pair of EA-18Gs and a E-2D successfully demonstrated the ability to geolocate a moving seaborne target using onboard ESM and a prototype TTNT datalink, instead of active (emitting) radar.

In 2014, Boeing will expand the demonstration to prove "multi-ship/multi-spectral fusion" using F/A-18E/F equipped with IRST, APG-79, the E-2D, and presumably the EA-18G. The TTNT datalink enables the sharing by providing a higher capacity than Link-16.

Some of these capabilities were part of the long established Super Hornet roadmap, while others are part of Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet program.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 16:06

hornetfinn wrote:So this version of Super Hornet would have quite similar fuel load to F-35A, although it'd definitely be heavier and draggier. With CFTs it'd still have about 10 percent less fuel than F-35C and with one weapon pod it'd weigh pretty much the same. With CFTs and one EWP and uprated engines, it'd have better T/W ratio, but would still likely be draggier.



One would think that a F/A-18E would be less draggy than the -F, but the reverse is true. And one would think that the CFTs would increase drag when installed on either, but the tests this month showed that they actually decreased drag on the already less draggy -F.

From the Boeing press release:

"Improvements to the aircraft's radar signature, including the enclosed pod, resulted in a 50 percent reduction compared with the U.S. Navy's stealth requirement for the current Super Hornet variant. The tests also showed that the CFTs increase the jet's combat radius by up to 130 nautical miles, for a total combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles."

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-201 ... 07639.html

Keep in mind that this is a company document, and probably just as generous with the facts as one from say, Lockheed Martin.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 18:44

Those range improvements are with EPE engines, which a re unfunded.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 19:58

SpudmanWP wrote:Those range improvements are with EPE engines, which a re unfunded.


Not so fast. Today's press release states, "The tests also showed that the CFTs increase the jet’s combat radius by up to 130 nautical miles, for a total combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles." The testbed aircraft is a Block II -F with standard engines. Significantly greater ranges can be achieved by installing EPEs, swapping the weapons pod with a CL tank, changing the load out and mission profiles, etc.

The points that Boeing seems to be making is that tactically significant increases in range and level of stealthiness can be made at relatively low risk and cost - which at this point are borne by industry partners. Further performance enhancements are possible, but that would require funding by the Navy. All this is on top of the new multi-ship passive sensing developments currently funded and under development.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 23:19

maus92 wrote:A F/A-18F was fitted with CFTs and a weapons pod has shown to reduce its radar signature by 50%...
1/2 the current signature still isn't much to crow about; the pod remains a pointless expense. However, the extra gas, power, and avionics would be a huge upgrade provided they can be back-fitted in a cost effective manner. Of course, I'm rather disappointed with Boeing's approach; gluing aeroshells to the outside of a demonstrator for a photo-op is clearly a marketing stunt directed at the less-informed. EPE should be the first priority because it would improve range/performance with the least amount of modification.
Last edited by lookieloo on 29 Aug 2013, 03:25, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 23:20

deleted
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3283
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post29 Aug 2013, 00:28

The conformal fuel tanks apparently increase lift as much as they increase drag at cruise speed (cancelling out), but they should have a similar negative effect on supersonic wave drag that external fuel tanks have -- though they wouldn't add interference drag the way the EFTs do.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post29 Aug 2013, 01:31

lookieloo wrote:
maus92 wrote:A F/A-18F was fitted with CFTs and a weapons pod has shown to reduce its radar signature by 50%...
1/2 the current signature still isn't much to crow about; the pod remains a pointless expense. However, the extra gas, power, and avionics would be a huge upgrade provided they can be back-fitted in a cost effective manner. Of course, I'm rather disappointed with Boeing's approach; gluing aeroshells to the outside of a demonstrator for a photo-op is clearly a marketing stunt directed at the less-informed. EPE should be the first priority because it would improve range/performance with with the least amount of modification.


Thing is, there's still no one who's shown a willingness to fund the development of EPE. As discussed elsewhere, Boeing and GE are no longer even talking about the EPE as we've known it in the past; now it's more the EDE with a "war emergency" rating.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post29 Aug 2013, 03:24

aaam wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
maus92 wrote:A F/A-18F was fitted with CFTs and a weapons pod has shown to reduce its radar signature by 50%...
1/2 the current signature still isn't much to crow about; the pod remains a pointless expense. However, the extra gas, power, and avionics would be a huge upgrade provided they can be back-fitted in a cost effective manner. Of course, I'm rather disappointed with Boeing's approach; gluing aeroshells to the outside of a demonstrator for a photo-op is clearly a marketing stunt directed at the less-informed. EPE should be the first priority because it would improve range/performance with the least amount of modification.
Thing is, there's still no one who's shown a willingness to fund the development of EPE. As discussed elsewhere, Boeing and GE are no longer even talking about the EPE as we've known it in the past; now it's more the EDE with a "war emergency" rating.
Well, that's a serious problem then... because without a serious increase in thrust, all Boeing has here is yet another overweight Hornet that can barely go supersonic with a realistic war-load. I suppose the CFTs could still be useful on our Growlers though since speed doesn't matter much for them anyways; they might also help on the F-model tankers.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Aug 2013, 07:18

maus92 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So this version of Super Hornet would have quite similar fuel load to F-35A, although it'd definitely be heavier and draggier. With CFTs it'd still have about 10 percent less fuel than F-35C and with one weapon pod it'd weigh pretty much the same. With CFTs and one EWP and uprated engines, it'd have better T/W ratio, but would still likely be draggier.



One would think that a F/A-18E would be less draggy than the -F, but the reverse is true. And one would think that the CFTs would increase drag when installed on either, but the tests this month showed that they actually decreased drag on the already less draggy -F.

From the Boeing press release:

"Improvements to the aircraft's radar signature, including the enclosed pod, resulted in a 50 percent reduction compared with the U.S. Navy's stealth requirement for the current Super Hornet variant. The tests also showed that the CFTs increase the jet's combat radius by up to 130 nautical miles, for a total combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles."

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-201 ... 07639.html

Keep in mind that this is a company document, and probably just as generous with the facts as one from say, Lockheed Martin.


CFTs might well decrease (subsonic) drag , but EWPs will definitely increase drag in any flight condition depending on what you hang in there. I'm pretty sure this Advanced Super Hornet with CFTs and just one EWP will not be really supersonic aircraft even with EPE engines.

From the range picture it seems like 730+ nm range is achieved without EWP and with centerline fuel tank installed (along with CFTs). I also really doubt the range calculation is done with similar profile and degraded engines as used in F-35 program. I really doubt Super Hornet is going to have longer legs than F-35C with about 10 percent less fuel and having most likely less efficient engines.

Otherwise it seems like Super Hornet is going to be kept up to date with all these upgrades to avionics and mission systems.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post29 Aug 2013, 15:15

hornetfinn wrote:
maus92 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So this version of Super Hornet would have quite similar fuel load to F-35A, although it'd definitely be heavier and draggier. With CFTs it'd still have about 10 percent less fuel than F-35C and with one weapon pod it'd weigh pretty much the same. With CFTs and one EWP and uprated engines, it'd have better T/W ratio, but would still likely be draggier.



One would think that a F/A-18E would be less draggy than the -F, but the reverse is true. And one would think that the CFTs would increase drag when installed on either, but the tests this month showed that they actually decreased drag on the already less draggy -F.

From the Boeing press release:

"Improvements to the aircraft's radar signature, including the enclosed pod, resulted in a 50 percent reduction compared with the U.S. Navy's stealth requirement for the current Super Hornet variant. The tests also showed that the CFTs increase the jet's combat radius by up to 130 nautical miles, for a total combat radius of more than 700 nautical miles."

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-201 ... 07639.html

Keep in mind that this is a company document, and probably just as generous with the facts as one from say, Lockheed Martin.


CFTs might well decrease (subsonic) drag , but EWPs will definitely increase drag in any flight condition depending on what you hang in there. I'm pretty sure this Advanced Super Hornet with CFTs and just one EWP will not be really supersonic aircraft even with EPE engines.

From the range picture it seems like 730+ nm range is achieved without EWP and with centerline fuel tank installed (along with CFTs). I also really doubt the range calculation is done with similar profile and degraded engines as used in F-35 program. I really doubt Super Hornet is going to have longer legs than F-35C with about 10 percent less fuel and having most likely less efficient engines.

Otherwise it seems like Super Hornet is going to be kept up to date with all these upgrades to avionics and mission systems.


The CFT drag penalty does kick in above ~ .9M, but Navy aircraft generally do not fly supersonically in a strike profile, nor in WVR air combat. And as far as the F-35C goes, it has some transonic drag issues of its own.

F/A-18E/F combat radius with the CFTs, AIM-9X, IRST and weapons pod is estimated at 650+nm w/o the EPEs. The F-35C last estimate was ~615nm. Very similar figures.

I haven't heard about using degraded engines in the F-35 program. Perhaps you mean developing new technology (ADVENT?) for the F135 engine program? I'd agree that it is crucial upgrade for later F-35 buys.

In the end, these are very similar aircraft, with a strikingly dissimilar bang-for-the-buck factor.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests