Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Alright boys shake your dicks, this pissing contest is over.

Back on topic.

https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-c ... on-fighter

Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter

The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request.

Next year’s order of two dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would be the last on the books for the Navy under this plan. In 2019, Super Hornet maker Boeing won a $4-billion multi-year contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through FY 2021.

Notes for Canada: If the SH production ends, price per unit will go up and service support will be terrible. Sounds like something Canada will ultimately go for....

Watching a Super Hornet being reffered to as "legacy" Super hornet



Thats spicy!

Clearly, going to need more money for the NGAD and additional F-35C's! Sure can't get it from Ship Building!

Oh so suddenly stealthily designed airframes and EWP have RCS considerably greater than 0.01 sq m ?

I was going to follow pushoksti's suggestion of stopping the discussion but then again you're completely twisting what I said which I feel that it must be addressed (I won't even go into your stubbornness and unwillingness to concede others a point when you're proven wrong).

Since when did I say that a Super Hornet or any other 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft has a RCS of 0.01 square meters in any possible configuration?!
The lowest RCS value in square meters that I came up for the Super Hornet (which extends to other similar aircraft like the Rafale and Typhoon) while in a CLEAN configuration (and backed by a source) was a 0.1 class and NOT 0.01
Again, it seems that it's not me who's "poor in math"...

And obviously an EWP will only add RCS to a clean aircraft and NOT the otherwise like you did - that EWP actually reduces the aircraft's RCS, which is delusional!

Su-57 has all the stealth design features you crow about yet it is stuck at 0.1 sq m which should tell anyone without preconceived bias that the engine blockers are the major sticking point preventing it from achieving true VLO.

No, the Su-57 frontal RCS isn't "stuck" at 0.1 square meters because of the Radar Blockers! This aircraft is "stuck" at this RCS because of the limitation of Russian technology when it comes to stealth aircraft and designing such aircraft. The poor quality of Russian built aircraft parts also doesn't help the aircraft's RCS.

A non stealthy EWP would only be in the 0.1-0.2 sq m class itself, with stealth shaping you can reduce that by at least an order of magnitude so its contribution is negligible to Super Hornet's RCS.

This is gold comedy:
So from what I read and according to you, a stealthy EWP RCS should be quite less than 0.1 square meters but a stealthy Radar Block would NEVER be below 0.1 square meters! See the lack of reasoning of your logic??

And this not to mention that an EWP would always be (or most of the times be) exposed by the radar while a Radar Blocker should only be exposed to a radar on limited angles (only if the aircraft is directly aimed at the radar source).

Moreover and regarding EWPs: There's not much you can do regarding the shape of it - It must have a "Parallelepiped" shape because it must have the biggest internal space available in order to carry relatively bulky weapons such as a 1000lb bomb or a combined loadout of two 500lb bombs plus two AMRAAMs. As such, this alone limits the way of how an EWP can be designed and like it was discussed many times over, shape is the "main source" for low RCS (unless you want to start disputing this as well ).
RAM materials could be used for the EWPs but then again without a major/radical shape design which can limit its RCS, a "massive usage" of RAM materials would make EWP too heavy to be practical and this likely with little gains in terms of RCS (because of limitations in terms of shape).

These could actually be IMO some very good reasons why the EWPs ended up being cancelled...

p.s. Rafale has a flat radar antenna (not angled like other AESAs) which will limit its RCS to around 1 sq m. Gripen is the only Euro-Canard with an engine not at least partially exposed to incoming radar, it needed less work done to reduce its RCS further.

On the other side you again forget the air intakes - which BTW are more far often exposed to radar sources compared to their interiors - and the Gripen is the only western 4.5th fighter aircraft whose air intakes aren't designed for low RCS. For example the Super Hornet has those trapezoidal-shaped air intakes which we can find in any true fighter aircraft namely like the F-22 and F-35 while the Rafale's air intakes have sawtooth edges applied on the intakes which again is a feature found in any true stealth fighter aircraft.
P.S. - The Gripen has nothing like this!

Alright boys shake your dicks, this pissing contest is over.

I'll seriously try to do that from now on, even because the discussion is now becoming pointless...

Back on topic.

Agreed.

Notes for Canada: If the SH production ends, price per unit will go up and service support will be terrible. Sounds like something Canada will ultimately go for....

That could actually be IMO a good news for Canada. On top of this there's always the Boeing/Bombardier dispute in mind. This makes the case for Boeing which IMO is the only contender that has a minimal/remote chance against the F-35 much, much harder.
This and Saab/Gripen leaving/abandoning the Canadian competition would IMO be perfect for Canada

Replies in blue ...

Oh so suddenly stealthily designed airframes and EWP have RCS considerably greater than 0.01 sq m ?

I was going to follow pushoksti's suggestion of stopping the discussion but then again you're completely twisting what I said which I feel that it must be addressed (I won't even go into your stubbornness and unwillingness to concede others a point when you're proven wrong).

You have not remotely proved me wrong, when you do to my intellectual satisfaction I will have no problem admitting it. Your sources are your biases, beliefs and anonymous websites, my sources are manufacturers statements about the RCS of their products.


Since when did I say that a Super Hornet or any other 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft has a RCS of 0.01 square meters in any possible configuration?!
The lowest RCS value in square meters that I came up for the Super Hornet (which extends to other similar aircraft like the Rafale and Typhoon) while in a CLEAN configuration (and backed by a source) was a 0.1 class and NOT 0.01
Again, it seems that it's not me who's "poor in math"...

I can add poor logic/comprehension skills too. You are the one that said the radar blocker is 0.01 sq m and probably lower. For Super Hornet's RCS to be 0.1+ sq m then the airframe must make up the difference i.e. 'be considerably greater than 0.01 sq m'. This logically follows from your two statements of what the RCS of Super Hornet is and what the RCS of its engine blocker is. Yet F-22/F-35 which follow the same stealth methods you bleat about F-18 having have airframe RCS below 0.001 sq m. Your engine blocker RCS estimate must therefore be wrong or Super Hornet is a poor frontal stealth airframe implementation. You really can't have it both ways;brag about all the stealth methods and features that Super Hornet has and then dismiss the inferior end result to others following the same methods by saying oh well it's only 4.5 gen anyway !


And obviously an EWP will only add RCS to a clean aircraft and NOT the otherwise like you did - that EWP actually reduces the aircraft's RCS, which is delusional!

Reduces it compared to having those stores in external pylons like Boeing state. Negligible in adding to the base clean RCS, yes. At no point did I say it was a negative contribution, again your lack of comprehension and vivid imagination.

Su-57 has all the stealth design features you crow about yet it is stuck at 0.1 sq m which should tell anyone without preconceived bias that the engine blockers are the major sticking point preventing it from achieving true VLO.

No, the Su-57 frontal RCS isn't "stuck" at 0.1 square meters because of the Radar Blockers! This aircraft is "stuck" at this RCS because of the limitation of Russian technology when it comes to stealth aircraft and designing such aircraft. The poor quality of Russian built aircraft parts also doesn't help the aircraft's RCS.

But, but, it has those 'those trapezoidal-shaped air intakes which we can find in any true stealth fighter' !

A non stealthy EWP would only be in the 0.1-0.2 sq m class itself, with stealth shaping you can reduce that by at least an order of magnitude so its contribution is negligible to Super Hornet's RCS.

This is gold comedy:
So from what I read and according to you, a stealthy EWP RCS should be quite less than 0.1 square meters but a stealthy Radar Block would NEVER be below 0.1 square meters! See the lack of reasoning of your logic??

The only lack is on your side because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the 'stealthy' radar blocker is inherently suboptimal because it has to have gaps in its design so that air can pass through to feed the engine. The same gaps that can then let radar waves into and out of the engine.


And this not to mention that an EWP would always be (or most of the times be) exposed by the radar while a Radar Blocker should only be exposed to a radar on limited angles (only if the aircraft is directly aimed at the radar source).

Moreover and regarding EWPs: There's not much you can do regarding the shape of it - It must have a "Parallelepiped" shape because it must have the biggest internal space available in order to carry relatively bulky weapons such as a 1000lb bomb or a combined loadout of two 500lb bombs plus two AMRAAMs. As such, this alone limits the way of how an EWP can be designed and like it was discussed many times over, shape is the "main source" for low RCS (unless you want to start disputing this as well ).

Have you bothered to look at the EWP, its front is angled and shaped to deflect radar waves away pretty much like the F-35 gun pod which should also be quite less than 0.1 sq m.







RAM materials could be used for the EWPs but then again without a major/radical shape design which can limit its RCS, a "massive usage" of RAM materials would make EWP too heavy to be practical and this likely with little gains in terms of RCS (because of limitations in terms of shape).

These could actually be IMO some very good reasons why the EWPs ended up being cancelled...

p.s. Rafale has a flat radar antenna (not angled like other AESAs) which will limit its RCS to around 1 sq m. Gripen is the only Euro-Canard with an engine not at least partially exposed to incoming radar, it needed less work done to reduce its RCS further.

On the other side you again forget the air intakes - which BTW are more far often exposed to radar sources compared to their interiors - and the Gripen is the only western 4.5th fighter aircraft whose air intakes aren't designed for low RCS. For example the Super Hornet has those trapezoidal-shaped air intakes which we can find in any true fighter aircraft namely like the F-22 and F-35 while the Rafale's air intakes have sawtooth edges applied on the intakes which again is a feature found in any true stealth fighter aircraft.
P.S. - The Gripen has nothing like this!

Unlike the super stealthy, follow all the stealth rules, Su-57 . Don't get hung up on the external shape of the inlets, it's what happens inside the inlet in terms of reflections and absorption that counts.

Here is a google translate of the document. It shows that SAAB didn't claim 0.1. It was a 2002 university project and speculated by Janes et al, what could be generic in 2020.
Pages 48-54
"Robots are typically taken from a source that has chosen significantly higher performance than today's robots.
To match this, performance on above all radar has also been set higher than today's. The problem
what is clear already at first glance is that the typical case becomes extremely sensitive to small variations in
detection distance. It is not entirely unlikely that the models need to be made much more accurate and
more truthful to make it possible to get meaningful results."

"FSR890 according to Jane's all the worlds aircraft 1995-96. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what
may be a reasonable development for 2020 made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis"

FOI-R--0338--SE.pdf

(5.63 MiB) Downloaded 194 times

english

english translation.pdf

(1.11 MiB) Downloaded 211 times

You have not remotely proved me wrong, when you do to my intellectual satisfaction I will have no problem admitting it. Your sources are your biases, beliefs and anonymous websites, my sources are manufacturers statements about the RCS of their products.

I, as well as others have proven you wrong.
And, your sources are total and complete misinterpretation of manufacturers statements plus a completely unproven and illogical claim that a Radar Blocker is ineffective in reducing the aircraft's RCS. It's funny that you state "manufacturers statements" but none of them prove your post - actually they trend to indicate the opposite of your claims.

So. the biased one here is you and you alone.

I can add poor logic/comprehension skills too. You are the one that said the radar blocker is 0.01 sq m and probably lower. For Super Hornet's RCS to be 0.1+ sq m then the airframe must make up the difference i.e. 'be considerably greater than 0.01 sq m'.
This logically follows from your two statements of what the RCS of Super Hornet is and what the RCS of its engine blocker is. Yet F-22/F-35 which follow the same stealth methods you bleat about F-18 having have airframe RCS below 0.001 sq m. Your engine blocker RCS estimate must therefore be wrong or Super Hornet is a poor frontal stealth airframe implementation.

Of course it's the airframe that makes up the difference in terms of RCS and the same applies to ANY OTHER aircraft as well! Or do you think that airframe edges such as wings, tails, air intakes and the fuselage itself don't reflect radar/radio wave when the aircraft is faced frontally at the radar source??
While the Super Hornet has some interesting "stealthy features" such as sawtooth edges and planform alignment, this is not a Stealth or VLO aircraft! If the Super Hornet had DSI instead of Radar Blockers its RCS wouldn't be meaningfully lower.
The Super Hornet does have the most extensive "stealthy" features of any 4.5th gen fighter aircraft but this doesn't make it a VLO aircraft like the F-22 or F-35. Other aircraft namely the Gripen have far, far less "stealthy features" compared to the Super Hornet and this, like it or not is a FACT! - That's what I've been telling you and then you have the nerve to accuse me of poor logic/comprehension skills. Buy yourself a mirror, pal

Reduces it compared to having those stores in external pylons like Boeing state. Negligible in adding to the base clean RCS, yes. At no point did I say it was a negative contribution, again your lack of comprehension and vivid imagination.

Really??
You even said this:

which means that according to Boeing's own statements the clean Super Hornet RCS is no smaller than the RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons.

Anyone reading above (and don't get me with the poor logic/comprehension skills accusations!) you actually said that Boeing mentioned that the RCS of a clean Super Hornet is the same as the RCS of a Super Hornet with two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons which to start with is FALSE and disingenuous from your part!

But, but, it has those 'those trapezoidal-shaped air intakes which we can find in any true stealth fighter' !

But, but, it has sawtooth edges as well!
But, but, it has PLANFORM ALIGNMENT as well!
But, but, it does NOT have canards that increase RCS except if the radar source is directly in front (0 degrees) of the aircraft!

So those three (3) above that's FOUR (4) VERY IMPORTANT features for low RCS than your Gripen does NOT have! So who's the biased here??

The only lack is on your side because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the 'stealthy' radar blocker is inherently suboptimal because it has to have gaps in its design so that air can pass through to feed the engine. The same gaps that can then let radar waves into and out of the engine.

And again you fail to grasp that in order for an aircraft to have a low RCS it needs:
- Trapezoidal-shaped air intakes
- Sawtooth edges
- Planform Alignment
- Canards don't help at all, actually by the contrary

So that's a 4-1 score in my favor!
And here is where you made another HUGE MISTAKE. Low RCS is attained using a combination of SEVERAL factors/features and NEVER due to a single factor/feature!

Moreover and for what's worth, I never said that a Radar Blocker is as effective or equally effective compared to DSI. Of course that DSI is more effective. But this effectiveness can only be taken full the advantage of on VLO aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 and NOT on non-stealth or LO aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet or Su-57.
And here is where I retort you the "compliment" that you have poor logic/comprehension skills too since I believe I've explained you this quite well and logically so on past posts.

The only lack is on your side because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the 'stealthy' radar blocker is inherently suboptimal because it has to have gaps in its design so that air can pass through to feed the engine. The same gaps that can then let radar waves into and out of the engine.

You've been accusing my reasoning and my sources. Yet, I've asked you about sources why do you think that Stealth Blocker are ineffective and you haven't provided any!

Have you bothered to look at the EWP, its front is angled and shaped to deflect radar waves away pretty much like the F-35 gun pod which should also be quite less than 0.1 sq m.

Yes, I have. And have you??
Because if you look frontally at an EWP and despite being "angled and shaped" the general shape of the frontal EWP profile is still a rectangle or rectangular, here:


And trying to compare the above with this:


...is again disingenuous from your part! (but I should be used with this by now!)

Anyway, the images above clearly shows that the EWP has no resemblance in terms of shape profile (and therefore RCS) compared to the F-35 gun pod.

Unlike the super stealthy, follow all the stealth rules, Su-57 . Don't get hung up on the external shape of the inlets, it's what happens inside the inlet in terms of reflections and absorption that counts.

Oh really?? So the radio waves don't bounce on the surfaces (wings, tails, intakes, you name it) and fuselage?? So according to you the principles of planform alignment and sawtooth edges are totally and completely useless!
Really, those Americans are really dumb - they must have "poor logic/comprehension skills too" - why didn't they listen of the all mighty marsavian and they should simply have done this to their F-16's:


instead of building new F-35s since at least with this and according to "your highness's vast intellect" the frontal RCS of the F-16 would be the same as the frontal RCS of the F-35!

Yes, it's quite possible that the RCS of the engines protected by radar blocks are indeed quite lower than what I previously posted (0.01 square meters). Anyway, I was using something like a "worse case scenario" for the radar blockers in order to make a point (to marsavian) that the diferences in terms of final RCS between Radar Blocker and DSI would be negligible for a 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

It's funny that he keeps insisting on "Radar Blockers" but instantly ignores "Planform alignment" and "Sawtooth edges" but whatever, I should be used to this by now...

I meant to add to your post.

I'm now accepting that marsavain isn't here to sensibly talk aeroplanes. He regularly posts the same misinformation that has previously been disproved to him. Yet he continues with the same nonsense. He seems to have another agenda.

Yes, I know and I fully understood your point about the Radar Blocker.

And yes, I'm afraid that you're 100% correct in your assessment about marsavian.

I will deal with this one first because it's a doozy

Reduces it compared to having those stores in external pylons like Boeing state. Negligible in adding to the base clean RCS, yes. At no point did I say it was a negative contribution, again your lack of comprehension and vivid imagination.

Really??
You even said this:

which means that according to Boeing's own statements the clean Super Hornet RCS is no smaller than the RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons.

Anyone reading above (and don't get me with the poor logic/comprehension skills accusations!) you actually said that Boeing mentioned that the RCS of a clean Super Hornet is the same as the RCS of a Super Hornet with two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons which to start with is FALSE and disingenuous from your part!

On what planet or dimension do you see the word 'Super Hornet' when I mentioned RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and their pylons ? Try actually reading what I said rather than what you think I said.

p.s. Optimist, the Swedish Defense Department pays that University good money for research and development although you try and denigrate it with your insults. As linkomart said that Gripen figure was an RCS hull reduction figure passed to them so their research could be relevant.

Ricnunes, let me take your inconsistent illogical statements and ask you this about them ; If Super Hornet uses all the RCS stealth features known to man and which you constantly bleat about why is it not VLO ? What prevents it from getting down to F-22/F-35 levels if the engine blocker doesn't when Boeing was starting with a brand new design ?! Why is it that Su-57, another plane with an engine blocker, is not VLO either following the same standard stealth design methods ? Two RCS reduced planes with engine blockers and yet neither can get under 0.1 m2, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... I have already explained to you why they are suboptimal, radar waves can go through the gaps in them that air goes through to feed the engine. To make them completely stealthy would require no gaps but then the engine would have no thrust .

In a frontal head on angle radar waves will not see the flat sides of the EWP they will only see the angled up and down front of the EWP, this is a stealthy frontal design along F-117 lines, angle waves away from the horizontal. A self proclaimed stealth expert like yourself should have been able to surmise this without me having to spell it out to you.

You talk about inlets and then go off on a F-16 tangent when I say actually worry about the RCS treatment inside the inlets. F-16 with a partially hidden engine and Have Glass RAM is around 1 sq m RCS, Super Hornet is barely better with an engine blocker and all the RCS methods applied to it, no way on Earth is it 0.1 sq m if it is equivalent to two fuel tanks, two bombs and two missiles. Again Boeing said it halved when enclosing these stores. Even if you perversely believe the EWP has no RCS shaping and is is no stealthier than a bomb or fuel tank what about the other 5 tanks, bombs and missiles ? Super Hornet RCS is not even below 0.5 sq m !

p.s. Optimist, the Swedish Defense Department pays that University good money for research and development although you try and denigrate it with your insults. As linkomart said that Gripen figure was an RCS hull reduction figure passed to them so their research could be relevant.

Everyone reading this knows you are misrepresenting the facts.
Insult? How it it an insult. It is a fact that it was a university students project. They speculated and said "It is not entirely unlikely that the models need to be made much more accurate and more truthful to make it possible to get meaningful results."
download/file.php?id=32355

Linkomart said no such thing. He said
""I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS."
and
"The document you cite above in the thread is a report from the FOI, you are all right that when you read that line the report states that Gripen has an RCS of 0.1 sqare meters.
But the statemnet is out of context. The report is about combat simulations where the different aircrafts are modeled and set up against each other and you try to simulate the battle. The RCS of 0.1 square meters is the RCS of the Gripen model in the simulation. Not many people know swedish in the world, and I can understand the misstake when you only google translate bits of the text."

Optimist, Linkomart also said this as you previously quoted "It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.(Page 50)
However the author claims that the data comes from 'Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal.' (Page 54)” which directly translates to "Radar areas are experience values ​​from FOI Defense Analysis personnel."

FOI is not a bunch of students doing some projects for their thesis as you like to mis-characterise them. Their official title is:-

Swedish Defense Research Agency

https://www.foi.se/en/foi/about-foi/swe ... fence.html

Swedish Defence

FOI acts as a knowledge bank for the Swedish defence organisation by building up research-based knowledge and expertise that can then be made available to meet the full range of defence needs from preliminary concept studies through materiel acquisition to real-time support during operations.

It is FOI’s job to support the shaping, build-up and utilisation of Sweden’s defence resources through its research-based knowledge and experience. In concert with the Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, FOI’s task is to develop its knowledge and expertise for the benefit of Sweden’s operational defence forces, both in the short and in the longer term, as well as helping to apply this knowledge in the full range of defence processes from perspective studies to evaluation.

The basis of FOI’s knowledge

The overall task assigned to FOI by the Swedish Armed Forces (Research and Technology Development) forms the basis of FOI’s knowledge-building activities. The results of this accumulation of knowledge and experience are published in the form of research reports, scientific articles and conference contributions. For FOI’s part, this overall assignment provides the basis for long long-term work in the following areas:

Modelling and Simulation
Command and Control with Man-System Interaction (MSI)
Sensors and Low Observables
Underwater Technology
Weapons and Protection
Electronic Warfare
Environment
Aeronautics with electronics and construction methods

Previously, research in the CBRN* area was also included in the overall task assigned to FOI by the Swedish Armed Forces but since July 2010 this work has been funded via appropriations from the Ministry of Defence.

In recent years FOI, within the framework of its overall task, has:

identified risk areas for small arms ammunition,
developed a support system for the remote detection of underwater targets,
developed training methods for mine detection dogs,
carried out technical safety checks on smokeless propellants,
developed concepts for the destruction of sea mines, developed methods for the testing of plans using simulation,
participated in an international field trial under the auspices of the NATO group ‘Multi Sensor Integration for urban operations’.

Knowledge application tasks in addition to the overall assignment FOI’s knowledge and capabilities are utilised in a range of separate defence applications. The Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) each year assign around 100 knowledge application tasks to FOI. In this way FOI, making use of its collective competence in a shorter perspective, is able to assist with a range of defence-related problems and questions.

Among other things, FOI contributes to, or supports, the Swedish Armed Forces’ long-term planning process (perspective and other studies etc), the acquisition and maintenance of defence equipment, the phasing out and disposal of surplus materiel and installations, the activities and preparedness of armed forces units and the conduct of peace operations.

FOI has received separate assignments to provide support for the operational activities of the Swedish Armed Forces in a variety of areas including the following:

training for service personnel associated with forensic intelligence and the weapon-related threat picture,
expert technical support for the Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service MUST,
operational support for the air operations in Libya regarding electronic warfare,
encryption for military GPS in connection with the air operations in Libya collating and making available international experience of starting and landing helicopters in difficult environments,
expert assistance for the Swedish Armed Forces’ mobile laboratories for the analysis of biological, chemical and radioactive substances,
increasing the Swedish Armed Forces’ capability to operate in temperate waters by assisting in studies of sensor performance and especially relevant emitted signatures, expert assistance in gender analysis.

*CBRN stands for Chemical (C), Biological (B), Radiological (R) and Nuclear (N) substances

Riddle me this Ricnunes, Boeing say they applied more RAM to Super Hornet Block III to reduce its RCS by 10% ...

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... er-hornet/

But far from being “the latest and greatest,” the company has already used the exact same materials on the on the Block II Super Hornet to help decrease the chances of radar detection, said Dan Gillian, who manages Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler programs.

Block III jets will get “a little more” of that coating applied to them, “and in a few different areas to buy a little bit more performance,” Gillian told Defense News in a March interview.

All in all, those improvements will reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section by about 10 percent, and with very low risk, he said.

So did Super Hornet RCS go from Block 2 to Block 3 by

A) 0.1 to 0.09 sq m ?
B) 0.5 to 0.45 sq m ?
C) 1 to 0.9 sq m ?

If A) why bother ?!!!! Much more likely between B) and C).

Optimist, Linkomart also said this as you previously quoted "It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.(Page 50)
However the author claims that the data comes from 'Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal.' (Page 54)” which directly translates to "Radar areas are experience values ​​from FOI Defense Analysis personnel."

It was a 2002 university simulation with speculative data of what could be in 2020 input. wriggle all you want to. The paper is there for all to read.

this is the undoctored summary at the end of the original

Riddle me this Ricnunes, Boeing say they applied more RAM to Super Hornet Block III to reduce its RCS by 10% ...

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... er-hornet/

But far from being “the latest and greatest,” the company has already used the exact same materials on the on the Block II Super Hornet to help decrease the chances of radar detection, said Dan Gillian, who manages Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler programs.

Block III jets will get “a little more” of that coating applied to them, “and in a few different areas to buy a little bit more performance,” Gillian told Defense News in a March interview.

All in all, those improvements will reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section by about 10 percent, and with very low risk, he said.

So did Super Hornet RCS go from Block 2 to Block 3 by

A) 0.1 to 0.09 sq m ?
B) 0.5 to 0.45 sq m ?
C) 1 to 0.9 sq m ?

If A) why bother ?!!!! Much more likely between B) and C).

You don't think Boeing would ever lie about Super Hornet numbers do you?

In the Canada thread?