Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[sferrin]

What's happening on the engine is interesting too. New details in AW&ST this week, behind the paywall. Suffice it to say that it does good things (badly needed, some would say) for acceleration. And it would make the JAS 39E go like a scalded cat.

Lemme guess, more empty promises of a 26,500lb thrust F414 like they've been babbling about for over a decade? Wake me when they're actually running one on a test stand.

 

[sferrin]

The X-32 comment demonstrates the ignorance that tends to pervade these programs. While the X-32 failed miserably with regard to the "VL" part of the requirement, based on reports the rest of it's performance exceeded that of the X-35. It was faster and more maneuverable than the X-35.

"While the X-32 failed miserably in perhaps the most important technical challenge of the program, and would have required a complete redesign, it really was the better aircraft."
_
Uhm, yeah. I shudder the think of the disaster we'd be witnessing had it gone forward. All the F-35 haters would have been moaning about how the F-35 was obviously the superior choice.

Also, the only thing the F-35C will ever be is a naval version of the F-117A with better systems.

You accuse me of ignorance and then come up with howlers like this and the previous one? Talk about pot/kettle.[/quote]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So the redesign with the horizontal tail was to improve what element of the flight performance? Control during landing flares? I'm curious.

As mentioned here and in the press hundreds of times the X-32’s change in planform from delta to conventional tail was entirely because of a change in the specified requirements during the project. The Navy changed their requirement for control during the landing approach to a carrier (not flared landing) and Boeing had to change the design to meet the new spec. It is in no way indicative of a design flaw.

the X-32 failed miserably with regard to the "VL" part of the requirement, based on reports the rest of it's performance exceeded that of the X-35. It was faster and more maneuverable than the X-35.

The X-32 didn’t fail miserably in the vertical recovery testing rather Boeing failed miserably to present the aircraft. The X-32B demonstrated transition from horizontal to vertical flight (and back again) and also hovering and vertical landings.

 

[sferrin]

The X-32B demonstrated transition from horizontal to vertical flight (and back again) and also hovering and vertical landings.

By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc. Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc. Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.

Just like the X-35… your point is?

 

[sferrin]

By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc. Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.

Just like the X-35… your point is?

The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing? Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact. As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over". And it was.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing? Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact. As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over". And it was.

So you’ve seen a TV show… A pity you don’t seem to understand how the project worked. I was referring to your ridiculous weight gain comment.

The X-32 and X-35 were just there to demonstrate technology. Despite the same configuration they actually were very different to the F-35 and proposed F-32. Commenting on F-35 or F-32 weight gain by comparing to the X-32 or X-35 is completely ridiculous. The important thing was actual performance matching predicted performance which the Boeing aircraft achieved.

The F-32 was always going to be able to lift less weight than the F-35 (as in the X-32 and X-35) because of its configuration. But that same configuration meant it could be a lot less weighty. Removing a door or two and flying in thicker air does not mean the Block III F-32B couldn’t recover back onto a LHD in the Persian Gulf summer with required bring back. Just as the X-35s ease of hovering at Edwards didn’t mean the F-35 didn’t have to go through a massive redesign on the dime and clock of the customers so it could hover (PS it did).

Frankly I would imagine the weight savings in the design of the F-32 and the far better achievement of Boeing in meeting KPIs during the JSF demonstration phase would indicate it could achieve this far better than Lockheed. But this discussion has been had before and last time round such facts and understanding weren’t enough to overpower the Boeing bad, Lockheed good crowd. So no expectation things will change.

 

[sferrin]

The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing? Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact. As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over". And it was.

So you’ve seen a TV show… A pity you don’t seem to understand how the project worked. I was referring to your ridiculous weight gain comment.

The X-32 and X-35 were just there to demonstrate technology. Despite the same configuration they actually were very different to the F-35 and proposed F-32. Commenting on F-35 or F-32 weight gain by comparing to the X-32 or X-35 is completely ridiculous. The important thing was actual performance matching predicted performance which the Boeing aircraft achieved.

The F-32 was always going to be able to lift less weight than the F-35 (as in the X-32 and X-35) because of its configuration. But that same configuration meant it could be a lot less weighty. Removing a door or two and flying in thicker air does not mean the Block III F-32B couldn’t recover back onto a LHD in the Persian Gulf summer with required bring back. Just as the X-35s ease of hovering at Edwards didn’t mean the F-35 didn’t have to go through a massive redesign on the dime and clock of the customers so it could hover (PS it did).

Frankly I would imagine the weight savings in the design of the F-32 and the far better achievement of Boeing in meeting KPIs during the JSF demonstration phase would indicate it could achieve this far better than Lockheed. But this discussion has been had before and last time round such facts and understanding weren’t enough to overpower the Boeing bad, Lockheed good crowd. So no expectation things will change.

The DoD knows more than you or I. They found Boeing and it's design lacking. Maybe it was the white paint?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The DoD knows more than you or I. They found Boeing and it's design lacking. Maybe it was the white paint?

The US Government selected the Lockheed offer which is not the same as the DoD finding Boeing’s design lacking; no matter what colour it was painted. And if every defence and aerospace technology downsource selection made by Governments around the world were correct and without any room to investigate, criticise or speculate well then it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of this web forum.

 

[LowObservable]

Back on the Advanced SH... It would be rather unusual if the F414 would become the only jet engine in history to be impossible to uprate or improve, 15+ years after service entry. The reason it hasn't been done until now might be connected with the fact that it has had (until recently) one application and one principal customer, who has set other priorities for the weapon system, with the result that there has been no money for an engine uprate.

 

[sferrin]

Back on the Advanced SH... It would be rather unusual if the F414 would become the only jet engine in history to be impossible to uprate or improve, 15+ years after service entry. The reason it hasn't been done until now might be connected with the fact that it has had (until recently) one application and one principal customer, who has set other priorities for the weapon system, with the result that there has been no money for an engine uprate.

I don't recall anybody saying it was impossible. I was simply pointing out that GE/Boeing talking about it might have been news 15 years ago but today it's pretty much a yawner. Now if they were actually running one on a test stand at those figures that would be news. It ain't news if they're just blowing the dust off a decade+ old press release and reading it to you again. See the difference?

 

[LowObservable]

Should you feel like passing informed judgment on the latest news, you need only acquire a subscription...

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/MG/AVW/AWST_1AW_form_070312.jsp?cds_page_id=121076&cds_mag_code=AVW&id=1369662406268&lsid=31470846462022437&vid=1&cds_response_key=WAW27AWCB

 

[sferrin]

Should you feel like passing informed judgment on the latest news, you need only acquire a subscription...

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/MG/AVW/AWST_1AW_form_070312.jsp?cds_page_id=121076&cds_mag_code=AVW&id=1369662406268&lsid=31470846462022437&vid=1&cds_response_key=WAW27AWCB

Why would I do that? I subscribed for nearly 20 years but decided not to renew when it became obvious AvWeek supported (or at least turned a blind eye to) your anti-F-35 pogrom. Besides, why would I want to fork out the dough only to find yet more talk? If they're actually testing hardware it'll show up somewhere else too.

 

[LowObservable]

I can carry out a pogrom by myself? I am clearly quite a talented individual.

 

[Triton]

I understand that it is named the Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet:

"Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet flies with CFTs and weapons pod"
by Dave Majumdar on 9 August, 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/boeing-fa-18f-super-hornet-flies-with-cfts-and-weapons-pod/

Boeing has released this photo of a US Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet in the air equipped with conformal fuel tanks and a weapons pod near Saint Louis, Missouri. The hardware is not functional, but is designed to test the aerodynamic qualities of the tanks and pod. Some advanced low-observables treatments are also expected to be tested on the jet which is being leased by the company for the trials.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2013/08/27/fotos-do-advanced-super-hornet/

 

[Triton]

Boeing Advanced Super Hornet Media Brief

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads//2013/08/Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief.pdf

 

[SpudmanWP]

Really???


One bomb and no AMRAAMs when caring a 1k or 2k bomb. :

 

[SOC]

Well the pod isn't huge, and they can carry up to three of them, although I'm not sure if hanging them on the wings wouldn't have a bigger LO impact than if you used, say, a RAM-treated JDAM or something fitted to the engine hardpoints.

 

[sferrin]

Well the pod isn't huge, and they can carry up to three of them, although I'm not sure if hanging them on the wings wouldn't have a bigger LO impact than if you used, say, a RAM-treated JDAM or something fitted to the engine hardpoints.

And can you say drraaaaaggggg. Slap those on the Super Hornet's airbrakes and A-10s will be blowing past you.

 

[SOC]

And can you say drraaaaaggggg. Slap those on the Super Hornet's airbrakes and A-10s will be blowing past you.

I just didn't feel the need to dwell on the obvious ;D That was actually where my LO JDAM idea came from.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

I had the opportunity yesterday to attend the press briefing at Boeing St. Louis for the Advanced Super Hornet. Triton has already posted the link to the briefing powerpoint so need to rehash that. The CFTs make lots of sense when you look at the numbers and getting rid of the 480 gal tanks on the inboard wing points. The EWP makes sense too for a 1st thru 2nd or 3rd day environment. The Growler community is wanting the CFTs as they will make a big difference on range and coverage as the external gas bags impact jamming coverage. I'll bet the CFTs show up on Growlers first...

Attached are a few photos - you can see more at our blog: http://aeroexperience.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

...and a few more... Mark

 

[Creative]

Other pics

 

[sferrin]

After chuckling my way through that brochure I think the Super Hornet needs a new nickname - Captain Kludge. 1st day stealth eh? :

 

[SpudmanWP]

My favorite is

2030+ A2AD Environment

.../...

Total Survivability Solution to Counter Emerging Threats

 

[SOC]

After chuckling my way through that brochure I think the Super Hornet needs a new nickname - Captain Kludge. 1st day stealth eh? :

Hey, LockMart claims the same thing about the JSF and nobody's complaining ;D

 

[SpudmanWP]

Nobody's complaining because the JPO and LM have the operational expertise to back it up.

 

[sferrin]

After chuckling my way through that brochure I think the Super Hornet needs a new nickname - Captain Kludge. 1st day stealth eh? :

Hey, LockMart claims the same thing about the JSF and nobody's complaining ;D

When it's real nobody does.

 

[LowObservable]

General Nankivil: What of Boeing? If St Louis has obtained a complete technical reading of the F-35, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.
Admiral Sferrin: Any attack made by Boeing against the F-35 would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This aircraft is now the ultimate power in the universe!
Darth Tuber: The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of FifthGenerationTM Technology by Lockheed Martin. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(Intelligent discussion makes choking sound)

 

[Sundog]

General Nankivil: What of Boeing? If St Louis has obtained a complete technical reading of the F-35, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.
Admiral Sferrin: Any attack made by Boeing against the F-35 would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This aircraft is now the ultimate power in the universe!
Darth Tuber: The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of FifthGenerationTM Technology by Lockheed Martin. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(Intelligent discussion makes choking sound)

ROFL!!!

 

[nova10]

Hi All -

I had the opportunity yesterday to attend the press briefing at Boeing St. Louis for the Advanced Super Hornet. Triton has already posted the link to the briefing powerpoint so need to rehash that. The CFTs make lots of sense when you look at the numbers and getting rid of the 480 gal tanks on the inboard wing points. The EWP makes sense too for a 1st thru 2nd or 3rd day environment. The Growler community is wanting the CFTs as they will make a big difference on range and coverage as the external gas bags impact jamming coverage. I'll bet the CFTs show up on Growlers first...

Attached are a few photos - you can see more at our blog: http://aeroexperience.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the Day! Mark


The Growler community might want the External Weapons Pod too, does anyone else think the EWP could (without the bomb bay doors of course) be a good candidate to house the Next Generation Jammer?

 

[sferrin]

General Nankivil: What of Boeing? If St Louis has obtained a complete technical reading of the F-35, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.
Admiral Sferrin: Any attack made by Boeing against the F-35 would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This aircraft is now the ultimate power in the universe!
Darth Tuber: The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of FifthGenerationTM Technology by Lockheed Martin. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(Intelligent discussion makes choking sound)

ROFL!!!

He has to resort to mockery because the facts don't support him. (And yeah, that was actually pretty funny.) A more apt comparison would put the Super Hornet in the role of Wile E. Coyote with the F-35 as the Roadrunner. One is constantly coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas in an effort to catch up with the Roadrunner and always coming up short. ;D

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Now I have the Star Wars (original) soundtrack playing in my head and I CAN NOT GET IT OUT OF THERE! ;D

I need to look at the briefing PP again but there was a slide that had the NGJ shown under wing and the pod had a low RCS look to it.

The CFTs make loads of sense - get the 480gal bags off the wings, drop the drag and free up a pylon for a weapon. Or if you're the poor pilot that's low end of the totem pole, more fuel to pass along when you are in the KF/A-18E/F role off the carrier...

They admit the EWP is not to any near term requirement but as I see it, if you cannot afford F-35s, getting part way to LO is better than nothing. Might make for a nice SIGINT/Recce pod too....

Doom, doom, doom, doom de doom..... Mark

 

[F-14D]

Now I have the Star Wars (original) soundtrack playing in my head and I CAN NOT GET IT OUT OF THERE! ;D

I need to look at the briefing PP again but there was a slide that had the NGJ shown under wing and the pod had a low RCS look to it.

The CFTs make loads of sense - get the 480gal bags off the wings, drop the drag and free up a pylon for a weapon. Or if you're the poor pilot that's low end of the totem pole, more fuel to pass along when you are in the KF/A-18E/F role off the carrier...

They admit the EWP is not to any near term requirement but as I see it, if you cannot afford F-35s, getting part way to LO is better than nothing. Might make for a nice SIGINT/Recce pod too....

Doom, doom, doom, doom de doom..... Mark

The Boeing Hornet E/F program managers no doubt feel they have to come up with something. USN orders for Super Hornets are over and the end of Growler orders are in sight. Except for the special circumstance of Australia, its performance in international sales competitions is notable for its lack of results. Once the long lead term items start going out of production and suppliers exit the program, the plane rapidly becomes unaffordable, because there's nothing so exceptional about this plane that anyone would want to fund restarting the production line. So somehow they've got to get the USN to do something to keep the program open in hopes of also selling some somewhere.

Something that puzzles me...the briefing talks about how drag goes down, but the description is parsed somewhat carefully. Usually when you add conformals, unless the a/c was designed for them from the start (which the F-15 was), it would you get a significant drag reduction over external tanks, but some rise over a purely "slick" aircraft. Since Boeing has in the past said they need the F414 EPE (which no one is willing to fund) to maintain performance, what changed? I note that "enhanced engine" is in one of the slides. Maybe they're just concerned that with external tanks you can blow the whole assembly of if necessary, but with CFTs there's no way to quickly shed that 4,370 lbs. of extra weight. That was one of the things India noted about the F-16E.

I'm also wondering about that, "More Than 50% Improvement Over Current LO Signature". Generally when they talk about LO with the SH, it's referring to a clean a/c, since even with work on the fuselage, the enemy's radar is going to see the weapons and pylons on a loaded SH. But here are they saying that it's a 50% reduction over an SH with external stores, which would not be surprising, or over a clean SH? If the latter, that's excellent new design, but it could also mean that the original wasn't that low to begin with, except relative to a Classic Hornet.

This could be interesting to watch.

 

[sferrin]

Without the new engines it's just going to stay a pig (or become more of one with those draggy external internal bays).

 

[Sundog]

The Boeing Hornet E/F program managers no doubt feel they have to come up with something. USN orders for Super Hornets are over and the end of Growler orders are in sight. Except for the special circumstance of Australia, its performance in international sales competitions is notable for its lack of results. Once the long lead term items start going out of production and suppliers exit the program, the plane rapidly becomes unaffordable, because there's nothing so exceptional about this plane that anyone would want to fund restarting the production line. So somehow they've got to get the USN to do something to keep the program open in hopes of also selling some somewhere.

Something that puzzles me...the briefing talks about how drag goes down, but the description is parsed somewhat carefully. Usually when you add conformals, unless the a/c was designed for them from the start (which the F-15 was), it would you get a significant drag reduction over external tanks, but some rise over a purely "slick" aircraft. Since Boeing has in the past said they need the F414 EPE (which no one is willing to fund) to maintain performance, what changed? I note that "enhanced engine" is in one of the slides. Maybe they're just concerned that with external tanks you can blow the whole assembly of if necessary, but with CFTs there's no way to quickly shed that 4,370 lbs. of extra weight. That was one of the things India noted about the F-16E.

I'm also wondering about that, "More Than 50% Improvement Over Current LO Signature". Generally when they talk about LO with the SH, it's referring to a clean a/c, since even with work on the fuselage, the enemy's radar is going to see the weapons and pylons on a loaded SH. But here are they saying that it's a 50% reduction over an SH with external stores, which would not be surprising, or over a clean SH? If the latter, that's excellent new design, but it could also mean that the original wasn't that low to begin with, except relative to a Classic Hornet.

This could be interesting to watch.

They just had a post at AvWeek about this today, and it seems they are getting some of the signature reduction from using a new design fan blocker, in combination with the lack of external stores.

With regard to the drag reduction, everything I've seen earlier stated that it gave the aircraft better area ruling in the transonic region. So it's lowering wave drag, with a modest increase in parasitic drag at lower speeds. Though I have to say they have integrated them well into the aircraft.

 

[fightingirish]

Thanks to Mark & Creative for posting the great pictures!


Here a video from Boeing posted by defenseupdate at YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oaXsK60EB0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oaXsK60EB0

 

[F-14D]

They just had a post at AvWeek about this today, and it seems they are getting some of the signature reduction from using a new design fan blocker, in combination with the lack of external stores.

With regard to the drag reduction, everything I've seen earlier stated that it gave the aircraft better area ruling in the transonic region. So it's lowering wave drag, with a modest increase in parasitic drag at lower speeds. Though I have to say they have integrated them well into the aircraft.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"!

 

[LowObservable]

Well, yes, Boeing does have a man behind the curtain and if you read the right articles by the right people you will find out who he is.

One point that is important is that with the best possible news about JSF, the Navy still has a mixed force with substantial numbers of Growlers and Super H, 20 years from now, so any investment has a reasonable payoff period.

Numbers such as "50 per cent improvement in RCS" are always squishy. But when we talk about external loads automatically having a sky-high RCS, we're forgetting to look at the fine print in some of the briefing docs we've seen over the years. Again, the right articles by the right people...

I don't think anyone at Boeing is claiming F-35-like RCS numbers in any configuration (after all, they know pretty much what those numbers are, or should be). If they have one guiding principle, it appears to be that there should be NO stealth-related maintenance aboard the boat. And while that has been promised in various ways over the decades for full-stealth designs, nobody's done it.

Not so sure about Roadrunner, though - I'm thinking of a more portly fowl from good ol'boy country who talks big, and that's about it...