EA/18G Growler

[jaffo4011]

well ,perhaps when the f22 finally gets some kills over the typhoon then we'll all be in a position to believe what you profess.it will be nice to hear something other than excuses for its inability to get on terms with a so called 'legacy' fighter.......stealth technology is an aid to sucessfull air combat but its not meant to be a crutch to prop up the base product if its not quite doing'what it says on the tin'.
at the moment however and in the here and now its the raf boys who appear to have the biggest grin either in short range engagements or bvr.

aussie digger;apologies from once again neglecting the subject of this thread!

 

[BKNO]

Aussie Digger And according to your Flight Global article your IRST system can "detect" at 130k's but ranges at 33k's.

Thank GOODNESS you've got an 80k IR missile...

You should keep in mind that this article is dated from 1999 and was posted only with the intend to INFORM you on how it was intended to WORK.

We know a little MORE about OSF NOW than was disclosed THEN

And YES MICA IR have the same range of 80 km+ (declassified figure) and its motor is designed to provide maximum output (maneuvrability off the rail and at end-game which is NOT the case for ANY AIM-120).
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1505&stc=1&d=1177787743

Now if you please you can compare this chart to that of an AIM-120 motor and tell US how it will be as effiscient beyhond 50 km with 10 G lower G capabilties, same speed, less LIFT,NO TVC and less linear motor output.

If you understand what engagement "envelop means" then you'll understand WHY NO NATO pilots today fires an AIM-120 at more than 50 km and expect a kill...

Aussie Digger I don't automatically assume "everythings" better from the USA, but if the differences WERE as great as you OR the Russian manufacturers of "threat" systems might state, they WOULD do something about it...

Perhaps you DONT know it but they are trying their outmost best to keep up, starting with AIM-9X, BVR AAMS are next in the list.

Aussie Digger You CANNOT argue against the operational performance of those using "US" systems, especially in air power related matters, and operationally is all that matters, isn't it?

You cannot argue against the FACT that there were NO oppotunities left to non-US aircrafts users to prove their capabilties during ANY of the conflict where they participated alongside US forces you cannot argue either on the kill ratio lower than 50% in Operational conditions.

ELP Posts: 72 Yeah well it is funny when some buy into the 4.5 generation marketing hype.

Very FUNNY indeed.

Some BUY US technico-commercial like a nannie does washing powder because she thinks it will give her whiter white than white.

ELP -5th generation includes:

-Sensor fusion
-Stealth ( real design stealth not a few appliances, gold dust a la HAVE GLASS- etc etc like legacies.

Sensor fusion have NO secret for European and now even Russians manufacturers and Boeing advertises their F/A-18/E/F/Gs as 5th generation not 4.5.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/

I thought its RCS was not lower thant that of Rafale and that with the event of the roadmap comes 2013 it will have older generation radar passive sensors and avionics, same here for F-35.

ELP I hope you aren't going to hang your hat on the very dubious DERA study which if anything is a model that is only as good as what you put into it. Add to that it is funny how it is a very nice marketing hype tool for the very nice Typhoon.

Eurofighter are not doing anything more than L-M aren't doing these days but for one thing its performances are not questioned by anyone in the buziness, not even inthe US.

ELP As for your theory on Typhoon and F-22 having scored engagements. That's possible. Typhoons have been in Vegas a long time for all kinds of testing.

I refers to RAF Typhoon pilots talking in terms of performances and upright capabilties here, not Jon Lake "I've been told" which proves wrong repeadedly as time goes...

ELP The term legacy for any non- 5th gen aircraft is apt.

Appart for the fact that it is totally innacurate when it comes to the performance benchmark which they represents for the F-22 and F-35.

4.5 generation are making a cold meal of "Legacies" on a day-to-day basis, even the least developed of them (T1s, F1 As).

ELP Expecting that the Typhoon has some special ability that will keep it from consistantly losing such an engagement is a reach.

Appart for the BVR it DOES have the edge over F-22 close-in.

To start with it IS equiped with HMDS which allows for off-boresight firing of short range AAMs, then there is the question of the turning performances and accelerations which are still of actuality despite what some might insist into saying.

I trust these pilots told it as it is.

 

[tphuang]

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility.

super hornet a 5th generation fighter now? And also, can we for one second just stop adding .5 or ++ or .75 at the end of 4 to represent the generation. The endless pimping of this fighter on this forum is getting out of control.

 

[Magoo]

Just in order to entertain you I hereby present a 2003 article by Carlo concerning the Flanker and it's kinematic advantage over the F-35. I had to dig deep for that! Enjoy!

Dear self-proclaimed aerodynamic expert rimjaz, please stop it! You seem to lack even basic knowledge and you may have noticed not everybody is answering anymore.

Have you got permission from Australian Aviation to reproduce that article Falstaff? I'd suggest not...better get it quick I think.

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Just a note to everyone on the thread...I've been away overseas for a week and thought I'd catch up on a couple of threads to try to ward off the jetlag...

Unfortunately, NOTHING...NADA...ZIP..ZERO...has been achieved by you, my learned friends, since I've been gone. It's the usual round and round in circles with no conclusions or even agreements being reached.

No wonder GF locked it for a while!

If I may make one suggestion...open your minds people to possibilities other than what you assume (but really don't know for sure) to be
true...except perhaps when RJMAZ posts it!

Magoo

 

[AGRA]

Unfortunately, NOTHING...NADA...ZIP..ZERO...has been achieved by you, my learned friends, since I've been gone. It's the usual round and round in circles with no conclusions or even agreements being reached.

Good point. So here are some new points:

Q. How many times to date has the US Government actually allowed the export or contracting for export of designed in LO technology?
A. Twice. JASSM and F/A-18F Block II to Australia.

Q. Why is the F/A-18E/F Block II called Generation 4.5?
A. Because the Block II sources its systems from a project called Joint Air Strike Technologies (JAST) as part of the post A-12 Advanced Tactical Aircraft cancellation deal. JAST was latter renamed JSF. The Block II Super Hornet has the Raytheon AESA radar that lost out to NGES's AESA for JSF and the advanced computing power and display technology.

Q. If advanced Su-30s come into service will they be faced by 2001 F/A-18E/F Block Is?
A. No. The USN has a modernisation plan of upgrades out until 2027 for Super Hornet, especially the Block II, which includes currently funded IRST and other niceness.

Q. How will AESA reshape ATA combat?
A. We are only just scratching the surface. While there has been some talk of using the AESA as an EA system to spoof the enemies ATA radars there are other areas. Combined with the new digital ALR-67 antennas the AESA is going to become part of the EW system. The concept is the 67s will act as a broad surveillance system and when anything is detected, even a whimper, well below what usually could be analysed, the AESA would be ‘zoomed’ in like a telescope to find out what it is.

The mission system of the Bock II Super Hornet is the most phenomenal thing flying in a fast jet. Even better is its all coded in accessible higher order software languages used by all the gun programmers today. So for a software driven capability it is just going to grow and grow.

Sure it may not excite the Mavericks and Icemans of the world but Col. Boyd would go ape over it. Observe Orientate Decide Act.

 

[ELP]

Good god. Avionics make up half of a real fighter jet. You forgot that no amount of upgrades will graft on a new pair of machismo for Super Hornet. It is a very good strike aircraft. It is not an air domination machine. The problem with your theory is that the sensors, including the upgrade path for future SU is "good enough" to deal with a Super Hornet. Add to that the Flanker has raw performance. Just as F-14 bombcats in exercises could contempt of engage legacy Hornets, so too can a big SU do the same to the Super Hornet. The rules of engineering don't change for anyone, especially those trying marketing hype, with the 4.5 gen label. The real silliness is when you consider a jet that has real raw performance, the Eurofighter, is also 4.5 gen. 4.5 gen is marketing hype with no substance.

Super Hornet is NOT low observable. It is a legacy design that has a few appliances on it that reduce it's RCS some (intakes, HAVE GLASS like gold dust in the canopy, RAM coating in some places. ). Those SMALL enhancements go away fast when you hang stores on the jet. Just for those that seem to forget basic facts, SH needs external stores to do most usable missions.

It is going to be real interesting when the chickens come home to roost on all the defence spending. Adding up numerous things like new ship builds, things for the Army and the RAAF where the RAAF has a minimum now of $22 billion toward Super Hornet and JSF.... You are looking at $100 billion or so (DMO figure) going out for various purchases and services big and small over the next decade.

What ever jet you buy now may have to last a very long time. Note the date when legacy Hornet showed up for service. Note the date when F-111 showed up for service. If JSF .... if the U.S. screws up JSF production slots more with budget delays.... very possible given the reason for this is our expeditionary warfare is draining big gold plated weapons purchases..... Over the long haul, the Super Hornet could very well end up as your only jet in total RAAF big fighter population if JSF goes bad. If a new government changes over and decides RAAF now has enough toys, you will have to make do while Navy etc. gets spun up with their big purchases.

One thing, man is real bad about is predicting the future. Raise your hand if you know what opposing force structure in the region will be in 20 or 30 years. Going out and buying the slowest most lethargic fighter to fly off of a carrier deck in a long time as your big stick for the purpose of "regional air superiority" is a mistake. Good luck.

 

[Rich]

Going out and buying the slowest most lethargic fighter to fly off of a carrier deck in a long time as your big stick for the purpose of "regional air superiority" is a mistake. Good luck.

Your talking about the SH here?nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

Good point. So here are some new points:

Q. How many times to date has the US Government actually allowed the export or contracting for export of designed in LO technology?
A. Twice. JASSM and F/A-18F Block II to Australia.

Q. Why is the F/A-18E/F Block II called Generation 4.5?
A. Because the Block II sources its systems from a project called Joint Air Strike Technologies (JAST) as part of the post A-12 Advanced Tactical Aircraft cancellation deal. JAST was latter renamed JSF. The Block II Super Hornet has the Raytheon AESA radar that lost out to NGES's AESA for JSF and the advanced computing power and display technology.

Q. If advanced Su-30s come into service will they be faced by 2001 F/A-18E/F Block Is?
A. No. The USN has a modernisation plan of upgrades out until 2027 for Super Hornet, especially the Block II, which includes currently funded IRST and other niceness.

Q. How will AESA reshape ATA combat?
A. We are only just scratching the surface. While there has been some talk of using the AESA as an EA system to spoof the enemies ATA radars there are other areas. Combined with the new digital ALR-67 antennas the AESA is going to become part of the EW system. The concept is the 67s will act as a broad surveillance system and when anything is detected, even a whimper, well below what usually could be analysed, the AESA would be ‘zoomed’ in like a telescope to find out what it is.

The mission system of the Bock II Super Hornet is the most phenomenal thing flying in a fast jet. Even better is its all coded in accessible higher order software languages used by all the gun programmers today. So for a software driven capability it is just going to grow and grow.

Sure it may not excite the Mavericks and Icemans of the world but Col. Boyd would go ape over it. Observe Orientate Decide Act.

Thanks for this post AGRA. It provides summaries of the strengths of the SH regarding AESA and the Block II upgrade that I could at least understand!

I must say that I agree with what Magoo said in his last post. I have been very disappointed with the way this thread has gone round and round in ever decreasing circles over recent weeks.

Cheers

 

[BKNO]

Just reminding everyone here that Boeing advertises F/A-18/E/F/Gs as 5th generation NOT 4.5...

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/

 

[Scorpion82]

I suggest scrap the generation bla bla and stick with the capabilities. It says more than a +/- 1, 0.5 etc. number.

 

[BKNO]

Scorpion82 : I suggest scrap the generation bla bla and stick with the capabilities. It says more than a +/- 1, 0.5 etc. number.

I strongly agree with this, as a matter of fact the US are hyping-up this issue for pure technico-commercial purposes.

 

[alexsa]

I strongly agree with this, as a matter of fact the US are hyping-up this issue for pure technico-commercial purposes.

Given your self professed support of the French aviation industry you woueln't be running iUS claims for the same reason .... would you?

 

[BKNO]

alexsa Given your self professed support of the French aviation industry you woueln't be running iUS claims for the same reason .... would you?

Actually i dont necessarly support the French manufacturers everytime around.

I rather try to tell it as it is, just imagine, according to some, ours is capable of M 2.1+ and supercruises at M 1.6 which would make it the non-stealth equivalent of the F-22.

And ho, i forgot ACTIVE cancellation...

Even the assemblee Nationale defines the Raptor as the MOST POWERFUL AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD...

(In military terms)...

So about WE tell it as it is instead of coming up with forum legends???

 

[Aussie Digger]

Good god. Avionics make up half of a real fighter jet. You forgot that no amount of upgrades will graft on a new pair of machismo for Super Hornet. It is a very good strike aircraft. It is not an air domination machine. The problem with your theory is that the sensors, including the upgrade path for future SU is "good enough" to deal with a Super Hornet. Add to that the Flanker has raw performance. Just as F-14 bombcats in exercises could contempt of engage legacy Hornets, so too can a big SU do the same to the Super Hornet. The rules of engineering don't change for anyone, especially those trying marketing hype, with the 4.5 gen label. The real silliness is when you consider a jet that has real raw performance, the Eurofighter, is also 4.5 gen. 4.5 gen is marketing hype with no substance.

Super Hornet is NOT low observable. It is a legacy design that has a few appliances on it that reduce it's RCS some (intakes, HAVE GLASS like gold dust in the canopy, RAM coating in some places. ). Those SMALL enhancements go away fast when you hang stores on the jet. Just for those that seem to forget basic facts, SH needs external stores to do most usable missions.

It is going to be real interesting when the chickens come home to roost on all the defence spending. Adding up numerous things like new ship builds, things for the Army and the RAAF where the RAAF has a minimum now of $22 billion toward Super Hornet and JSF.... You are looking at $100 billion or so (DMO figure) going out for various purchases and services big and small over the next decade.

What ever jet you buy now may have to last a very long time. Note the date when legacy Hornet showed up for service. Note the date when F-111 showed up for service. If JSF .... if the U.S. screws up JSF production slots more with budget delays.... very possible given the reason for this is our expeditionary warfare is draining big gold plated weapons purchases..... Over the long haul, the Super Hornet could very well end up as your only jet in total RAAF big fighter population if JSF goes bad. If a new government changes over and decides RAAF now has enough toys, you will have to make do while Navy etc. gets spun up with their big purchases.

One thing, man is real bad about is predicting the future. Raise your hand if you know what opposing force structure in the region will be in 20 or 30 years. Going out and buying the slowest most lethargic fighter to fly off of a carrier deck in a long time as your big stick for the purpose of "regional air superiority" is a mistake. Good luck.

Thanks mate, if you're right we'll need all the help we can get I guess...

Unfortunately I think I'll believe the RAAF and USN over any "Internet armchair warriors"...

You make a number of pretty definite statements about the SH.

Care to back them up with ANY evidence? You've hinted you've been "told things" by "certain people" about all this.

Wow. That is absolutely stunning.

2nd hand hearsay. What a credible argument indeed...

 

[BKNO]

Ultra Hornet

I thought you guys would be interested to read this...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/13/212600/ultra-hornet.html

Very good read, this article...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1521&stc=1&d=1178036220

 

[Tasman]

Ultra Hornet

I thought you guys would be interested to read this...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/13/212600/ultra-hornet.html

Very good read, this article...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1521&stc=1&d=1178036220

Thanks for the link BRNO. The information in the article was very informative, even to a non technocrat like me! I thought that the last paragraph shows how closely the needs of the RAAF are to those of the USN , albeit on a much smaller scale.

The US Navy, meanwhile, is looking at increasing procurement of F/A-18E/Fs beyond its planned 460 aircraft to offset the delay in Joint Strike Fighter initial operational capability to 2015. The Flightplan is designed to ensure, whatever its generation, that the Super Hornet stays at the leading edge of operational capability.

Cheers

 

[ELP]

Thanks mate, if you're right we'll need all the help we can get I guess...

Unfortunately I think I'll believe the RAAF and USN

Believe the USN...which during the 90s painted themselves into a corner. Partly no fault of their own with less money available and a strong ship building lobby that still wanted a good share of the budget. ....The USN... which completely ignores any speed performance in the airframe at all. It is never brought up, for obvious reasons. For the short of memory this has been covered already... Of course the people saying the following are only too familiar with carrier aviation....

Quote- In combat-maneuvering flight, the aircraft had severe “wing-drop” problems that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available. Eventually, one test pilot came up with a “leaky-fold-joint” fix that opened chordwise air slots to aspirate the wing's upper surface flow and thereby prevent the sharp stalling of one wing before the other. They stalled more or less together, but much earlier and more severely than before. This new fix is what the aerodynamicists call a “band aid.” It causes aircraft buffeting, which is generally a source of wing drag. But a “fix” that combined “acceptable” wing drop with “acceptable” buffeting had been achieved. One test pilot commented dryly, “I'd like the buffeting levels to be a little lower so I could read the heads-up display!”
Owing to its high drag and weight (and probably other factors), the F/A-18E is significantly poorer in acceleration than the F/A-18A. Also, its combat ceiling is substantially lower, and its transonic drag rise is very high. We have stayed in touch with some pilots at the Navy's test center and have gathered some mind-boggling anecdotal information. Here are some examples:
• An F/A-18A was used to “chase” an F-14D test flight. The F-14D was carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, two 280-gallon drop tanks, two HARM missiles and two Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The chase airplane was in a relatively “clean” configuration with only a centerline fuel tank. At the end of each test flight, the chase airplane was several miles behind the test airplane when the chase airplane reached “bingo” fuel and had to return to base.
• An F/A-18E Super Hornet is tested using the same chase airplane, an earlier model Hornet, in the same configuration. The chase airplane does not need full thrust to stay with the test airplane.
• An F/A-18E/F in maximum afterburner thrust cannot exceed Mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet even when it is in the clean configuration (no external stores). At 10,000 feet, the F-14D can exceed Mach 1.6.
• A quote from a Hornet pilot is devastatingly frank: “The aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s.”
• The most devastating comment came from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and says: “We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them.” end quote-

http://209.2.68.15:8006/fj/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

You can put all the fancy electronics on it you want and you will still have a slug with improved avionics. Again, sad for something that is purchased for the reason to "maintain regional air superiority". Geez.






over any "Internet armchair warriors"...

Bzzzzz! Wrong. Guess again.

You make a number of pretty definite statements about the SH.

Easy to do if one looks at the total history of the program instead of looking at an airshow demo and a spec sheet.

Care to back them up with ANY evidence? You've hinted you've been "told things" by "certain people" about all this.

This has already been answered. Problem is some aren't too keen on looking at the total picture.

.......

 

[Aussie Digger]

Righto mate, wheel out your old Tomcat loving retired USN types as "evidence" AGAIN.

This blokes arguments have been discounted so many times already, I'm not even going bother to link to it. Do a basic google mate. You'll find it too...

Your ex USN "Tomcat lovers" have as big an axe to grind as APA do in relation to the F-111, now that their favourite "toy" has been retired...

 

[ELP]

Righto mate, wheel out your old Tomcat loving retired USN types as "evidence" AGAIN.

This blokes arguments have been discounted so many times already, I'm not even going bother to link to it. Do a basic google mate. You'll find it too...

Your ex USN "Tomcat lovers" have as big an axe to grind as APA do in relation to the F-111, now that their favourite "toy" has been retired...

Interesting theory. And poor attempt to deflect facts of the jets slow performance and poor battlespace mobility which leaves it slower than most jets. Replace the players mentioned in the piece... ( swap F-14 for Flanker ). People claiming the F-18E/F as a fighter always like to fall back on the slow speed turning performance. Nice. But doesn't help much if the jets opponent is in a situation where they can contempt of engage the jet, burn some fuel, add some speed and move around it and hit a target.... ( like a Flanker ). Super Hornet becomes dangerous when you are trying to stop it. However Super Hornet is less dangerous if the mission of the opponent doesn't have to engage it. That of course is just one example. However it is a pretty scary one. Seems that some can't understand that and at the end of the day when you stack up the Super Hornet against all the other 4.5 gen (marketing hype term) and 4th gen aircraft, you have a situation which leaves the Super Hornet at the bottom of the pack on total airframe performance. It's excellent avionics alone don't make a fighter that Defence purchased for the reason of maintaining regional air superiority. Super Hornet, given the peer group it is hyped into in comparison, is a very nice strike aircraft.

This gets to be more of a problem if the JSF fails due to the U.S. screwing up the funding track and costing it out to a high price that is unbearable, leaving the RAAF to buy more SH's to fill out the rest of the ranks over the years. This will be all very interesting. And I hope on this point I am very very wrong. Politicians will look at all the air power issues, see the pretty Super Hornet PowerPoint briefings that paint it as the most cost effective solution, and reach the conclusion that RAAF has enough shooter airframe stuff for the next several years and press on with existing business with the Navy and Army. All very possible. Since everyone and their brother has gone out of their way to hype the capability of the Super Hornet to monstrous extremes, including throwing around the word that it has stealth capability. You don't have to convince me of anything. You have to convince the politicians who on any given day, can barely tell the difference between an F-18 and an M-1 Abrams.