Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Stealthy Superbug



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
bjr1028
PostPosted: Sep 23, 2010 - 11:29 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
discofishing wrote:
Anyone see a chance that these proposed upgrades will be applied to existing US Navy Super Hornets?


Possibly.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 25, 2013 - 12:04 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
discofishing
PostPosted: Sep 23, 2010 - 07:48 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Nov 07, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 1280

Status: Offline
I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: Sep 24, 2010 - 02:38 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
F-16.net Moderator


Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1375

Status: Offline
bjr1028 wrote:
I don't know, but Boeing claims the CFT and Stealthpod give it a 10% range boost over a similar mission profile with the 3 external tanks.


That should be a good indicator how draggy the "Super" Hornet's design is...

discofishing wrote:
Anyone see a chance that these proposed upgrades will be applied to existing US Navy Super Hornets?


IMO, if they're smart, the CFTs and radar at least. The others are not as urgent.

_________________
I'm watching...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Lightndattic
PostPosted: Sep 24, 2010 - 03:56 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 494
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
discofishing wrote:
I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the block I SH don't have the cooling necessary for the APG-79. That's what those exhaust are between the tails of the block II SH's are for. I wonder how difficult those airframe changes would be to retrofit to the block I's. If they can't be fixed, you're in the same boat as the F-22- you have different capabilities between the blocks.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
geogen
PostPosted: Sep 25, 2010 - 05:30 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
Lightndattic wrote:
discofishing wrote:
I'm thinking the Supers should at least get the CFTs, F414 EPEs, and APG-79 for those that don't already have them.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the block I SH don't have the cooling necessary for the APG-79. That's what those exhaust are between the tails of the block II SH's are for. I wonder how difficult those airframe changes would be to retrofit to the block I's. If they can't be fixed, you're in the same boat as the F-22- you have different capabilities between the blocks.


I've personally promoted and supported the concept of RACR AESA sets for the block 1... as those would probably be a more plausible 'plug-in' upgrade..

Something will likely have to give though: either the SLEP hornets, (or substantial reduction in SLEP'd hornets), or F-35C (or substantial reduction in F-35C acquisition)... in order to see any significant near-term blkII Super upgrades and any new-build Super next-gens, to include CFT and F414EDE, etc. (IRST center tanks will apparently be the existing Super's upgrade in that respect). imo.

_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
discofishing
PostPosted: Sep 25, 2010 - 07:28 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Nov 07, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 1280

Status: Offline
Quote:

I've personally promoted and supported the concept of RACR AESA sets for the block 1... as those would probably be a more plausible 'plug-in' upgrade..



I'm thinking that would be a great alternative, but what kind of logistics and maintenance burden does it create? On the other hand, I have read that the RACR shares 90% commonality with the APG-79, so maybe not. This might be the best we can put into early block Super Hornets given the current budgets. I know that AESA radars in general are ultra reliable when compared to the mechanically scanning radars which means that a RACR upgrade may very well pay for itself.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bjr1028
PostPosted: Sep 26, 2010 - 07:41 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
Some kind of AESA upgrade path for the Block Is and A-D export customers might not be a bad thing.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2010 - 03:52 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527

Status: Offline
madrat wrote:
Whatever pod goes under the Silent Hornet should be compatible on other aircraft, otherwise it seems like a colossal waste of effort.

The link isn't working for me, any idea what capacity is for the CFT's?


Whatever stealthy pod designed for the Hornet would be suitable only for the Hornet. You can`t just hang a Lo Pod off of another aircraft and get the same results as far as Lo is concerned. That is in the realm of luck.

For example, hanging the Hornet pod on an F-16 may produce a huge radar reflector simply because the aircraft are different shapes.

If they can build them cheaply, worth it. However, is anything stealthy, cheap?

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bjr1028
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2010 - 04:21 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
You also couldn't because even the legacy hornets can carry much larger centerline pods than the Falcon.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
madrat
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2010 - 10:41 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 986

Status: Offline
So the original F/A-18 has more clearance than the F-16? Amazing that the F-16 can lug around 600 gallon tanks underwing whereas the F/A-18 cannot. I always figured it was because the F/A-18 was squatted lower to allow it to fit its folding wings in the tight interior spaces of aircraft carriers. Where can we find out the clearances underneath aircraft? That's a topic I've always wanted to explore.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Oct 02, 2010 - 01:28 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527

Status: Offline
Actually, I just picked the F-16 as an example, insert into this space "........." whatever aircraft you want.

Madrat, not sure on clearances.

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic