As a reminder, the Block III Super Hornet includes the
following enhancements:
- Enhanced stealth (2)
- Greater range (129 nm) (2)
- Conformal fuel tanks
- Larger weapons payload
- Longer lifespan (9000-10,000 hours) (2,3)
- Enhanced networking, satellite communications, and data links
- Block II IRST (Infrared Search and Track) (3)
- Advanced Cockpit Display (3)
Note that the Block III is not exactly the same as the Advanced Super Hornet (ASF). The Block III lacks some feature of the ASF, notably additional stealth.
Boeing claims that within a decade the entire Super Hornet carrier fleet will be Block III aircraft. (2)
 |
| Upgraded Super Hornet |
Boeing claims that within a decade the entire Super Hornet carrier fleet will be Block III aircraft. (2)
Note that in addition to providing longer range, the
conformal fuel tanks also free up pylons for additional weapons carriage.
Minor structural changes will decrease the aircraft’s radar
cross section (RCS). (5) How that
resulting degree of stealth compares to the F-35 is unknown.
Boeing will begin converting Block II Super Hornets to the
Block III configuration, as well. (3)
Conversion cost will be on the order of “a few million dollars” per
aircraft. (4)
The Navy plans to order additional Block III Super Hornets
at a rate of 12 per year for 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Some observers see the Navy using the F-35C as the spotter
due to its greater stealth and the F-18 as the shooter due to its greater
weapons payload. According to Sean Stackley,
former Secretary of the Navy,
The
Super Hornet has a lot of payload, and that’s a good complement to the F-35,
which has stealth and sensors. (4)
Others disagree and note that the F-18 will have enhanced
stealth and an IRST sensor allowing it to go toe-to-toe with front line enemy
aircraft on its own.
One of the remaining problems is integrating the F-35 and
the Super Hornet. The F-35’s ‘stealthy’
communications method involves the Multi-function Advanced Data Link
(MADL). Unfortunately, no other aircraft
includes that function so the F-35 can’t securely talk to anyone but another
F-35. The F-35 can, of course, use the
standard Link 16 but that mode is more easily detected. Boeing claims to be working on the issue.
While this is a positive step for naval aviation, the Hornet
remains a sub-optimal aircraft for the Navy’s operational needs. The war with China will require a very long
range, very high payload, air superiority fighter and the Hornet is not it –
nor is the F-35.
Rather than make the hard decision to terminate the F-35 and
embark on a new, purpose designed long range, air superiority fighter that
actually meets the operational needs, the Navy is just prolonging the
mediocrity by polishing up the ill-suited Hornet. Yes, it will now be a somewhat better
ill-suited Hornet but it’s still an ill-suited Hornet. This is the classic ‘lipstick on a pig’
scenario.
(1)USNI News, “Boeing Awarded $4B Multi-Year Deal for 78
Super Hornets”, Ben Werner, 21-Mar-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/42021
(2)USNI News, “Boeing Touts Block III Super Hornet’s Better
Range, Improved Digital Connectivity to Fleet”, Ben Werner, 23-May-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2018/05/23/33808
(3)Sea Power Magazine website, “Navy Orders 78 Super Hornet
Block III Strike Fighters”, Richard R. Burgess, 21-Mar-2019,
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20190321-Boeing.html
(4)Breaking Defense website,”Boeing’s
Block III Super Hornet ‘High End’ Complement To F-35: Stackley”,
Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., 6-Apr-2017,
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boeings-block-iii-super-hornet-high-end-complement-to-f-35-stackley/
(5)DefPost website, “Boeing Receives U.S. Navy Contract for
78 F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet Fighter Jets”, 24-Mar-2019,
https://defpost.com/boeing-receives-u-s-navy-contract-for-78-f-a-18-block-iii-super-hornet-fighter-jets/
It does not matter if they cut the RCS of the "new" Hornet by 50%. Its still magnitudes bigger than the F35 and can be seen hundreds of miles away by radar. The IR signature of the Hornet likewise. The F35 is structured so airflow through the frame/body sheathes the IR signature far better than the Hornet.
ReplyDeleteEven small missiles can target/see the Hornet. I don't know of any missile that can see/target the F35 as long as we fight at distance. I realize our ROE would kill us in the early hours of a conflict and the advantages of our 5th gen stuff might not pay off. After that nothing could probably touch us. So, after the initial engagement when there are no limitations, the Hornet, tankers, Awacs would all be sitting ducks? I know the Hornet is faster but speed exponentially increases IR. Our stealth stuff is slow and high. Very hard to see with the Mark One eyeball. Yes we have electro optical but its looking through a straw. I vote for unmanned 5th gen platforms. They can go faster than a manned platform while maintaining low IR. My rambling two bits.
Proponents and critics of both aircraft constantly throw around stealth claims but I've never seen any definitive, comparative data that would allow any valid claims for or against. I know none of my readers would make unsubstantiated claims so do you have some data to share with us?
DeleteOn a closely related note, I've looked at front-on photos of the F-35 and the Super Hornet and they are virtually identical in size, shape, angles, etc. This would suggest that there is relatively little difference in frontal RCS.
"Even small missiles can target/see the Hornet."
DeleteAgain, where is the data to support this claim?
You have asserted that the RQ180 may not exist. Are you also stating that the advances in waveform structures do not exist? Our own systems cannot detect the F22 or F35 at distance. Yes you can use VHF or TV like antennas in cumbersome arrays to see but we both know not to target. We know that as a aircraft passes through all the RF in the sky it displaces the RF to an extent to be seen but not targeted. I do not believe you are serious. The chinese J20 looks stealthy but appearance has no value. It is the quality of design, materials, which rule. The Hornet is not a survivable platform in a 5th gen fight. If given the choice of fighting in a Hornet or F35 only a luddite would choose the former. No disrespect intended. I cannot provide more than my general perspective/opinion.
Delete"Are you also stating that the advances in waveform structures do not exist?"
DeleteGive me the quote where I said anything like that, please.
You did not.
DeleteNever was the biggest fan of the F35 so I'll try to be as unbiased as I can.
ReplyDeleteIf we assume that the F35 price has come down (-A now being between $80 to $90 million), not sure what
-C is going for but let's its down too AND new SECDEF isn't playing any favoritism towards his old employer....why suddenly F15EX and SH are getting big orders?!? For years, DoD didn't want to buy any new 4th Gen fighters so why the flip flop now?
IMO, couple of options:
-F35C price hasn't come down fast enough?
-F35C still has too many problems for USN?
-Difference in performance isn't enough to justify bigger F35 buy. Latest SH might be closer in performance to F35 than thought off outside USN.
-Operating costs. This is the one I'm starting to think is the hidden elephant in the room. With 300 to 400 F35 built, DoD should be getting a better idea of reliability and costs. This one could be starting to scare the bean counters.
To be continued....
I assume that F-35 users are receiving operating cost shock.
DeleteBased on Navy statements and actions, it appears that the Navy is going to use the F-35 as a specialty sensor aircraft and the F-18 as the workhorse combat aircraft. While I've seen plans calling for multiple squadrons of F-35 in each air wing, I'd be surprised if the Navy went beyond one squadron per wing and that might even turn out to be a reduced squadron of, say, 8 aircraft. The F-35 squadrons were going to be reduced in size from 12 to 10, anyway, and dropping to a single squadron of 8 seems believable and consistent with their use as a specialty sensor platform. Just speculation on my part.
I wonder how that will go down with US Allies who are depending on F-35? Maybe we'll see a resurgence of Typhoon orders in Europe or even F15/F16 buys? Perhaps aircraft like the UK Tempest might actually have to become 'real'.
Delete@Anon
DeleteOnly the B is essential.
Only the USN/MC uses the C
But anyone who uses the A could use the C, or B I suppose.
Anyone planning an all A fleet could use an all C or mostly A/C and some sort of legacy platform.
A few very small powers who were planning to operate a single squadron of 35s will either have to stump up extra cash, or drop down to a "4.5"
@Anon: The Typhoon is a procurement mess because it's a shared jobs program between germany and the UK and Brexit is going to fuck things up for the procurement because of the uncertainty of supply. The other problem is that Typhoon was made purely optimised for the German interceptor requirements, and is less capable in the air to ground role, and while there are all sorts of upgrade programs and sensor fusion refits for the Typhoon these are pretty powerpoint vaporware because there's no single office pushing for a unified Typhoon upgrade path, unlike Rafale or F-35.
DeleteAt this point, anybody serious who is wanting to step things up (and who can afford it) is buying either F-35A or Rafale.
@WG
DeleteIf only
Spain and Italy are also tier 1 partners and I think Austria has some involvement.
Brexit isn't a massive factor, so much as the partners want different things, Germany wants to build jets but has limited interest in wether or not they can actually shoot anything.
@Domo: my understanding is that Spain and Italy didn't really get a say in the Typhoon design, it was built more to German specifications, and as you said, the different partners want different things.
DeleteRMAF's assessment on Typhoon and Rafale was that both aircraft had growth potential, but Rafale's future plans were more solid vs Typhoon which was a lot of promises.
Brexit was a factor that played a role with RMAF's decision, because BAE was selling Typhoons to Malaysia, but there was uncertainty on whether RMAF would actually get its Typhoons due to the issues Brexit would have on BAE and the UK defense sector.
Though MINDEF has had a preference for french equipment: RMN's first choice for radar provider is Thales, and the French do some pretty extensive integration work: we drop American Paveways from Russian Flankers, guided by French targeting pods.
Otoh, procurement decisions on this level always have some sort of politics as a factor, not just the technical merits on the aircraft. I'm reminded of how RSAF went for the F-15SG over the Rafale, even though RSAF officials judged the Rafale as the superior aircraft on its technical merits, because the US sweetened the deal by offering to set up a training squadron based at Mountain Home AFB, and guaranteed RSAF invitations to Red Flag.
Typhoon is effectively Anglo-British - there were some Italian contributions but the Spanish just didn't have the know-how and ended up with lots of the test equipment. Air-to Ground wasn't required as Tornado was very effective (and still is!) but most of the precision weaponry is, or soon will be available on British Typhoons. British Typhoons are actually far better aircraft than F-35 in most areas (stealth being an obvious exception) and this could work along the american model with the F-35s on point and the Typhoons being the F-18/F-15 equivalent. If Europe could get its act in gear, a common heavy bomb truck like a B-1B would be feasible and add a disproportionate amount of value - but EU/british carrier operations suffer from a lack of payload.
Delete@Anonymous:
Delete"Air-to Ground wasn't required as Tornado was very effective (and still is!) but most of the precision weaponry is, or soon will be available on British Typhoons."
That's true for the British and German context, but it's a minus point when BAE and EADS are trying to sell the Typhoon as a multirole fighter to other countries. It was very much a minus point for RMAF, because Typhoon didn't have any antiship weapons ready to go, while Rafale was offered with Exocet.
I disagree on British Typhoons being better than F-35s (or Rafales) in all aspects. From what I've read, it's behind the F-35 and Rafale in terms of sensor fusion and ECM: it doesn't even have an AESA radar equipped. F-35 is very much ahead in terms of stealth, and even the Rafale has RCS reduction measures (1/10th the RCS of the Mirage 2000). That said, kinematics is definitely an area where the Typhoon has a clear advantage, but it's like not the F-35 or Rafale can't turn and burn if need be, so this isn't really a dealbreaker for me.
It's not a bad aircraft by any measure, it's very good at what it does, but it's specialised towards being an interceptor and so it doesn't bring as much to the table as the Rafale or F-35.
Actually, I said 'most aspects' - it's clearly ahead in payload, speed, dogfighting ability, cost of operation etc but your correct on where it loses out. It's a shame the French wouldn't play ball which might have resulted in a carrier version and then probably the QEs being cat and traps.
DeleteHuh I'd missed your nuance there. Fair enough.
DeleteUltimately I think the French were probably right to go it the way they did, given what's turned out with Typhoon. I'd also argue that Typhoon's higher payload vs F-35 or Rafale is a little misleading, because of the layout of the pylons; there are several AAM stations which are so close together that carrying air to ground weapons physically blocks the adjacent stations from being used; at least with the Rafale and F-35 you can fully load all stations.
A carrier-capable Typhoon would have been a swell thing, but on the other hand I just don't see it happening, not just because of German dominance over the program, but also because of the UK's penny wise pound foolish approach to defense spending. As has been pithily said before: Britain wants a military, but Britain does not want to _pay_ for a military.
"Ultimately I think the French were probably right to go it the way they did, given what's turned out with Typhoon."
DeleteThere is a middle ground I think.
Frances "All France all the time" approach has historically been something of a failure, but design by committee doesnt really work either, as the Typhoon shows abundantly.
I have long argued that the UK should maintain ownership of and pay for the design, but be shameless about shopping around for parts.
The UK/BAE can "own" tempest, and still outsource the engine to P&W or RR or SNECMA, and if they dont deliver, move supplier,
@WG
" there are several AAM stations which are so close together that carrying air to ground weapons physically blocks the adjacent stations from being used; at least with the Rafale and F-35 you can fully load all stations."
https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft#weapons
More just a limit of ground capable pylons, even in "ground attack mode" it carries 6 Air to Air missiles abd 4 500lb bombs, although I do remember it was advertised to have a max carry of 24 brimstones at one point, but that seems to have disappeared.
@Anon
"might have resulted in a carrier version and then probably the QEs being cat and traps."
CATS and TRAPS are shockingly difficult to learn and the skills require constant practice.
The RAF pilots who fought in the Falklands learnt STOVL carrier ops on the journey down.
I am speculating the F15 buy might have something to do with a specialized mission package like throwing nanosats into low earth orbit.
ReplyDeleteUmm … Don't you think we have some old F-15/16s sitting around that could do that type of mission rather than buy new ones?
DeleteReliable? Over 12000 hours on frame? The F16 is too puny to rocket up there to 80K plus. The Israelis tried it. The few new F15's should be able to reliably and repeatedly run that mission. I am just speculating. The launch rockets are heavy and only the twin engine F15 can do it.
DeleteF16 too puny ? back in April 1958 the F11-1F - which was a Grumman Tiger with a single J79 'development' engine established an altitude record of 75,550 ft, later that year the F104 with same engine got to 91,243 ft.
DeleteAnd neither was carrying any payload. Aircraft used for record attempts were often stripped down to minimize wright.
DeleteThe most likely reason for the purchase of new F-15X is economics. The cost per hour of flight time for the new F-15X is $27,000 vs $42,000 per hour for the legacy F-15C fighters vs $50,000 per hour for the F-35. The planes will pay for themselves in ten years if the legacy F-15 are retired, foregoing needed structural repairs and lower cost per hour of flight time. There are plenty of missions that do not need a stealthy aircraft.
Deletehttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/introducing-f-15x-would-air-force-buy-non-stealth-fighter-39757
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter
Paper on F-15 Sat Launcher
Deletehttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.560.4885&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The F-15 Satellite paper also discusses launching ballistic munitions payloads with the proposed system. Such a system could be used to expand nuclear deterrence with movable systems that would make it more difficult to assure complete elimination of the United States ability to retaliate from a first strike. Similar to the mobile ICBMs of Russia, just on a plane not a train.
DeleteSadly the Hornet is the only thing keeping the F-35 from wrecking Naval aviation.
ReplyDeleteWhy? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing but I'd like to see you support your statement with data and logic. Give us something specific.
Delete"F-35 Far from Ready to Face Current or Future Threats, Testing Data Shows"
Deletehttps://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-ready-to-face-current-or-future-threats/
"Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)"
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3035572-DOT-amp-E-AF-IOC-Memo.html
Okay, that's a start. Recognize, however, that the DOT&E reports, from which POGO gets much of its information, are, by design, reports about the problems with the aircraft far more so than the features that work correctly. That's not a criticism of DOT&E, it's simply their job. It falls on us, the analysts, to understand that and plug in the successful aspects of the F-35 in our analysis and commentary.
DeleteIf one read only DOT&E, one would get the impression that the F-35 can't even get off the ground (actually there's a bit of truth to that given the problems of ALIS !) and that's simply not the case. For example, we read bits and pieces about the problems the F-35 is having with its sensor fusion and helmet display but we don't read about what's working with the fusion.
So, has the F-35 met all its criteria? Not even close but that doesn't mean that it has no capability whatsoever.
It's virtually impossible to compare it to the F-18 (or any other aircraft, for that matter) because we simply lack the detailed performance data. Also, any comparison depends on what the mission is. There are some tasks that the F-18 just can't perform that the F-35 can - stealth-related missions, for example. There are other missions where the two aircraft would likely perform equally well and still others where the F-18 would likely have an advantage.
On top of all this are maintenance, reliability, cost, operating cost, and similar factors.
My point is that a simplistic statement like the F-35 is wrecking naval aviation is a sweeping statement that is untrue. The F-35 is causing some negative consequences for naval aviation but it is also adding some capabilities.
In short, I'm looking for objectivity and analysis rather than vague and sweeping pronouncements that are less than accurate.
So, rather than simply reference some articles why don't you analyze the specific impact(s) that you think the F-35 will have on naval aviation, good and bad? That would be far more helpful and informative.
The USN doesn't want what's happening to the AF. Operations and sustainment cost between an F-35 and F-15 is 50%. Not to mention shelf life.
DeleteAs pointed out if previous posts, the real solution here is to undo the damage done to the carrier air wing.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, the F-18 was never a true replacement for the medium and heavy attack planes like the A-7 and A-6, which the Hornet (or Super Hornet) could never hope to to come close to in payload and range. The same is true for the F-14, with the Hornet never being meant to properly fulfill the Fleet defender and escort roles, not having the same range (again), acceleration, speed, or weaponry.
The Hornet was more closely matched to the light strike role provided by the A-4 and was meant as a high tech, more flexible replacement for that airframe than any other.
I say make the carrier battle group great again, get a true fleet defender aircraft to replace the tomcat, get a true replacement for the Intruder and the Corsair II.
The Hornet is far too costly and complicated replacement for the A-4 as is, and is debatable if it is a cost effective replacement for that plane as well. For the cost of an F-18C, you can get more than half a squadron of skyhawks, nearly a squadron and a half for a single super hornet. Does one Hornet really have more operational value than nearly 8 skyhawks?
As it is painfully apparent that although the carrier of today is certainly has newer and useful capabilities, ultimately the firepower of a 70s or 80s group would wipe it off the map in a stand up fight because of numbers, payloads, and range. Something that the Navy itself admits it no longer has.
What would you recommend to replace the F-14? Its projected 21st-century variant? Or something else entirely?
DeleteI've discussed this repeatedly. We need a very long range air superiority fighter that would be a conceptual combination of F-14 and F-22 with a nod to greater size and payload.
DeleteBack from work, sorry for the 2 parts.
ReplyDelete- Another problem could be upgrades. Yes, SH and ADV are based on an old airframe BUT F35 also has a problematic airframe, you can't change or make mods to it because you can't break the mould line and therefore ruin the LO requirement. I can't think of any fighter,even US fighters, that the airframe stayed "clean" for decades and never had some new aperture, different inlet,airframe mod, etc...
IMO, operating cost and difficulty of making upgrades other than software might be making USN think twice about going full bore on the F35.
Other thoughts and response to comments:
Im very warily when I hear people say only F35 can do this or that, it shot down 50 fighters at RedFlag,etc...let's not forget the bad guys have a say in this too! Remember the Sidewinder that missed Su22 over Syria? That's not supposed to happen. We had reports India-Pak skirmish that a MIG21 shoot down an F16. Did it really happen? Not sure but what if it did?!? Not really supposed to happen having a 4th Gen get shot down by 3rd Gen fighter....opps. Lot of capability once promised and so vaunted on F35, has now appeared on other fighters....
When it comes LO, I've always thought it was mistake to put it across the entire fleet. After you kick down the door and take out most of the country AD, why do you still need it? If its permissive enough for the rest of fighters to operate, then you dont need no more LO...other expense for nothing, why do you need LO for airdefence over CONUS? You need LO to help out that Cessna pilot that lost his comms?!? What about Afghanistan? You really are paying for something you dont need all time.Makes me wonder, how much does it cost to keep up LO and what happens if you let the LO deteriorate on a F35 and have to bring it back to standard? I know some LO is "baked in" the airframe but you still have different materials, paint, surface quality,etc that stuff needs to be kept maintained to work, if it detoriates....what's the cost? Wonder what USMC is thinking about its LO expenses long term? How much LO "recovery" does an F35B need after operating off an amphib and especially operating on some Pacific island "austere" FARP?? You want me to believe that LO doesn't detoriate in those conditions?
Last, I dont know about sat launcher for F15, I remember we tested an anti satellite missile on F15 in 80s. My believe is more about hypersonic missiles and F35 has a problem, you cant put much weight on the centerline. I think both SH and F15 especially can probably carry a heavier, bulkier load on its centerlines, I'll have to verify that bit of technical info but those hypersonic missile look mighty big and heavy, I'm not sure you could put an hypersonic missile under wing of a F35 and get to launch altitude necessary. That's speculation on my part.
As I said, I tried to look at this honestly and unbiased, it just a bit strange that USN still doesn't seem like a huge F35 fan. If F35 was so great in so many areas, it would come across as a no brainer, so why NOW the F15 and SH BUYS?!?
The cheapest LO plane in the sky is the Cirrus Vision jet. If I turn off transponder the FAA tower thinks I crashed. $2.2 million
ReplyDeletecheap stealth. It looks like a miniature Global Hawk.
This may be a stupid question, but might it be cheaper to manufacture licensed copies of more modern aircraft, such as Gripen or Rafale? The F-18 is ancient, and upgrades don't necessarily make it viable against a Su-35. And the F-35 has been in development for 20 years now, and STILL isn't ready for primetime.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia says the flyaway cost for a Rafale is ~80 million. Isn't a new Rafale a better choice than an updated Hornet?
" Isn't a new Rafale a better choice than an updated Hornet?"
DeleteI don't know. The Navy needs a very long range air superiority fighter. Is that a Rafale or Gripen? I don't know enough about either aircraft to answer my own question.
The Rafel may or may not be better than the Hornet, but it would be shockingly expensive to introduce in small numbers in supplement to the existing fleet, and even more expensive to introduce in large numbers
Delete"I don't know. The Navy needs a very long range air superiority fighter. Is that a Rafale or Gripen? I don't know enough about either aircraft to answer my own question."
Delete@ComNavOps: Neither aircraft can fulfil your very long range requirement. The Gripen is a small light fighter, in a smaller weight class than the F-16; it makes sense for the Swedish context, where they assumed they'd be fighting within their own territory, but doesn't have the range to cut it for the USN.
The Rafale meanwhile is in the same size class as the legacy Hornet; assessments I've seen suggest that the F-35 has better range, stealth and sensor fusion vs the Rafale, but the Rafale has better kinematic performance (and it still has RCS reduction measures and sensor fusion of its own, just not to the same extent as the F-35).
My understanding of the Navy's intent was that F-35C would replace legacy F/A-18C Hornets in the strike role, while the F/A-XX program would replace F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the fleet defense interceptor role, but it would seem that F/A-XX, like the USAF's Penetrating Counter Air program, appears to be going nowhere, given the lack of news about it.
There was a company program to produce a naval version of the F-15 in the early 1970's to compete against the F-14. Strengthening of the landing gear/nose wheel were needed to handle the carrier landings and folding wing tips for deck operations. The F-15 already has a tailhook.
DeleteThe Navy could revisit the idea at least until a 6th generation naval strike/air superiority aircraft is produced.
The F-15 X has greatly extended the airframe lifetime and weapons load over the F-15C.
The Navy could base the naval version on the Silent Eagle with its reduced radar cross section and canted tails that increase the range of the plane. Boeing would likely be able to further reduce the radar cross section of the plane if it was for the US Navy rather than for export.
The F-15 production line is up and running and Boeing has be aggressive with pricing of its fighters.
Boeing could configure the naval F-15 cockpit to be identical to the F-18 Super Hornet to allow easy cross training for the pilots/aviators and weapons operators.
Sea Eagle.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-sea-eagle-how-americas-f-15-fighter-almost-became-18051
Silent Eagle-
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-f15se-silent-eagle/
F-15 X-
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-forces-next-super-fighter-boeings-new-f-15x-44397
As long as I'm advocating for a naval F-15, let's add thrust vectoring to the aircraft. Both of the F-15 engine manufacturers have developed thrust vectoring engines that will fit a F-15.
DeleteF-15 ACTIVE - Pratt and Whitney
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/89247main_setp_d6.pdf
F-16 thrust vectoring MAVEN General Electric
https://web.archive.org/web/20160424142933/http://acesaero.com/Websites/acesaero/Images/dreammachine.pdf
While thrust vectoring is great to have, USAF opinion seems to be that it doesn't quite justify itself because it doesn't really add that much to maneuverability, and using thrust vectoring in post-stall maneuvers is problematic because you've lost energy and are vulnerable.
DeleteNow, to be fair, the Cobra is a legitimate combat maneuver; combine it with beaming and you can exploit the weakness in the physics of how pulse-doppler radars work to momentarily disappear from your enemy's radar, pull a cobra to point your nose roughly at his direction and fire off-boresight heatseekers, and resume your heading and remain hidden from his radar. However, this tactic has become less useful ever since AESA radars became a thing; AESA radars use different physics vs pulse-doppler radars, and so are a lot less vulnerable to the sorts of tactics and ECM that exploit doppler shift.
Is hella cool though, I will grant that.
DeleteIdeally, Boeing and the Navy would agree to develop a thrust vectoring naval F-15 and Boeing would deliver a totally different aircraft based on the X-36.
DeleteIt would be just like they did with the Super Hornet, totally new airplane with the same name as the old plane so congress can call it an upgrade and the Navy gets a stealthy air superiority fighter.
" based on the X-36."
DeleteLooking at the X-36, the weakness that jumps out would be the limited payload capacity. The 'wings' offer little (no?) opportunity for external pylons. It's hard to tell how much internal carry would be available.
Of course, you said, 'based on', not 'exact scale up' so perhaps the X-36 design concept could be adapted to accommodate a sufficient payload?
Any thoughts on payload?
The X-36 showed that you can get rid of the tail and still have high maneuverability. The most recent Boeing F/A-XX concept art shows a tailless aircraft. Boeing should just offer their F/A-XX design as the new naval F-15.
DeleteLoosely based on the X-36 may be a better phrase. The Navy needs an aircraft that replicate the F-15/F-14 range, speed and weapons load that has a radar cross section similar to the F-35. I would hate to see another short legged, warmed over variant of the F-18 be built.
DeleteRange and weapons load matter.
This Rand report compares F-15 E vs the F-16 in air to ground effectiveness. If you can travel further without tanking and can carry 2 to 3 times the weapons load you can be more effective.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2007/DB102.pdf
Fleet protection load out
DeleteInternal stores for a limited number (4-6) of long range air to air missiles(Meteors if I had a choice) and a couple of short range air to air missiles, similar to the F-22. Maximize stealth and range of the aircraft.
Anti-ship Load out.
External carry of the LRASM if it can be mounted on a pylon without seriously degrading the stealth otherwise, I like the idea of Advanced Super Hornet's enclosed weapons pod for weapons payload. With a new design or a variant design you could engineer the airframe and wings to accept multiple enclosed weapons pods as the means to carry all weapons externally. No weapons would be carried outside of a stealth enclosure
Ground pound load out.
Small diameter bombs in external weapons pods until air superiority, then external stores of what ever you would like.
Ideally, a missile with the range of the AIM-54 or greater would be used for fleet protection. The AIM-120d is likely similar to the original AIM-54 in range but is outclassed by longer range Russian (R-37M) and Chinese (PL-15) missiles.
Delete"Range and weapons load matter."
DeleteYou've nailed it along with stealth. Once everyone has it, which will be in the fairly near future, stealth confers no advantage because your enemy has it too. Stealth will simply be the minimum price of admission to the aerial battlefield.
The Navy needs a very long range air superiority fighter which means range (duh!) and weapons load. In a stealth vs stealth combat, a LOT of missile shots will miss which means the winner will be the guy who has more missiles.
There are two approaches to a stealth fight:
1. Throw massive numbers of missiles, accept that most will miss, but hope that with enough missiles, you'll eventually kill the target.
2. Forego missile throwing and, instead, build a close in, knifefighting, dogfighting aircraft that bores in and kills with short range missiles and guns. This would be, what?, a F-16-ish stealth aircraft but with super range?
Think through how a stealth vs stealth engagement will play out when neither side can get a solid target lock. Tell me what you think that means for future aircraft design.
"outclassed by longer range Russian (R-37M) and Chinese (PL-15) missiles."
DeleteMaybe, maybe not. While the range of the Russian/Chinese missiles is, apparently, greater, what's unknown is how effective they are. Are the seekers good enough to actually find a target at the end of the missile's run and stay locked on in the face of decoys and ECM? Will the missile have the maneuverability to effect an intercept against maneuvering targets? Will the missile have the energy at the end of the run to maneuver?
The Phoenix, while long range and supposedly effective against large slow bombers (its intended target set), it was supposedly largely ineffective against smaller, faster, maneuvering fighters to the point of being only marginally effective.
So, range aside, are the Russian/Chinese missiles actually effective? Of course, none of us knows. Just something to bear in mind.
Electromagnetic warfare will become more and more necessary on any aircraft that is not stealthy. Every Hornet will be a Growler, same for the F-15 and F-16. The only way to survive will be to jam or destroy the missiles that you didn't see until it was fired at you because it was from a stealth platform.
DeleteShort range sacrificial drones will be needed for all aircraft stealthy or not. The sacrificial drones will only need to have limited range but similar speed as the aircraft they will protect by placing themselves between the approaching missile and the targeted aircraft. The sacrificial drones could also be used in a dogfight against a stealthy opponent trying to get a short range missile lock or gun shot. Loyal wingman light.
There will need to be a bifurcated force structure. Stealthy and durable and Non stealthy and disposable(cheap). War is about attrition of resources. We will need aircraft that are so cheap that you will not blink losing 1000's of them (unmanned turboprops, jets, cruise missiles, hot air balloons, what ever works). As long as we are the economic peer of our enemy and it costs more to take our assets off the battlefield than it costs us to replace them we will win barring stupidity of strategy or politics.
I also think that speed will be important for stealth aircraft. Flying 2 to 3 times faster than your opponent makes it difficult for his missiles to kill you and if he cannot close the distance he cannot engage you in a dogfight.
DeleteHigh speed will likely not be used unless you need to escape since the frictional heating will increase the enemies ability to detect you with Infrared imaging.
DeleteHigher altitude flight may be useful to reduce friction, thus increasing range. The higher vantage point could also be useful if laser weapons are integrated into future aircraft.
"Short range sacrificial drones will be needed for all aircraft stealthy or not."
DeleteWhat do you mean by that? What type of drone are you envisioning and how would it be different from chaff or a flare? What would it cost?
"Flying 2 to 3 times faster than your opponent makes it difficult for his missiles to kill you and if he cannot close the distance he cannot engage you in a dogfight."
DeleteI've never seen much evidence that high speed is tactically useful. It might be useful for exiting the fight but, at that point, you aren't going to accomplish anything other than survival.
If you use maximum high speed to outrun a missile, you're going to be way out of the fight when you're done and way low of fuel which also puts you out of the fight. Thus, your enemy won in that he mission killed you.
If you try to stand way off from combat and just tiptoe in and out of range, using short bursts of speed to run at the first sign of being targeted, you probably won't accomplish anything. Plus, there's that pesky question of how you can stand off if the other guy is a stealth aircraft, too!
Historically, speed is not useful in aerial combat beyond a certain point. In fact, just the opposite, to an extent. The slower the aircraft, the sharper the turn. Of course, get too slow and you become a 'fixed' object that can't evade effectively.
How do you envision speed being tactically useful while accomplishing a mission?
Speed is really about saving the asset to fight another day or resupply. If a missile volley has a low probability of success but the target is high value the firing aircraft will likely need to stay long enough to supply course updates to increase the probability of success or you need to hand off the course corrections to another aircraft. The missile radars are too small to detect stealth aircraft at any appreciable distance. Having the ability regain energy lost performing high energy maneuvers to make the missile loose lock or overshoot may come in handy if you have multiple inbound missiles and need to perform additional high energy maneuvers. Staying out the the missile's no escape envelope with increased speed saves the asset.
DeleteI can see stealth engagements being a volley of 4 to 6 missiles per target. If the fighter only carries 6 long range missiles it needs to reload anyway and needs to bug out.
AIM 120D costs $3.25 million a pop but if you can take out a $100 million dollar aircraft for $20 million it is worth it. But if you lose your $100 million dollar aircraft ,too, its not. I think it will be shoot and scoot.
As to the sacrificial drones, something similar to the Gremlin drones.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Bvf9v4EHovY
Cost is unknown at this time. If they can be retrieved and reused or used for multiple purposes the cost can be spread out over a larger production run. Hopefully at a lower cost
Deletethe drones would be controlled to be placed in the path of the inbound missile and destroy the missile before it has a chance to get to the aircraft.
DeleteIdeally, you would like a 100 to 1 ratio to have the attrition economics be strongly in your favor. $1 million dollar missile to destroy a $100 million dollar airplane. $10K sacrificial drone to destroy $1 million dollar missile. If $100K of drones coat the radars of your $1 billion dollar destroyer with a radar absorbing paint that renders the destroyer useless it was money well spent.
Delete"Cost is unknown at this time."
DeleteI've seen one cost estimate of $700,000 with an expected lifetime of 20 uses. Apparently, it's only semi-reusable.
"the drones would be controlled to be placed in the path of the inbound missile "
DeleteWho's going to be doing the control during the middle of a battle? The pilot who needs protecting is likely to be a little busy!
On the Phoenix I thought Iran claims fairly effective use but maybe that was more just the abilty to scare the Iraq pilots with a BVR range advantage.
DeleteI can't recall the link but I read somewhere the potential heavy load of multiple BVR missiles for the Sukhoi Flanker was that at true BVR long range they figured they would need 3 missiles and not all the same type to get up a solid kill percentage.
Maybe it was Air Power Australia. In any case it makes sense the BVR track record is not very good for anyone (outside of tests).
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf
Controlled by the computer aboard the targeted aircraft that detected the inbound missile. Similar to other countermeasures systems that are controlled by computer. Pop a drone, pop chaff, pop flares all controlled by the computer. The sacrificial drone closes the distance to the missile and destroys it. Similar mode of threat destruction as the evolved sea sparrow. Missile/drone destroys missile.
Deletehttps://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/advanced-countermeasures-dispenser-system-acds
" figured they would need 3 missiles and not all the same type"
DeleteI've read that the Soviets favored launching radar and IR missiles paired together. Don't know if that's still their preferred method or not.
I don't put any stock in Iranian Phoenix claims. Most of what they stated seemed to be intended as public relations propaganda.
The only source of 'data' I'm aware of is the old Osprey Publishing book and the 'data' in it was based on pilot interviews. As has been proven throughout history, pilot claims are exaggerated by a factor of 3-5, generally.
Add to that the fact that the Iraq pilots were not exactly world remained for their capabilities.
As I said, any Iranian claims should be taken with a gargantuan grain of salt.
"Controlled by the computer aboard the targeted aircraft ... Pop a drone,"
DeleteAre you suggesting that each aircraft carries their own drones? Wouldn't that use up the aircraft's weapon pylons?
@CNO not going to disagree on Iranian claims. Just tossing it out since its the only supposed heavy use at long range .
DeleteBut I do have some respect for Russian theory. If they really think you need that many missiles to get up something like 70 or 80% kill shot that is not good for the F-35 platform concept. In stealth mode its only got a fairly small load out and only one intermediate range BVR missile.
But in any case I suppose it f-35 pilots don't need to worry since they will be sitting on deck without ammo on a Ford Class
"But I do have some respect for Russian theory. If they really think you need that many missiles …"
DeleteI'm firmly in the camp that future aerial stealth combat will require many shots to get a kill. In that respect, I agree completely with the Russians, if that's what they're saying. If they think combination shots (radar/IR) are more effective than our single type shot practice, I'd be all in favor of investigating it. Again, in a recurring theme, this suggests the need for more realistic training and testing.
The F-35 clearly suffers from a very small weapon payload compared to what I anticipate combat needs to be. As best I can decipher, the F-35 in stealth mode (internal weapons only) carries only 4 A2A weapons (2x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinder). That's not going to suffice.
"BVR"
DeleteOur combat history suggests that BVR is a hugely oversold capability given our insistence on visual identification. To be fair, this history is not based on total, unrestricted warfare but, to be further fair, absolute avoidance of friendly fire is so ingrained in our military from all the semi-wars that we've fought that I have a hard time believing we'll suddenly flip the switch and go full gorilla BVR when war starts.
You might want to check out this post,
"BVR - Is It Useful?"
"Are you suggesting that each aircraft carries their own drones? Wouldn't that use up the aircraft's weapon pylons?"
DeleteYes and maybe no, The gremlin sized drone could be used on larger aircraft (c-130) to extend the radius of protection for the aircraft while also doing whatever DARPA thinks the drone should do.
I think for conventional fighters (F-15, F-16, F-18) a much smaller anti-missile missile would be needed to. My favored dedicated anti-missile missile countermeasure dispenser would be an upgraded weapons pylon that also carries the defensive missiles as well as the AIM-120. The LAU-127 pylon is 106 inches long by 3.6 inches wide by 6 inches in height. The Hydra 70 missile may work as a starting point to see if it can be done.
The Hydra 70 missile is 42 inches in length by 2.75 inches and has multiple companies installing a seeker head on the missile for precision guidance. The hydra missile burns for approximately 400 meters and has an effective range of 8000 meters with multiple warhead options.
You know that our anti-air missiles have success rates (pK) around 25% in actual combat situations, right? So, how is an even smaller anti-missile missile going to have significantly higher success. We can't reliably hit a large, relatively slow aircraft but you're thinking we'll reliably hit smaller, Mach+ missiles?
DeleteI'm really struggling with the concept, here.
Glass half full: The block 3 improves an existing, fully developed and dependable aircraft while the latest Block of F-35 makes it ready to use weapons and equipment it should have been using 10 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t be surprised if we see Boeing does what it did with the Hornet. The Super Hornet appears on the surface to be merely an upgrade but was actually a new plane. I can see “Ultra Hornet” with the block 3 improvements but a larger frame with more fuel and ordinance that looks like an upgrade but again a new airframe with better performance. An evolutionary aircraft with more range than an F-35 but less stealth would be an easier sell to Congress and people sick of the F35 nonsense.
I’m betting the Block 3 is the first step towards that.
The Block III is actually a subset of the capabilities proposed by the manufacturer for the Advanced Super Hornet. So, the next step was taken a few years ago but the Navy hasn't, yet, bought into it.
DeleteWith the Block III acquisition and the MQ-25 program, the Navy appears to actually be recoginizing and attempting to address the shortfall in range of the carrier air wing.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Conformal Fuel Tanks, it's the Growler community that appears to have the most pressing need.
I didn't see anything mentioned about the enhanced thrust and enhanced (lowered) fuel consumption Super Hornet engines. That's a proposal that has been put out before.
In the most explicit Cooperative Engagement Capability drawing that I've seen:
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/23/navys-next-air-war
reinforces CNO's statements of the F-35 acting in the scout role. While there is somemismatch in the statements and graphics, the F-35 is communicating with the E-2D and possibly also the Growler and DDG. Weapons are launched from the Super Hornets and are guided by Growlers and F-35. The Super Hornet's mission is to carry its weapons as close to the enemy as possible, and then have them guided by other platforms. That link is also 5 years old, but I do note that the Block III Super Hornet appears to have "enhanced networking".
There were three different Courses Of Action that could have been taken back in the 90s with respect to the current state of Naval Aviation: (1) Naval-ATF, (2) New-Build, Advanced F-14, or (3) Super Hornet. Naval-ATF was always going to be hugely expensive and the sustainment aboard an aircraft was an uknown. There's a great read on Advanced F-14:
http://aviationintel.com/it-could-have-been-the-attack-super-tomcat-21/
While it is amazing to read about a "Super Tomcat" with Super Hornet avionics, ATF engines, the world's largest AESA fighter radar, enhanced reliabilty, and very long range- it still would have been more expensive to acquire and sustain than the Super Hornet, even after all the reliablity improvements. Considering the previously sorry state of the Super Hornet fleet that we are coming out of, I can understand why we didn't get the Super Tom.
The Carrier Group, with its F-35s, Block III Super Hornets, and DDG interconnectivity is still in a better position to exercise air superiority than Chinese Flankers, J-20, and Chinese SAMs, although the situation is not hugely to our own advantage.
Navy now has a chance to operate a "5th gen" LO fighter from the carrier and to better understand how that environment affects sustainability and maintenance. By only buying a limited amount of F-35, and using them as scouts, Navy is disrupting as few apple carts and rice bowls in DoD as possible, while getting the best understanding it can for what comes after Super Hornet.
The real problem for the F-35 in the scout role is its limited range. It is hard to be the super sneaky scout when you have to refuel from a tanker that is larger than a barn door on radar. The MQ-25 will hopefully help with that but it would be better to have a low observable plane with 2 to 3 times the combat radius.
DeleteWikipedia quotes a flyaway cost of 79 million (outdated figure), which is equal to CNO's estimate of 80 million to bring the Hornet up to block III standard. New planes need less maintanance than refurbished planes, so in the long run you may save mony..
ReplyDeleteAs far as range goes, the Rafale has a combat radius of ~ 1000 kilometers. That's good enough for air superiority. If you just want to bomb somebody, cruise missiles are a better choice.
" equal to CNO's estimate of 80 million to bring the Hornet up to block III standard."
DeleteJust to be clear, the $80M per aircraft is for NEW construction Block III, not bringing old Hornets up to Block III. The cost for upgrading old Hornets to Block III is 'a few million dollars" per aircraft.
Sorry about that. I misread your article. I withdraw my suggestion, which was based entirely on cost.
ReplyDeleteNo problem!
DeleteI worry about the F35 once you’ve closed to VR or even extended IR range. In the past, when you had say the F-4 vs a maneuverable MiG, a good pilot could use the raw speed and power to help offset the more agile adversary. But not only can not out turn an opponent in an F-35 but it lacks the speed or acceleration of most opponents. All the flares on earth won’t distract from that huge IR plume of the F-35.
ReplyDeleteIt also lacks a decent cockpit view. I know the helmet sees thru the airframe...when working perfectly. It also provides too much data at times ( a complaint of the single seat hornet as well).
I did read a pilot saying it’s “rudder assisted turn rate of 28 degrees a second” makes it an effective dogfighter. I am admittedly not a combat aviator, so can those in the know tell me how much that is actually useful. I know all previous reports even from the military have said the F-35 cannot out turn an F-18 or any current Russian fighters.