Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[lantinian]

The pod is designed for the super hornet, which I assume that it is designed to align the RCS spikes with that of the super hornet.

I don't see anything more than a container featuring the most basic RCS reduction technique: Separating the top and bottom surfaces by a sharp line. I don't see any "YF-23" platform alignment on the pod or the F/A-18E either.

This leads to the question - will the pod be as effective anymore in term of RCS reduction when we hang it under a different aircraft?

You mean whether another aircraft that uses this pod will have a lower RCS if it has ist weapons internally in the pod versus externally as usual? : Hell Yeah!

Frankly, I think it will be a lot more interesting too speculate how this pod effects the aerodynamics of a clean Super Hornet than its signature. For example, does caring the pod still allow this Super Hornet to go supersonic?

 

[LowObservable]

George Muellner, when he was boss of the Phantom Works, was quoted as saying that their signatures people had made some important advances in computing the RCS of very complex shapes (that was in 2007 IIRC). Computing is the first and biggest step to controlling RCS. So I don't think that the stealthed-up Rhino or the Silent Eagle are jokes or marketing BS, not for one second.

 

[lantinian]

Computing is the first and biggest step to controlling RCS.

Sure, Instead of blindingly applying RAM to the whole aircraft you can target certain spots that are the biggest contributors. Sort of "cut out" the spikes. Make the aircraft predictably detectable and use mission tactics to keep the lowest RCS profile to the enemy. So the computing in this case allows for a more cost efficient signature reduction, and can't do miracles since the aircraft fundamental shape is hardly changed.

 

[sferrin]

Computing is the first and biggest step to controlling RCS. So I don't think that the stealthed-up Rhino or the Silent Eagle are jokes or marketing BS, not for one second.

Compared to a vanilla Hornet or Eagle, perhaps not. Compared to a F-22 or F-35 almost certainly so.

 

[LowObservable]

Computing is the first and biggest step to controlling RCS. So I don't think that the stealthed-up Rhino or the Silent Eagle are jokes or marketing BS, not for one second.

Compared to a vanilla Hornet or Eagle, perhaps not. Compared to a F-22 or F-35 almost certainly so.

It's not that anyone is claiming that there is not a place for full-up stealth (Boeing has Phantom Ray after all). But what do managed RCS and EW - which are highly synergistic, since reducing RCS has a big impact on the power you need for jamming - do for you in terms of operational capability?

 

[sferrin]

Computing is the first and biggest step to controlling RCS. So I don't think that the stealthed-up Rhino or the Silent Eagle are jokes or marketing BS, not for one second.

Compared to a vanilla Hornet or Eagle, perhaps not. Compared to a F-22 or F-35 almost certainly so.

It's not that anyone is claiming that there is not a place for full-up stealth (Boeing has Phantom Ray after all). But what do managed RCS and EW - which are highly synergistic, since reducing RCS has a big impact on the power you need for jamming - do for you in terms of operational capability?

Well a smaller RCS is always better obviously but how much are they getting and what's it giving them? Does it merit the hype? Also, I seem to recall seeing a drawing of the "Silent Eagle" intake and the inner wall of the intake was bulged outward to block (somewhat) a straight view of the engine face. Does this ring any bells? It seems to me it would restrict airflow.

 

[LowObservable]

I had not seen anything about an inlet geometry change and doubt that it would be practical. They could presumably use something like the Super Hornet blocker.

As to the value of reduced RCS on a largely conventional design - almost every fighter program in the world other than the F-22/F-35 uses that approach. Have Glass on F-16s, edge alignments on the Rhino, inlet LOS blockage on Typhoon, RAM on Sukhois, tilted radar bulkhead on the J-10B.

 

[sferrin]

I had not seen anything about an inlet geometry change and doubt that it would be practical. They could presumably use something like the Super Hornet blocker.

As to the value of reduced RCS on a largely conventional design - almost every fighter program in the world other than the F-22/F-35 uses that approach. Have Glass on F-16s, edge alignments on the Rhino, inlet LOS blockage on Typhoon, RAM on Sukhois, tilted radar bulkhead on the J-10B.

Yes but designed in from the start like the B-1B, Typhoon and Super Hornet is going to get you a better result than trying to slap it on after the fact. They're not talking about redesigning the SE to the point of incorporation edge alignment so how much can really be achieved with applied RAM?

 

[donnage99]

You mean whether another aircraft that uses this pod will have a lower RCS if it has ist weapons internally in the pod versus externally as usual? : Hell Yeah!

My point is that each aircraft has a different RCS model. Therefore, the pod is designed specifically for the super hornet and perhaps are not that effective in term of stealth when you hang it under a different aircraft with different RCS characteristics.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But what do managed RCS and EW - which are highly synergistic, since reducing RCS has a big impact on the power you need for jamming - do for you in terms of operational capability?

The terminology used for the LO in a Super Hornet is "tactically significant". This means the reductions to its RCS enable it to decide the engagement geometry, get off a first shot, etc. The use of panniers and the like (Silent Eagle, Growth Hornet) are about keeping this tactical significance in the face of evolving threat radars.

 

[lantinian]

Therefore, the pod is designed specifically for the super hornet

Any proof? Had it been a conformal weapons pod like the ones on the Silen Eagle I would have agreed, but it's not.

I could just as well speculate that Boing has plans to makted that pod for potential F-15 / F-16 upgrades as part of a larger strategy designed to undermine the need for the F-35.

 

[donnage99]

Any proof? Had it been a conformal weapons pod like the ones on the Silen Eagle I would have agreed, but it's not.

I could just as well speculate that Boing has plans to makted that pod for potential F-15 / F-16 upgrades as part of a larger strategy designed to undermine the need for the F-35.

It's just logical deduction. If you gonna put money into it, you probably want to have the best RCS reduction possible. And to get the best, you have to build one that is specialized to the particular aircraft in concern. Also, the pod must have aerodynamic characteristics that are efficient when flown on the super hornet. I don't imagine an f-15 variant have very similar aerodynamic characteristics as the super bug.

 

[lantinian]

Substitute "RCS" with "aerodynamic drag" and "weapons pod" with "fuel tank" and see if your comments still make sence.

 

[Howedar]

Why would they? They're different problems. That's like saying 'pedal your bicycle' makes no sense because 'pedal your car' makes no sense.

 

[Trident]

Three small photos of the demonstrator at Aero India 2011:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/aero-india-first-look-at-fa-18.html

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Three small photos of the demonstrator at Aero India 2011:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/aero-india-first-look-at-fa-18.html

Better yet, a video walkaround! ;D

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/aero-india-guided-tour-of-the.html

 

[donnage99]

Zero net gain in drag? That's cool. I also read somewhere that DIRCM is also an option. Anyone clarify this for me?

 

[AeroFranz]

you mean what's DIRCM?

DIRCM = directed infra red counter measure. It's a system involving missile approach warning sensors and a turret equipped with a laser, that is used to 'blind' the sensitive seeker head of an approaching IR-guided missile. Lots of cargo aircraft, high value assets, and even helos are getting it. It's usually fairly draggy, as the sensors and the turret kind of protrude in the airstream and you need multiples to achieve full coverage. I have ever seen it applied to supersonic platforms, as in its current form it would exact too much of a performance penalty. But maybe you can repackage it cleaner....

 

[flanker]

I have ever seen it applied to supersonic platforms, as in its current form it would exact too much of a performance penalty.

Su-30MKM.

 

[GTX]

I have ever seen it applied to supersonic platforms, as in its current form it would exact too much of a performance penalty.

Su-30MKM.

Proof?

Regards,

Greg

 

[piko1]

the Whole Su-27+ family have DIRCM it is clearly noticeable on Su-34 the globe thing behind the cockpit correct me if i'm wrong
http://paralay.com/su34/3462.jpg

 

[GTX]

Are we talking Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) or Missile Approach Warning (MAW)? They are different! As far as I am aware, the systems such as the Saab Avitronics MAW-300 (from the Su-30MKM) are purely MAWs and thus do not directly 'attack' the threat such as a true DIRCM such as Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-24 system.

Regards,

Greg

 

[AeroFranz]

Good point, Greg.
The DIRCM (prononunced Dircom) systems combine some sort of MAWS AND a turret. the latter tends to protrude a lot in order, and it's always a hassle giving it adequate field of view. But nothing says you can't make it smaller, given enough time and money...

 

[donnage99]

you mean what's DIRCM?

No. I know what DIRCM is. It's planned for the f-35 in later blocks. I meant to ask whether it's true that DIRCM is an near term option for super hornet.

 

[Trident]

No DIRCM on any Flanker version so far. Just MAWS of various types (Russian MAK-F on the Su-27M, Saab Avitronics MAW-300 on the Su-30MKM IIRC).

EDIT: as for DIRCM on fast jets, making them retractable may be an option. There's a precedent, too: the two units in the fuselage sides on the C-17 retract into fairings for cruise efficiency (the third turret under the tail is fixed though, I think).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is a big difference between using a DIRCM on a transport aircraft or helicopter to intercept ground launched missiles and using one on a fighter against air to air missiles. In particular the extreme difference in change to angular variation between the two. Any fighter DIRCM would have to be immensely agile in its gimbal to keep the laser pointing at the seeker head. We are more likely to see AESAs used as high power microwave generators for anti missile use.

 

[bobbymike]

There is a big difference between using a DIRCM on a transport aircraft or helicopter to intercept ground launched missiles and using one on a fighter against air to air missiles. In particular the extreme difference in change to angular variation between the two. Any fighter DIRCM would have to be immensely agile in its gimbal to keep the laser pointing at the seeker head. We are more likely to see AESAs used as high power microwave generators for anti missile use.

Detect IR missile launch, fly straight, zap missile with DIRCM, maneuver, flares, break lock?

 

[flanker]

Are we talking Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) or Missile Approach Warning (MAW)? They are different! As far as I am aware, the systems such as the Saab Avitronics MAW-300 (from the Su-30MKM) are purely MAWs and thus do not directly 'attack' the threat such as a true DIRCM such as Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-24 system.

Regards,

Greg

Thank you for correcting me, i have a lot to learn in terms of electronics on modern fighters.

Btw:

Before:

http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bng1.jpg

After:

http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Resize-of-IMG_9506.JPG

Or other way around.

 

[fightingirish]

​

Boeing Reveals Details Of International F-18
Nov 4, 2011By Andy NativiGENOA, Italy — Engineers from U.S. behemoth Boeing are offering further glimpses into the so-called “international road map” variant of its F-18 Super Hornet, starting with its two shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) and numerous Enclosed Weapons Pods (EWPs).The details are emerging as Boeing and rival Lockheed Martin, with its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), move from being cut out of the Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft and look to non-JSF partners like Japan for new business.Several other air forces also are looking around for new fighters and will evaluate not only radar and avionics performances, but also how the fighters fare in both beyond-visual-range and close combat. Boeing has been promoting F-18 improvements under its international road map concept since last year, but it continues to dribble out more information as potential non-U.S. customers like Japan are targeted.[...]

Article continued @ Aviation Week

 

[flateric]

 

[flateric]

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Yo, try this out for size! Save now or forever hold your peace!
http://www.boeing.com/AeroIndia2011/pdf/Aero_India_Super_Hornet_Briefing.pdf

 

[AAAdrone]

Thank You!

 

[Creative]

I wonder if that pod is designed with the Super Hornet's RCS in mind or can it be used by other aircraft?

 

[Grey Havoc]

A Military.com article from last month on potential SH upgrades: Super Hornets Could Launch Their Own UAVs

 

[quellish]

I wonder if that pod is designed with the Super Hornet's RCS in mind or can it be used by other aircraft?

On other aircraft it may actually increase the signature. Many concepts for conformal/buried weapons stores ran into the same problems - an external shape that reduces or mitigates the signature of host aircraft X may do the opposite for host aircraft Y.

 

[LowObservable]

Quellish is most likely right. However, it's one of those things where if you get it right for one design, you have demonstrated the codes &c that will work for another.

 

[2IDSGT]

US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-may-add-conformal-fuel-tanks-to-fa-18ef-super-hornet-fleet-383701/

The US Navy is considering adding conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) onto its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, sources say. The twin dorsally mounted tanks are expected to be tested this summer.

The USN does not deny that it is interested in the conformal tanks, but says that it cannot comment on the project at this time. "As of right now this information is proprietarily owned between Boeing and Northrop [Grumman] and PMA-265 cannot talk to it," the Naval Air Systems Command says. PMA-265 is the US Navy programme office responsible for managing the F/A-18 and EA-18G fleets.

Boeing officials did not respond to queries prior to publication...

 

[Triton]

Source:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/03/usn-looking-at-adding-conforma.html

Extended range would be an important factor for operations in the Pacific theatre, but some analysts suspect that there might be more to it. The Navy might be hedging its bets against further delays on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program or it might even be preparing for the eventuality that it will have to abandon the stealthy single-engine fighter entirely.

The Navy is already working on a series of other upgrades to the Hornet including adding an infrared search and track sensor and fusing the aircraft's sensor data.

While Boeing is working to reduce the Super Hornet's signature for future international variants, the F/A-18E/F already has a fair number of features built-in to reduce its radar cross section. This is an excerpt from the jet's Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) manual which describes some of those features.

Entire F/A-18E/F NATOPS manual save for the section on the aircraft's weapons systems and performance diagrams:

A1 F18EA NFM 000 NATOPS Flight Manual F A 18E F Super Hornet PDF | PDF | Aviation | Aircraft

F/A-18E/F NATOPS manual

www.scribd.com

 

[blackstar]

According to Defense News, last week at the Sea-Air-Space conference Boeing discussed an F-18 Super Hornet upgrade with over-wing fuel tanks.

Boeing to demo Super Hornet enhancements in summer

Boeing and the US Navy have confirmed plans to demonstrate several poetntial enhancements for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ...

www.flightglobal.com