F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II Question

[fretburner]

I've been watching a few Top Gun clips as I was looking for Cheap Trick Videos, and so I was wondering...

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?

I can't find any article talking about this. I know it can detect/track simultaneously Air and Ground (fixed and moving) targets simultaneously, and drop individually targeted JDAMs, but can it do the same with air tragets and AMRAAMs?

My feeling is that it can. And if it can, it's going to be even better than the F-14 especially when the AIM-120D becomes operational.

Thanks!

[F-15 Eagle]

I've been watching a few Top Gun clips as I was looking for Cheap Trick Videos, and so I was wondering...

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?

I can't find any article talking about this. I know it can detect/track simultaneously Air and Ground (fixed and moving) targets simultaneously, and drop individually targeted JDAMs, but can it do the same with air tragets and AMRAAMs?

My feeling is that it can. And if it can, it's going to be even better than the F-14 especially when the AIM-120D becomes operational.

Thanks!

Yes and yes, it can track multiple targets at once and its way better than the F-14.

[fretburner]

Cool Stuff.

Anybody else care to chip in? :)

[gf0012-aust]

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?


The F-14 never had AESA
The F-14 never had digitised systems
The F-14 had a far slower development cycles whereas the Shornet is modular.
The F-14 never had even he remotest co-operative engagement capability as the Shornet
The F-14 could not match the Shornet for a "tri-service" CEC capability.

At an avionics, at a systems level, there is no comparison.

The best thing to understand things like this is to look at the fitout of each aircraft and then look at the publicised data and do a relative analysis.

Bear in mind that publicly released data on weapons, mission and system "systems" is very very lightweight - and deliberately so. So material in the public domain should only be indicative for assessment - its never empirical and "defensible"

Finally, this thread is skating close to the wind on being a comparison or "vs" thread - and if it's to stay open it will need to be consciously steered away from that kind of discussion (eg have a look at the Forum Rules)

[fretburner]

^ Thanks for reminding me about the "vs" thingy. The mods locked my 1st ever post because of that.

I'm just curious as to why Boeing or the USN isn't advertising so much the Super Hornet's air-to-air capabilities, when it really seem to be quite a capable A2A "platform"?

I know that the USN have the Aegis cruisers/destroyers, nowadays, are doing the fleet defense role, but with the super hornet able to engage multiple targets simultaneously, missiles heading to different targets at the same time, it's going to be an awesome "fleet defense" or BVR A2A fighter for countries without Aegis cruisers/destroyers.

By the way, what's CEC?

And co-operative engagement means that one fighter can pass on information via datalink and assign targets to other planes right?

Thanks!

[Sheriff]

CEC = Cooperative Engagement Capability
Via tactical data link all platforms can share sensor data. This way everyone can (theoretically) be reading from the same. page i.e. the Single Integrated Operational Picture (SIOP)

[Scorpion82]

^ Thanks for reminding me about the "vs" thingy. The mods locked my 1st ever post because of that.

I'm just curious as to why Boeing or the USN isn't advertising so much the Super Hornet's air-to-air capabilities, when it really seem to be quite a capable A2A "platform"?

I know that the USN have the Aegis cruisers/destroyers, nowadays, are doing the fleet defense role, but with the super hornet able to engage multiple targets simultaneously, missiles heading to different targets at the same time, it's going to be an awesome "fleet defense" or BVR A2A fighter for countries without Aegis cruisers/destroyers.

By the way, what's CEC?

And co-operative engagement means that one fighter can pass on information via datalink and assign targets to other planes right?

Thanks!

Well the CEC and multi target engagement capabilities aren't something special at all now adays. Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

[Grand Danois]

Well the CEC and multi target engagement capabilities aren't something special at all now adays. Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

CEC is for theater level distribution. MIDS et al. are tactical, e.g. four ship, although both carry fire control quality data.

[ROCK45]

I'm not sure if this was covered or not but I was wondering besides this attached article providing some useful information does anybody know more?

Would being bring the thrust up 26,600 per engine help the SH in air to air? Or because of the design 30,000 lbs or 32,000 lbs is needed? The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120C7, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade
Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/12/326376/boeings-super-hornet-seeks-export-sale-to-launch-20-thrust.html)

[Bonza]

The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120D, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

It's not. Don't let the Sukhoi fanboys fool you, the SH Block II is a damn capable aircraft. I'm just an enthusiast so I don't want to act as though I'm blessed with expert knowledge, but with some google searches you should be able to find some decent commentary on the aircraft from actual pilots and military personnel, rather than the self proclaimed "experts" who love to sound off on the aircraft's shortcomings on the internet.

[gf0012-aust]

Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

SHornet is slated for Link22. Link16 in comparison, is an ark compared to the extra capability that we're already seeing in the Link22 project.

Not all capabilities are the same - and even some of the current non-US 4th gens are still being fitted out with Link16

[Aussie Digger]

I'm not sure if this was covered or not but I was wondering besides this attached article providing some useful information does anybody know more?

Would being bring the thrust up 26,600 per engine help the SH in air to air? Or because of the design 30,000 lbs or 32,000 lbs is needed? The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120D, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade
Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/12/326376/boeings-super-hornet-seeks-export-sale-to-launch-20-thrust.html)

It certainly isn't going to hurt. The extra thrust will assist with acceleration, important for missile launch and also in the "knife fight" so, yes extra thrust will improve capability in this area.

As an overall benefit? It will probably make it seemingly more competitive against those fighters that tout their "performance advantage" because most of the Super Hornet's real capability in comparison to it's competitors is in it's EW, sensor/sensor fusion and weapons capability and these capabilities are not as "sellable" to the gullible as flashy air show manoeuvres...

The real test will be whether USN opts for the upgrade. If they do, it can be inferred to offer a genuine improvement. If not... :rolleyes:

[fretburner]

If I may ask another:

Would you folks believe of Boeing's claims that the Super Hornet would have the lowest frontal RCS for any current non-stealth aircraft?

It's supposed to be a bigger aircraft than the original Hornet and if you look at it from the front, it looks the same apart from the redesigned intakes. I don't know how big a factor the LO technologies on the intakes is.

Thanks again!

[ROCK45]

Thanks everybody your input it was useful but I still have questions. How fighters merge always intrests me but shouldn't a SH have a solid egde with its radar for getting into a good firing postion? Don't Hornet's beat Eagles and Vipers some times in mock fighting in inter squadron training?

[Bonza]

If I may ask another:

Would you folks believe of Boeing's claims that the Super Hornet would have the lowest frontal RCS for any current non-stealth aircraft?

It's supposed to be a bigger aircraft than the original Hornet and if you look at it from the front, it looks the same apart from the redesigned intakes. I don't know how big a factor the LO technologies on the intakes is.

Thanks again!

Others are far more qualified to answer this than myself, but it's my understanding that the application of radar absorbent materials to the airframe plays a large part in the signature reduction of any LO platform. I imagine this would be particularly true for a "non-LO" airframe such as the Super Hornet.

GF could explain it much better than I could, and there's a thread on this forum somewhere (I can't remember where exactly but I'll have a look for you) where he gave an excellent brief rundown of LO capability and history.

EDIT: Here's a link to the thread in which GF gave a rundown on LO I think you'll find very interesting, it's post #99 on the following page:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/will-latest-f-35-problems-push-norway-towards-european-solution-7135-7/#post125848

[fretburner]

Others are far more qualified to answer this than myself, but it's my understanding that the application of radar absorbent materials to the airframe plays a large part in the signature reduction of any LO platform. I imagine this would be particularly true for a "non-LO" airframe such as the Super Hornet.


I haven't read about the Super Hornet have RAM?

I got this from Janes: Boeing hedges against JSF delays with stealthier Super Hornet - Jane's Defence Business News (http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr050513_1_n.shtml)

The basic Super Hornet already incorporates some LO technology, including edge alignments, swept inlets and treated blocker vanes in front of the engines, and the Phantom Works has been working since the early 1990s on ways to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of conventional aircraft and external stores.

I don't know how RCS reduction you can get from those?


By the way...thanks for the link. I read the entire post :)

[Scorpion82]

SHornet is slated for Link22. Link16 in comparison, is an ark compared to the extra capability that we're already seeing in the Link22 project.

Not all capabilities are the same - and even some of the current non-US 4th gens are still being fitted out with Link16

And what has this to do with the fact that multi target and cooperative target engagement capabilities are neither extraordinary, nor unique to the SH? BTW is LINK 22 supposed to be downwards compatible with LINK 16?

[OPSSG]

By the way...thanks for the link. I read the entire post :)

Read this link written by Greg (http://www.vectorsite.net/avhorn_2.html#m1) for more background Super Hornet information. :D

[fretburner]

Read this link written by Greg (http://www.vectorsite.net/avhorn_2.html#m1) for more background Super Hornet information. :D

Cool stuff. That was the 1st website I read that mentioned RAM coatings:

"...he geometry of the engine inlets was tweaked and more RAM was fitted; a baffle was developed by GE that was fitted in front of the F414 engines to eliminate reflections from the engine fan; and some airframe changes were made to eliminate radar traps. "

Nice :)

Maybe the Super Hornet really does have that low a RCS.

[Firn]

While the Super Hornet has a substantially smaller radar cross section than the original Hornet, Boeing engineers believe that it can be cut further. Boeing has introduced new conformal fuel tanks for the F-15 that incorporate "stealthy" weapons bays for an AAM or light munition, and that might well be an option for the Super Bug as well. The new avionics of the Block 2 Super Hornet, particularly the AN/APG-79 AESA, may make the fighter more attractive in the export market as well.

* The Super Hornet has been a thoroughly abused aircraft, with its critics sparing little in their attacks, and its defenders calling the critics liars. Its murky origins are not inspirational, and even its defenders admit it lacks an edge in speed and agility.

However, it is worth asking if that edge makes a big difference. The second-generation Harrier II VTOL strike fighter is distinctly slower than the first-generation Harrier I, but the Harrier II is a far more capable aircraft, with greater load and range, as well as much more sophisticated avionics. Nobody makes much fuss about degraded performance -- though admittedly the Harrier II is regarded strictly as a strike aircraft. The Super Hornet has much the same set of advantages over the Hornet I, and can carry an awesome range of weaponry. In the era of advanced AAMs that really work, its defects as a dogfighter may not count for much.

I rather liked the summary. It never ceases to amaze me that raw flight performance, while valuable and important always seems to come first in many minds. The Superbug seems to be a well cooked menu with the right ingredients in place.

[ROCK45]

fretburner
OPSSG
Thanks for posting the webs sites great sources for information.

[Bonza]

Cool stuff. That was the 1st website I read that mentioned RAM coatings:

"...he geometry of the engine inlets was tweaked and more RAM was fitted; a baffle was developed by GE that was fitted in front of the F414 engines to eliminate reflections from the engine fan; and some airframe changes were made to eliminate radar traps. "

Nice :)

Maybe the Super Hornet really does have that low a RCS.

At Avalon this year I was talking to an F-111 pilot who had done quite a bit of flying in the Super Hornet, and he was telling me a great deal of the Block II avionics capability was adapted from Boeing's X-32 JSF bid. I imagine the LO treatments on the SH were applied with lessons learned from the X-32 in mind, so the RCS reduction is most likely, as the saying goes, "tactically significant".

[swerve]

At Avalon this year I was talking to an F-111 pilot who had done quite a bit of flying in the Super Hornet, and he was telling me a great deal of the Block II avionics capability was adapted from Boeing's X-32 JSF bid....
Wasn't the APG-79 intended for the X-32?

Which reminds me - what number should the F-18E really have? F-24? That would make the JSF F-25, of course.

[StevoJH]

Wasn't the APG-79 intended for the X-32?

Which reminds me - what number should the F-18E really have? F-24? That would make the JSF F-25, of course.

Depends how if you number the X-32 as the F-25 or F-26

[the road runner]

Wasn't the APG-79 intended for the X-32.

The APG-79 and some avionics of the superbugs, was used in Boeings bid for the JSF the X-32.

The Superbugs is used by US Navy.The US Navy are the ones who project power anywhere on our worlds oceans.For this Reason,i see the F18EFG as an awsome Capability.It fights in littoral environments,fights from thousands of miles from home,fights from hundreds of miles from the carrier,fights in a salty/harsh environment.

It has dual roles,strike and fighter capability,its a versatile platform,was delivered on budget and ahead of Schedual.Pilots that fly the Aircraft...swear by its capabilities.

Superbugs are known to have the 3rd lowest Radar cross section,after the F-22 and JSF.

Gf,Aussie Digger and Aberaham G.........wrote of the RCS of the Superhornets in this forum somewere........im not sure if its in the Indian Airforce thread of Raaf thread but i will try to find the info...and post the link

[fretburner]

Superbugs are known to have the 3rd lowest Radar cross section,after the F-22 and JSF.

Gf,Aussie Digger and Aberaham G.........wrote of the RCS of the Superhornets in this forum somewere........im not sure if its in the Indian Airforce thread of Raaf thread but i will try to find the info...and post the link

Good stuff. Gotta look up those threads.

Did the US Navy get what they really asked for? It seems like they did. I read somewhere that it was like what they imagined the TomCat to be decades ago, as far as fleet defence is concerned, and what they really wanted in a strike fighter at the same time. After all, the original hornet, has been viewed by some as a 2nd rate fighter, a USAF reject.

[swerve]

Depends how if you number the X-32 as the F-25 or F-26
Neither. It doesn't get an F- number, any more than the X-29, X-31 or other technology demonstrators.

[gf0012-aust]

And what has this to do with the fact that multi target and cooperative target engagement capabilities are neither extraordinary, nor unique to the SH? BTW is LINK 22 supposed to be downwards compatible with LINK 16?

Huh? Because CEC is not CEC, or all CEC's aren't "equal". It's the sum of systems included at the time. If you look at CEC that operates today in some airforces it is an ark compared to what we're currently testing.

Link22 has to work with Link16 because its still a core capability - why would it not? We all need to be able to "down" talk to Link16 as its on more than aircraft.

At the capability level, I've seen nothing in the roadmap to date which even indicates a spiral development of Link22 into the F-22 - and thats due to a number of reasons. (it's one of the very significant development differences between JSF and F-22 and the lessons learnt from he F-22 program of what not to do). F-22's like Gripens can do discretionary hands off to themselves. (Although the F-22 has an extended comms reach)

The Shornet was designed to be able to take advantage of COTS solutions as well, I can't think of any other current production non US fighter that has leveraged off of COTS principles as much as the Shornet

If you think that anyone else has the same degree of CEC at a triservice level as the US then I'm all ears. I know what partners come to our ewarfare development meetings and that includes UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Canada and a few others that have observer status. No one in that group reaches the same degree of sophistication that the US has at a tri-service,/multi-service level in a full theatre battlespace.

If they did we'd all be clammering to their development doors. Hence why all of us are riding the US train to take advanage of their largesse and capability. CEC at flight and short squadron level between fighter planes is what generally everyone on the internet gets excited about - we've moved way beyond that. Sweden and UK (who are regarded as having good discretionary localised CEC certainly know that this is in a different league.

CEC is not new as a principle - but the capability developed and in development now sure as hell is different between the primary player and everyone else. Thats the harsh reality

[fretburner]

The APG-79 and some avionics of the superbugs, was used in Boeings bid for the JSF the X-32.


Talk about the Super Hornet Radar... the APG-72 and APG-63v3 should have roughly the same capabilities right?

Found this article in aviationweek.com:

Japanese Patient For Tacair Opportunities | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JAPAN062309.xml&headline=Japanese%20Patient%20For%20Tacair%20Oppor tunities)

However, aerospace industry officials say the JASDF is upgrading its single seat F-15Js with APG-63(v1) radars that provide digital reliability but not the AESA effect. It retains a mechanically scanned antenna. Japanese officials are looking for money to add the AESA antenna, which would convert the radar to v3 models. The further modification practically triples the radar’s range to 125-150 miles and makes it possible to lock on small targets, like cruise missiles, and stealthier aircraft.

Awesome!

Makes you wonder too if the F-22's radar would hit 200miles :)

[the road runner]

Talk about the Super Hornet Radar... the APG-72 and APG-63v3 should have roughly the same capabilities right?


Alot of info on Radars is speculative...........i just basically re gurgitate info i have read in mags and websites.

I would think the APG-79 would be a much more advanced radar system,being developed in the late 90's.It was designed from the outset to be an ASEA radar......

The APG-63 radars were developed in the 70's and have technology added over time..........

APG-70 was a re design in the 80's of the original APG-63 for greater reliability

APG-63(V)1 is a re design in the 90's of the original APG-63.

The APG-63(V)2/3 is a very intresting radars, with technology of the APG-79 ASEA added.

I would assume that the APG-79 would be more advanced ,than the original APG-63,but the APG-63(V)3 would have to be on par with the APG-79.
Altho i do think the APG-79 would have better sensor and overall,greater capability.......but not by much.

Comments welcomed

[OPSSG]

Alot of info on Radars is speculative...........i just basically re gurgitate info i have read in mags and websites.

I would think the APG-79 would be a much more advanced radar system,being developed in the late 90's.It was designed from the outset to be an ASEA radar......

The APG-63 radars were developed in the 70's and have technology added over time..........

APG-70 was a re design in the 80's of the original APG-63 for greater reliability

APG-63(V)1 is a re design in the 90's of the original APG-63.

The APG-63(V)2/3 is a very intresting radars, with technology of the APG-79 ASEA added.

I would assume that the APG-79 would be more advanced ,than the original APG-63,but the APG-63(V)3 would have to be on par with the APG-79.
Altho i do think the APG-79 would have better sensor and overall,greater capability.......but not by much.

Comments welcomed

Good post - basically, USN and the USAF are constantly developing and improving their AESA radar technology. Over time, they will infuse new technology from other developmental efforts into even older platforms.

There's now the APG-82 - a Raytheon supplied AESA radar upgrade for the F-15E of the USAF (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photo-by-stephen-trimblefive-r.html). This is actually a very clever marketing maneuver. It's a repackaged front-end from an APG-79 and a back-end derived from the APG-63(V)3 (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-15s-looking-for-the-aesa-edge-04044/). But the USAF supplied designation means Raytheon can boast a "newer" radar than the Northrop Grumman APG-82 flying on the Lockheed Martin F-35.

[Scorpion82]

Huh? Because CEC is not CEC, or all CEC's aren't "equal". It's the sum of systems included at the time. If you look at CEC that operates today in some airforces it is an ark compared to what we're currently testing.

Link22 has to work with Link16 because its still a core capability - why would it not? We all need to be able to "down" talk to Link16 as its on more than aircraft.

At the capability level, I've seen nothing in the roadmap to date which even indicates a spiral development of Link22 into the F-22 - and thats due to a number of reasons. (it's one of the very significant development differences between JSF and F-22 and the lessons learnt from he F-22 program of what not to do). F-22's like Gripens can do discretionary hands off to themselves. (Although the F-22 has an extended comms reach)

The Shornet was designed to be able to take advantage of COTS solutions as well, I can't think of any other current production non US fighter that has leveraged off of COTS principles as much as the Shornet

If you think that anyone else has the same degree of CEC at a triservice level as the US then I'm all ears. I know what partners come to our ewarfare development meetings and that includes UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Canada and a few others that have observer status. No one in that group reaches the same degree of sophistication that the US has at a tri-service,/multi-service level in a full theatre battlespace.

If they did we'd all be clammering to their development doors. Hence why all of us are riding the US train to take advanage of their largesse and capability. CEC at flight and short squadron level between fighter planes is what generally everyone on the internet gets excited about - we've moved way beyond that. Sweden and UK (who are regarded as having good discretionary localised CEC certainly know that this is in a different league.

CEC is not new as a principle - but the capability developed and in development now sure as hell is different between the primary player and everyone else. Thats the harsh reality

Super Hornet don't has LINK22 right now, LINK 22 isn't fielded right now, so what's the point? And what makes you so sure others won't adopt it as well?

[swerve]

...There's now the APG-81 - a Raytheon supplied AESA radar upgrade for the F-15E of the USAF (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photo-by-stephen-trimblefive-r.html). ....
I think you mean APG-82.

[OPSSG]

I think you mean APG-82.

Sorry typo... yes, I mean the APG-82.:D

[gf0012-aust]

Super Hornet don't has LINK22 right now, LINK 22 isn't fielded right now, so what's the point? And what makes you so sure others won't adopt it as well?


Where did I say it wouldn't? In fact there are 8+2 partners involved. (Invitation only - not an FMS article/artifact)

[fretburner]

Sorry typo... yes, I mean the APG-82.:D

How capable do you think will this APG-82 be? Probably more capable than the SH's and F-15SG's, but not as capable as the F-35's? It's still based on the APG-79 afterall right?

[OPSSG]

How capable do you think will this APG-82 be?

While it is hard to say for certain, I would presume that the APG-82 would be the most capable AESA radar on the F-15. Some background information of the development of AESA radar for the F-15s (http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Boeing_(McDonnell_Douglas)_F-15_Eagle) may help place things in its proper context for you.

(i) The USAF first installed Raytheon’s APG-63(V)2 in the F-15Cs at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska in December 2000.

(ii) The APG-63(V)3 AESA radar combines APG-63(V)2 software with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s APG-79 AESA radar. The APG-63(v)3 uses lighter and more advanced AESA technologies that include a tile array arrangement, and a new processor. This model of AESA radar is installed in the USAF's F15Cs and the F-15SGs.

(iii) In October 2008, Boeing was awarded a System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract by the USAF for F-15Es - this SDD contract resulted in Raytheon's development of the APG-63(V)4 (and subsequently renamed APG-82). It's a repackaged front-end from an APG-79 and a back-end derived from the APG-63(V)3. I would speculate that this new radar model would have improvements in its air-to-ground mode, as it is intended for Strike Eagles.

Probably more capable than the SH's and F-15SG's, but not as capable as the F-35's? It's still based on the APG-79 afterall right?

Kindly note that the USAF's Strike Eagles perform a slightly different role from the USN's SH. Logically, the design of the radar should follow the intended mission function of the aircraft. I'm sure that Raytheon is constantly seeking to improve its products and given that the APG-79 (on the SH) was developed earlier, I would presume (but I'm not sure) that the APG-82 radar model (to be installed on the F-15Es) is more capable.

I'm not keen in trying to compare the F-15E's new AESA radar vs the F-35's radar - as I have thus far not seen information released that would enable us to make a meaningful comparison.

[swerve]

(i) The USAF first installed Raytheon’s APG-63(V)2 in the F-15Cs at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska in December 2000.

(ii) The APG-63(V)3 AESA radar combines APG-63(V)2 software with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s APG-79 AESA radar. The APG-63(v)3 uses lighter and more advanced AESA technologies that include a tile array arrangement, and a new processor. This model of AESA radar is installed in the USAF's F15Cs and the F-15SGs....
18 F-15Cs received the APG-63(v)2.

The first contract for the APG-63(v)3 upgrade of F-15Cs (178 planned, but most not contracted for yet) was awarded in October 2007, for ANG aircraft. Boeing said then that the upgrades would begin in early 2009. AFAIK, no F-15C is operational with the APG-63(v)3. The ANG said in 2007 it would upgrade 6 to 8 aircraft a year.

[OPSSG]

18 F-15Cs received the APG-63(v)2.

The first contract for the APG-63(v)3 upgrade of F-15Cs (178 planned, but most not contracted for yet) was awarded in October 2007, for ANG aircraft. Boeing said then that the upgrades would begin in early 2009. AFAIK, no F-15C is operational with the APG-63(v)3. The ANG said in 2007 it would upgrade 6 to 8 aircraft a year.

Thanks for the clarification/correction. :D

[fretburner]

^Very cool stuff OPSSG and Swerve!

I didn't know the USAF are upgrading that many F-15C radars to AESA, more so, to the APG-63v3. I read that they were upgrading those in Alaska (Golden Eagles they call it?) but didn't know they're at least planning to upgrade to the v3 - the same radar on the F-15SG - for almost 200 of them. I thought they're were only doing the upgrades to test or gain knowledge "in advance" before the F-22's replace all the F-15C's. I guess they're doing this now since they'll only be getting 187 F-22's?

I know that they're not going to retire the F-15E's as it has a very different role than the C's. This APG-82 seems like a much more capable radar than the APG-63v3, and maybe even more capable than the APG-79, even though, as you've mentioned, the Strike Eagles have quite a different role than the Super Hornets.

I think the Super Hornets with the F-35s, and the Strike Eagles with the F-22s (and F-35s) would be around for a long time. Seems like these "legacy" fighters can still hold their own against the 4.5gen fighters, especially when the AIM-120D becomes fully operational.

Thanks for the replies!

[sunshin3]

(ii) The APG-63(V)3 AESA radar combines APG-63(V)2 software with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s APG-79 AESA radar. The APG-63(v)3 uses lighter and more advanced AESA technologies that include a tile array arrangement, and a new processor. This model of AESA radar is installed in the USAF's F15Cs and the F-15SGs.

I would like to add that 4 of the 24 F-15SGs (with the APG-63(V)3 radar) have been delivered thus far. I'm waiting to see if the Singapore air force upgrades to the APG-82 for their remaining F-15SGs.

[swerve]

I didn't know the USAF are upgrading that many F-15C radars to AESA, more so, to the APG-63v3. I read that they were upgrading those in Alaska (Golden Eagles they call it?) but didn't know they're at least planning to upgrade to the v3 - the same radar on the F-15SG - for almost 200 of them. I thought they're were only doing the upgrades to test or gain knowledge "in advance" before the F-22's replace all the F-15C's. I guess they're doing this now since they'll only be getting 187 F-22's?
I don't know if all 178 planned will actually be upgraded. Contracts haven't been signed for anywhere near that number. According to this document (http://www.ngaus.org/NGAUS/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000005035/2009%20Active%20Electronically%20Scanned%20Array%2 0Radar.pdf), 18 ANG upgrades were financed from FY 06 to FY 08/09, but this article (http://defense-update.com/newscast/0308/news/news2103_apg63v3.htm) says 23 radars, of which one was a spare. Whichever, it's quite a slow rate. Ah - Globalsecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/03/mil-080317-raytheon01.htm) says that 8 of those are for the USAF.

Gottit! 6+8+4 (18) upgrades for the ANG, plus one spare radar. 8 for the USAF. Total 26 upgrades, 27 radars, plus any in the current budget. The last 4 for the ANG have been funded since the Globalsecurity & Defense Update articles.

[fretburner]

I don't know if all 178 planned will actually be upgraded. Contracts haven't been signed for anywhere near that number. According to this document (http://www.ngaus.org/NGAUS/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000005035/2009%20Active%20Electronically%20Scanned%20Array%2 0Radar.pdf), 18 ANG upgrades were financed from FY 06 to FY 08/09, but this article (http://defense-update.com/newscast/0308/news/news2103_apg63v3.htm) says 23 radars, of which one was a spare. Whichever, it's quite a slow rate. Ah - Globalsecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/03/mil-080317-raytheon01.htm) says that 8 of those are for the USAF.


I stumbled upon a different forum and the reason why the rate is rather too slow is that the USAF are still posturing in getting more F-22s? I guess the F-22 supporters are afraid that people in Congress and maybe Sec. Gates would feel confident about keeping to 187 Raptors and just upgrade the F-15s to ensure Air Dominance in the decades ahead?

edit: Do you guys look at the Block II Super Hornet as a Gen 4.5 plane?

[the road runner]

Do you guys look at the Block II Super Hornet as a Gen 4.5 plane?

My Opinion
Well i see the F-18EFG,Su30MKI, F-15SG and F-16(block 60) as all 4th generation Aircraft.

I do not like calling the above 4.5 generation Aircraft as the lines get blured between 4th and 5th generation.

Some people do call the F18 Super Bugs 4.5th generation(even Boeing call the super bugs 4.5 generation),but was dose the .5 represent? An advanced radar,sensors,ect.?

I consider a 5th generation aircraft to have a low observable Radar cross section,and internal weapons load with fused/networked sensors.

I consider a 4th generation Aircraft to have a radar,weapons carried externally,pods carried externally.

The term 4.5th generation ,i consider a smart marketing ploy.
Why would you buy a 4th generation fighter of XX when you can buy a 4.5 generation aircraft of YY.:p:

Be kind in your replies:D

[fretburner]

^ I think a lot of people would give that 4.5 gen tag because of some "stealth" technologies in the aircraft (as per F22/F35 "stealth" definitions)? For example, the EF and Rafale are supposed to be "stealthy", but Boeing would claim, the SH would have lower frontal RCS than those two?

And would you consider the F-15SE to be a 4.5 gen? It's supposedly "stealthy" (depending how "stealthy" the US govt will allow it to be), carries weapons internally, and will have the APG-82 :)

[the road runner]

I can understand the logic behind calling an aircraft 4.5 generation:drunk1 cause it dose have some LO features but it is not in the same LO technoligies placed in the F-22 or JSF.

Usually LO features in such 4.5th generation fighters is in the front(nose section)of the aircraft.They do not have the LO features in engine inlets,air intakes,ect.....

Abe wrote about LO features of F-22 and JSF(i have looked but cannot find the link).Basically a F-22 has a radar cross section the size of a Marble.

JSF has the radar cross section of a golf ball.

An Aircraft that has some LO added as the F-18EF has, is not a Aircraft like the JSF or F-22 that has been designed from the beginning to be a LO Aircraft.

Listen to the Guys with Blue Collars on there names they will be the ones who will guide you(and me:) ) on having a greater understanding of LO on so called 4.5th:drunk1 Aircraft.

Comment welcomed

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I can understand the logic behind calling an aircraft 4.5 generation:drunk1 cause it dose have some LO features but it is not in the same LO technoligies placed in the F-22 or JSF.

Usually LO features in such 4.5th generation fighters is in the front(nose section)of the aircraft.They do not have the LO features in engine inlets,air intakes,ect.....

Abe wrote about LO features of F-22 and JSF(i have looked but cannot find the link).Basically a F-22 has a radar cross section the size of a Marble.

JSF has the radar cross section of a golf ball.

An Aircraft that has some LO added as the F-18EF has, is not a Aircraft like the JSF or F-22 that has been designed from the beginning to be a LO Aircraft.

Listen to the Guys with Blue Collars on there names they will be the ones who will guide you(and me:) ) on having a greater understanding of LO on so called 4.5th:drunk1 Aircraft.

Comment welcomed

IIRC some of the original parameters of 5th gen platforms were advanced sensors, sensor fusion and LO technology. So when Boeing brought out the Rhino B2, and it incorporated LO features and sensors and information management technology (sensor fusion) lifted out of a 5th gen program (X-32) it labeled it a 4.5th gen platform, because although it possesses some of the characteristics that distinguish 5th gen platforms from 4th gen, it is still essentially a 4th gen airframe. So the SH B2 isn't exactly a 4th gen platform, but it isn't a 5th gen either, so 4.5th is the interim. Personally i think this is a perfectly normal designation.

I think it starts to get messy when (to keep up I'm sure) the Russians started labeling things 4+ or 4++ gen, denoting that these platforms have been upgraded from the original 4th gen design. However this misses the point of labeling a platform "mid gen", every aircraft is upgraded over its lifetime. You don't hear the HAF referring to its F-4's as 3++ gen aircraft. The whole point with the .5 designation is that platform shares some of the major characteristics that distinguish 4th gen from 5th gen.

By the way the Rhino hasn't had LO tech added, it was designed from the ground up to have reduced RCS in the frontal aspect, same with the Typhoon.

[fretburner]

By the way the Rhino hasn't had LO tech added, it was designed from the ground up to have reduced RCS in the frontal aspect, same with the Typhoon.

But isn't this true with the SH as well?

Although it's based on the original Hornet, it's only have like 70% commonality with the original right? I even read somewhere that only it's nose section is essentially the same as the original. So while it's not designed from the ground up, e.g. the Typhoon, it's also not an upgraded Hornet nor had just LO tech "added", i.e. it was "redesigned" with LO in mind? Or are these all semantics?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But isn't this true with the SH as well?

Although it's based on the original Hornet, it's only have like 70% commonality with the original right? I even read somewhere that only it's nose section is essentially the same as the original. So while it's not designed from the ground up, e.g. the Typhoon, it's also not an upgraded Hornet nor had just LO tech "added", i.e. it was "redesigned" with LO in mind? Or are these all semantics?

The E/F is a totally different airframe, it wasn't simply a redesigned hornet. In reality it deserved a new designation but 18 was kept for political reasons. It was designed from the ground up (i.e. from the initial concept/drawings) with LO in mind. Even if there are a couple of similar design features. Its comparable to the F-100 super saber compared to the F-86, the SH and H are totally different animals, even if they share some design features visually.

And I don't think it has 70% commonality, the engines are completely different (that alone makes up for more than 30% of the parts).

[swerve]

According to Wikipedia (I know - but on uncontentious stuff like this it's usually accurate) the F-18L had 71% commonality with the standard F-18, by parts weight.

The F-18E is 3000kg heavier, & has different engines. Those two, by themselves, make 70% commonality unachievable.

But it is not "a totally different airframe". It does have some common parts (most of the forward fuselage was originally common, though later F-18Es have a new nose, allowing the fitting of the APG-79), & is pretty well an enlarged F-18C. It's mostly a new airframe, not totally. Also, it originally had almost the same avionics, though again, that's changed.

It was different enough that it deserved a new designation & but for politics, as Ozzy Blizzard says, would have had one. It should be the F-24 or F-25, I think, which would make the JSF the F-25 or F-26.

Has anyone noticed the extraordinary reluctance of the US military to assign new marque designations nowadays? The F-16 has suffered from this to an extreme degree, to the extent where the F-16C designation is now rarely used, as the proliferation of variants has rendered it meaningless. The official designation system is also routinely ignored - e.g. F-18E, F-35, F/A-18, AIM-9X.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

According to Wikipedia (I know - but on uncontentious stuff like this it's usually accurate) the F-18L had 71% commonality with the standard F-18, by parts weight.

The F-18E is 3000kg heavier, & has different engines. Those two, by themselves, make 70% commonality unachievable.

But it is not "a totally different airframe". It does have some common parts (most of the forward fuselage was originally common, though later F-18Es have a new nose, allowing the fitting of the APG-79), & is pretty well an enlarged F-18C. It's mostly a new airframe, not totally. Also, it originally had almost the same avionics, though again, that's changed.

It was different enough that it deserved a new designation & but for politics, as Ozzy Blizzard says, would have had one. It should be the F-24 or F-25, I think, which would make the JSF the F-25 or F-26.

Has anyone noticed the extraordinary reluctance of the US military to assign new marque designations nowadays? The F-16 has suffered from this to an extreme degree, to the extent where the F-16C designation is now rarely used, as the proliferation of variants has rendered it meaningless. The official designation system is also routinely ignored - e.g. F-18E, F-35, F/A-18, AIM-9X.

OK, it shares some parts with the F/A-18C, but IIRC the F-117 shares parts with the F-15 (lading gear), F-16 (FBW) and a few others, but it would be purely semantics to argue it was anything but a totally new design. The point i was making is the F/A-18F is a brand new design, independent of the F/A-18C (minus design influence and a few parts they picked up). It looks similar, it shared the fundamental design paradigm, it shares a few parts commonly (B2 dis different up front), but it is definitely not simply an upgraded hornet.

In any case it deserved a new designation.

[gf0012-aust]

but IIRC the F-117 shares parts with the F-15 (lading gear), F-16 (FBW) and a few others,

F-117 was made up from the parts bin of 6 other aircraft so as to cut down development costs, speed up production and "filter" suspicion from any nosey individuals about its development.

I think I've listed all those aircraft in an earlier thread about LO development

[swerve]

OK, it shares some parts with the F/A-18C, but IIRC the F-117 shares parts with the F-15 (lading gear), F-16 (FBW) and a few others, but it would be purely semantics to argue it was anything but a totally new design. The point i was making is the F/A-18F is a brand new design, independent of the F/A-18C (minus design influence and a few parts they picked up). It looks similar, it shared the fundamental design paradigm, it shares a few parts commonly (B2 dis different up front), but it is definitely not simply an upgraded hornet.

In any case it deserved a new designation.

Err - you've just agreed with me in an argumentative way. I don't really see your point, unless you're seriously arguing that the degree of commonality of the F-117 with the F-15 or F-16 is comparable to that between the F-18C & F-18E.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Err - you've just agreed with me in an argumentative way. I don't really see your point, unless you're seriously arguing that the degree of commonality of the F-117 with the F-15 or F-16 is comparable to that between the F-18C & F-18E.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative (i guess tone of voice isn't portrayed as well through text). I apologize if that's how it came across, was not the intent.

I would wager that the degree of parts used on the F-117 that had been picked up from existing aircraft was larger than F/A-18F BII. Under the skin that thing was a mongrel. Apart from the design paradigm (your right SH is fundamentally an enlarged hornet) I'd bet more parts were designed from the ground up for the SH than the F-117. Thus a small amount of commonality does not negate the fact that this is a whole new beast, and not merely an upgraded hornet ala F-16E/F.

I was just trying to emphasize the fact that although the Rhino mat look like a hornet, and share a few parts, its a whole new platform and shouldn't be considered simply a larger hornet evolution (ala F/A-18A to F/A-18C to F/A-18E).

[Haavarla]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative (i guess tone of voice isn't portrayed as well through text). I apologize if that's how it came across, was not the intent.

I would wager that the degree of parts used on the F-117 that had been picked up from existing aircraft was larger than F/A-18F BII. Under the skin that thing was a mongrel. Apart from the design paradigm (your right SH is fundamentally an enlarged hornet) I'd bet more parts were designed from the ground up for the SH than the F-117. Thus a small amount of commonality does not negate the fact that this is a whole new beast, and not merely an upgraded hornet ala F-16E/F.

What the engine specs are on those F/A-18 E/F SH aimed for the MMRCA in India?


I was just trying to emphasize the fact that although the Rhino mat look like a hornet, and share a few parts, its a whole new platform and shouldn't be considered simply a larger hornet evolution (ala F/A-18A to F/A-18C to F/A-18E).


Isn't it the same story with Su-27 vs Su-34?

Some elements are the same, but mostly its new parts on both airframe and engine, avionics etc etc?


Thanks

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What the engine specs are on those F/A-18 E/F SH aimed for the MMRCA in India?

GE F414

General characteristics

* Type: Afterburning turbofan[2]
* Length: 154 in (3,912 mm)
* Diameter: 35 in (889 mm)
* Dry weight:

Components

* Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages
* Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage

Performance

* Maximum Thrust: 22,000 lbf (98 kN)
* Overall pressure ratio: 30:1

General Electric F414 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414)


Isn't it the same story with Su-27 vs Su-34?

Some elements are the same, but mostly its new parts on both airframe and engine, avionics etc etc?


Thanks

I think the Su-34 actually has the same power plant as the entire flanker series, so the commonality may be more than the Super. But in general terms yeah they are similar, the Fullback is a brand new platform and not simply a flanker evolution ala Su-30.

[swerve]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative (i guess tone of voice isn't portrayed as well through text). I apologize if that's how it came across, was not the intent.

I would wager that the degree of parts used on the F-117 that had been picked up from existing aircraft was larger than F/A-18F BII. Under the skin that thing was a mongrel. Apart from the design paradigm (your right SH is fundamentally an enlarged hornet) I'd bet more parts were designed from the ground up for the SH than the F-117. Thus a small amount of commonality does not negate the fact that this is a whole new beast, and not merely an upgraded hornet ala F-16E/F.

I was just trying to emphasize the fact that although the Rhino mat look like a hornet, and share a few parts, its a whole new platform and shouldn't be considered simply a larger hornet evolution (ala F/A-18A to F/A-18C to F/A-18E).
Understood. It happens all the time. Easy to misunderstand the register, in the absence of intonation.

It's a matter of degree, isn't it? We agree on the details. We just attach different weights to some of them. Fair enough: they're legitimate areas of disagreement, IMO, matters of opinion rather than fact.

We agree that the F-18E was a new aircraft, which should have had a new designation. What I disputed was that it was totally new, on the grounds already laid out & not disputed, & because it was basically an enlarged version of the same design. This is the chief remaining similarity, now that the nose & avionics have been changed.

Of course, enlarging an aircraft to that degree requires most components to be redesigned, but I see the shared planform as significant.

[Haavarla]

Thx for the input on those GE F414:)

Wiki:
"As of 2006, GE has tested an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) with an advanced core. The EDE engine can provide a 15% thrust increase or longer life without the thrust increase. It has a six-stage, high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine.[1]

GE has tested the new high-pressure compressor and a two-stage advanced fan. These components with the advanced core could yield 20% increase in thrust over the current F414.[1]

The final growth step would produce an engine with 30% more thrust than the F414 - just under 29,000 lbf (130 kN). This thrust level is nearly equal to the F110 Increased Performance Engine. To reach this impressive thrust level will demand further airflow growth from the fan, a modest temperature increase, a new two-stage low pressure turbine and a new afterburner."

Do anyone think this development will see daylight?
It could all depend on if the F/A-18E/F win the MMRCA?

Ozzy Blizzard;177661

I think the Su-34 actually has the same power plant as the entire flanker series, so the commonality may be more than the Super. But in general terms yeah they are similar, the Fullback is a brand new platform and not simply a flanker evolution ala Su-30.


Yeah agreed.

I think the engine on the Fullback are an
upgraded AL-31FM1(13.500kgf) version.

But i have read several reports that the Fullback will receive more thrust as soon as new engine are ready.. it be 117-S, AL-31FM2 or AL-41F.. who knows...



Thanks

[the road runner]

IIRC some of the original parameters of 5th gen platforms were advanced sensors, sensor fusion and LO technology. So when Boeing brought out the Rhino B2, and it incorporated LO features and sensors and information management technology (sensor fusion) lifted out of a 5th gen program (X-32) it labeled it a 4.5th gen platform, because although it possesses some of the characteristics that distinguish 5th gen platforms from 4th gen, it is still essentially a 4th gen airframe. So the SH B2 isn't exactly a 4th gen platform, but it isn't a 5th gen either, so 4.5th is the interim. Personally i think this is a perfectly normal designation.

Adding additional sensors/processors and modern radar to the Airframe over the life of type of the platform,but not altering the Airframe itself leaves me in 2 minds of the platform generation.Ozzy as you have stated its a 4th generation Airframe.I think the Airframe should dictate what the generation the Aircraft is classed.


I think it starts to get messy when (to keep up I'm sure) the Russians started labeling things 4+ or 4++ gen, denoting that these platforms have been upgraded from the original 4th gen design. However this misses the point of labeling a platform "mid gen", every aircraft is upgraded over its lifetime. You don't hear the HAF referring to its F-4's as 3++ gen aircraft. The whole point with the .5 designation is that platform shares some of the major characteristics that distinguish 4th gen from 5th gen.

The Russians made a smart marketing ploy calling there upgraded Su-27-30 ++. Upgrades preformed on Aircraft should be called just that ,an Upgrade.I think that if we call Aircraft 4.2......4.5......ect we are just opening up pandoras box.It gives a reader a mis conception of the Platform.
Would Australias upgraded F18 AB now be generation 4.25;)

By the way the Rhino hasn't had LO tech added, it was designed from the ground up to have reduced RCS in the frontal aspect, same with the Typhoon.

Thanks Ozzy for clarifying my stupidity:drunk1
I think calling an aircraft 4.5 generation gives you a false meaning,and assumes a 5th generation aircraft is only 0.5 generation behind a 4.5.

Just some ideas floating in my head:rolleyes:

[Haavarla]

Adding additional sensors/processors and modern radar to the Airframe over the life of type of the platform,but not altering the Airframe itself leaves me in 2 minds of the platform generation.Ozzy as you have stated its a 4th generation Airframe.I think the Airframe should dictate what the generation the Aircraft is classed.




The Russians made a smart marketing ploy calling there upgraded Su-27-30 ++. Upgrades preformed on Aircraft should be called just that ,an Upgrade.I think that if we call Aircraft 4.2......4.5......ect we are just opening up pandoras box.It gives a reader a mis conception of the Platform.
Would Australias upgraded F18 AB now be generation 4.25;)



Than Ozzy for clarifying my stupidity:drunk1
I think calling an aircraft 4.5 generation gives you a false meaning,and assumes a 5th generation aircraft is only 0.5 generation behind a 4.5.

Just some ideas floating in my head:rolleyes:


Then again people like to put aircraft abilities in certain "category", witch i don't see the big deal about..

It's a sales strategy/promotion, just like the LM "supercruise" abilities, same nonsens:rolleyes:

Much more interesting to see beond all those invented marketing plotts.

You just can't downplay one like the "4.5 generation" and not all the other ones;)


Thanks

[fretburner]

I guess everyone agrees to disagree on the .5 thingy... but maybe we can say that the Super Hornet is not your legacy fighter? And that we should be talking about it, not on the same page as the original Hornet, F-16 and F-15, but rather with the likes of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen?

[Haavarla]

I guess everyone agrees to disagree on the .5 thingy... but maybe we can say that the Super Hornet is not your legacy fighter? And that we should be talking about it, not on the same page as the original Hornet, F-16 and F-15, but rather with the likes of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen?


Fair enough fretburner.

I don't have a clear meaning about what it takes to call
4.5 generation fighter or 5 th generation fighter.
Sure it would have certain VLO, radar, ECM abillities and all that stuff.

But it's mostly up to the promotion division in those respective companies and how they ultimatly will promote their products.



Thanks

[Bonza]

I guess everyone agrees to disagree on the .5 thingy... but maybe we can say that the Super Hornet is not your legacy fighter? And that we should be talking about it, not on the same page as the original Hornet, F-16 and F-15, but rather with the likes of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen?

It's a far more modern aircraft than a legacy Hornet - of course, the F-15 and F-16 have hardly been static in their capabilities either, given variants such as the advanced Strike Eagle derivatives and so on.

In the end it's probably best to discuss the SH Block II on the basis of the capability it brings to the table, rather than where it "fits in" on the evolutionary roadmap of fighters. Once you feel like you know enough about said capabilities, make up your own mind as to what comparisons with regard to other aircraft are appropriate (if any). :)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But it's mostly up to the promotion division in those respective companies and how they ultimatly will promote their products.



Its more than that. The USAF uses generation definitions internally, its not just LM and Boeing.