Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

NMaude said:
Awesome! Now I wonder can SDBs being carried and launched supersonically?
Click to expand...
Yes that is almost a given. SDB one comments made regarding the F-22.
The SDB envelope will be the highest and fastest of currently fielded Air Force weapons
...
The Combined Test Force's future flight test plans include expanding the F-22's delivery envelope to the full capability of the aircraft, Mr. Kuhlemeier said.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone got any more info on the "have glass" Block III hornet? I seen a photo of it a few days ago and I can't find it again.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wonder what range you could get with a supersonic launch?
Click to expand...

Both the SDB-II and II have a maximum range of 69 miles when air-launched (No doubt at high subsonic speeds) so if air-launched supersonically (Anything faster than M1.2) I suppose ~140-150 miles.

Edit: While both PGMs are designed to be carried supersonically their airframes might need to be re-stressed to be launched at and flown at supersonic speeds.
 
NMaude said:
Both the SDB-II and II have a maximum range of 69 miles when air-launched (No doubt at high subsonic speeds) so if air-launched supersonically (Anything faster than M1.2) I suppose ~140-150 miles.

Edit: While both PGMs are designed to be carried supersonically their airframes might need to be re-stressed to be launched at and flown at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...
Plus there's the typical destabilization as a supersonic object slows down, so compensating for that will likely reduce range somewhat.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Plus there's the typical destabilization as a supersonic object slows down
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the tail-fins after they're deployed (Probably something like 100ms after launch) would actively stabilise the SDB to stop it tumbling.

Edit: I strongly suspect that once the SDB's wings are deployed it will rapidly decelerate to high subsonic speeds.
 
NMaude said:
I'm sure that the tail-fins after they're deployed (Probably something like 100ms after launch) would actively stabilise the SDB to stop it tumbling.

Edit: I strongly suspect that once the SDB's wings are deployed it will rapidly decelerate to high subsonic speeds.
Click to expand...
You're probably right about that.

It's just that the tail fins will be really moving around as the SDB goes transonic, which eats up speed/energy and therefore range.
 
NMaude said:
Both the SDB-II and II have a maximum range of 69 miles when air-launched (No doubt at high subsonic speeds) so if air-launched supersonically (Anything faster than M1.2) I suppose ~140-150 miles.

Edit: While both PGMs are designed to be carried supersonically their airframes might need to be re-stressed to be launched at and flown at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...
The original SDB was capable of supersonic launch, so SDB-II almost certainly is as well. IIRC the tail deploys for control and the wings stay stowed until subsonic. FWIW one of my friends at ED was in the 411th when they were doing the safety package for SDB, they were having kittens because its footprint was larger than any range they typically used.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh. Usually you'd expect to see a pair of ARMs or JSOWs, not a quartet.
Click to expand...
SEAD mission, not DECM escort with the capability to knock off 1 radar site if needed.

Back in Desert Storm there were strike missions flown with A-6Es and with EA-6B escort jamming - some of the A-6Es carried a HARM in addition to their main ordnance load, while there was also an A-6E or two carrying 4 HARMs.

The all-HARM A-6Es were tasked solely with radar site destruction, while the "bomber" A-6Es used their HARMs on SAM radars near their strike target.

See Angles of Attack: An A-6 Intruder Pilot's War by Peter Hunt for the above actions.

He was piloting one of the strike A-6Es that carried a HARM "for self-defense" - because in the pre-strike briefing he had noticed a SA-2 site near his planned flight path to his target that had not been allocated to one of the SEAD aircraft. He requested, and received, permission to adjust his ordnance to accommodate the missile.

When the SA-2 site launched missiles then "went active" to guide them, he fired the first HARM ever launched from an A-6E in combat - the radar went dead, and never came back on the entire air campaign. ;)
 
BlackBat242 said:
SEAD mission, not DECM escort with the capability to knock off 1 radar site if needed.
Click to expand...
Which then suggests that a (currently-hypothetical) EW CCA needs space for 4x AARGM-ERs internally for SEAD/DEAD missions. Which makes for a very large airframe, basically the same size as FAXX itself. And that's not likely to be very attritable due to cost. Definitely not attritable if the CCA has the jammers built in.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wonder what range you could get with a supersonic launch?
Click to expand...
Won't fly that far with broken wings?
Gliding bombs are just that, gliders.

Just like launching them from stratospheric balloon won't make them intercontinental, it will make them stall on launch.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Which then suggests that a (currently-hypothetical) EW CCA needs space for 4x AARGM-ERs internally for SEAD/DEAD missions. Which makes for a very large airframe, basically the same size as FAXX itself. And that's not likely to be very attritable due to cost. Definitely not attritable if the CCA has the jammers built in.
Click to expand...

I doubt we ever see CCAs with a2g ordnance bigger than an SDB. The relatively low CCA cost only comes from scaling the aircraft down to 1000-2000 lbs warload. Anything big enough to fire even a pair of ARMs is going to be large enough it warrants buying an F-35 instead.
 
Josh_TN said:
I doubt we ever see CCAs with a2g ordnance bigger than an SDB.
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree with that.

Mostly because ARMs are (mostly) bigass missiles that are ~1000lbs or so.



Josh_TN said:
The relatively low CCA cost only comes from scaling the aircraft down to 1000-2000 lbs warload. Anything big enough to fire even a pair of ARMs is going to be large enough it warrants buying an F-35 instead.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't think a ground-attack or SEAD CCA will be particularly attritable.

It needs the full EOTS from the F-35. It needs the DAS or however the plane is dealing with ground handling, which also gives it a MAWS.

It's okay to tell Congress, "we no longer want to put pilots at risk doing these missions, but the missions still need to happen. In order to do those missions, the aircraft itself needs, absolutely must have, a certain set of capabilities. And annoyingly, those capabilities are not cheap to include. So, no, Senator, these CCAs will not be attritable. They are most of the cost of an F-35 because they need most of the F-35's systems. That's just flat the cost of doing the job."
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which then suggests that a (currently-hypothetical) EW CCA needs space for 4x AARGM-ERs internally for SEAD/DEAD missions. Which makes for a very large airframe, basically the same size as FAXX itself. And that's not likely to be very attritable due to cost. Definitely not attritable if the CCA has the jammers built in.
Click to expand...

No, half the point of CCAs is to be low cost. How are they low cost?

- Volume production
- Rapid, low cost manufacturing
- Common components, subsystems, and core
- Designed for low flight hours
- Build it, keep it in a box until needed

This is all very well documented, as well as the target unit prices for CCAs, the costs of sustainment, etc.

So you can have a "large" CCA airframe that is still much less costly than a manned aircraft like the F-35. At this point USAF and the contractors are not moving in the direction of large CCA though, as there is no need. Even a "small" CCA can carry enough payload to matter. You do not need an F/A-XX sized CCA to carry 2-4 anti radiation missiles.

In the last 5 years EW/ECM has fundamentally changed. Capabilities that are beyond what NGJ, etc. offer are becoming available today that are cheaper and *disposable*. The very nature of ECM has changed due to new technologies. The idea that a CCA would not be attritable if it has ECM "built in" ignores these realities.
 
It's fine having specialist units that are not particularly attritable. Say, F35C cost or so. (How much more expensive is a Growler than a base -F Super Bug?)

If the builders can make them cheaper? hell yeah let's do it!

If they can't? *shrugs* cost of playing the game.

My view of a jammer CCA was something that packs the equivalent of the NGJ pods internally, which is ~7000lbs, plus 2-4 total ARMs and/or AGMs for pop-up threats. Call it 10-12klbs total payload, but you're only seeing about 2-4000lbs of it as "not coming back to the ship." If the jammers can be smaller-cheaper-lighter than that? Out-freaking-standing!

It needs to be as fast as FAXX and have roughly the same range. And it's hauling pretty much the same total payload.
 
I suspect having more, less capable jammers is a lot more useful than having one NGJ emitter. I think it likely the CCAs likely carry their own ECM - it would not be very expensive to add something with “Bright Storm” level capabilities to an aircraft that was in the $10-20 million range. That seems more useful than a dedicated NGJ standoff jammer. If every CCA then also carried a pair of MALD-J or some NGAD updated equivalent (ideally something the CCA software agent directly controlled for maximum effect), a single force centered on one manned fighter might have a wall of false targets to hide a half dozen firing platforms.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom