F/A-18 Super Hornet

[surfgun]

Boeing is to begin flight-testing its Advanced Super Hornet combat aircraft towards the end of the third quarter of this year, a company official said on 20 May.


Boeing is shortly to begin flight trials of the Advanced Super Hornet to demonstrate the aircraft's various features. (IHS/Gareth Jennings)
Speaking at Boeing's St Louis production facility in Missouri, Mike Gibbons, VP F/A-18 and EA-18G Programs, said an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fitted with conformal fuel tanks and an enclosed weapons pod will undertake flight trials in August and September.

"We are going to fly with non-function conformal tanks and the weapons pod to demonstrate the aircraft's flight characteristics and radar cross section [RCS] reduction [properties], and to verify wind tunnel data regarding the aircraft's drag count," he stated.

According to Gibbons, these flights will take place in conjunction with the US Navy (USN) in the Atlantic Test Range. RCS measurements will mostly be taken from air-to-ground, but some air-to-air tests will also be carried out. Another official added that some 15-20 flights will be conducted in different configurations.

Gibbons said the conformal tanks provide 135 n miles of additional combat radius at the same time as freeing up stores pylons for more weaponry. "The navy has taken a great interest in this," he revealed.

The enclosed weapons pod is designed to allow the Super Hornet to reduce its RCS while carrying a meaningful munitions load. One pod is able to carry either six small diameter bombs and two advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs); two 500 lb paveways and two AMRAAMs; or an equivalent load up to 2,600 lb (1,179 kg).

The conformal fuel tanks and enclosed weapon pod are just two of a number of enhancements for the Super Hornet that Boeing launched as the 'International Roadmap' in 2010. Other upgrades include the fitting of an integrated infrared search-and-track (IRST) system made by Lockheed Martin, an Elbit Systems large area display (LAD) 'glass' cockpit and next-generation avionics, an internal missile and laser warning system, and new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced engines.
Boeing poised to begin flight-testing Advanced Super Hornet features - IHS Jane's 360

Aero India: Boeing's advanced Super Hornet upgrade options - YouTube

[Loke]

One thing I always found a bit puzzling about the SH is the lack of international sales.

Apart from Australia, it has so far failed on the export market.

Political aspects is often mentioned as an important element; however this should play in the SH favor since a large number of countries do prefer (or don't mind) buying US fighter planes.

I suggest the following explanations:

1. Although it is much more capable than e.g. the F-16, it is also more expensive. Most countries look at their requirements and decide that the F-16 is good enough, and cheaper.

2. It is very capable but sometimes "not capable enough"; e.g., it lacks the capacity of the F-15, and therefore was not considered (or lost) when countries like Singapore, SK, Saudi Arabia decided to buy the F-15.


Unlike the F-16 and F-15 the SH seems not to have found its market.

It lost in India, and if we are to trust the Indians the reason was that too many of the requirements were not met (as was also the case for the F-16).

It lost in Japan, to the F-35.

Boieng withdrew from the Swiss competition; in spite of Switzerland already operating the Hornet, and in spite of the demanding requirements that seem to have eliminated the F-16.

It may still score a few sales; Countries like Malaysia and Brazil have shortlisted the SH (but not the F-16!). It competes with the F-35 in Canada and Denmark but IMHO is doomed to lose in those countries.

What do other people think about the SH sales prospects, and the reasons why it has failed on the export markets so far, in spite of being such a capable aircraft?

[Versus]

My guess would be the money. Price of aircraft is one thing, but the price of maintenance is a different ball game. Also you have to look from the strategic perspective, which airframes would be likely opponent to the Super Hornet in at least 10 to 20 years together with upgrades, training etc. Than there is a geopolitics involved, for how long some countries can remain allied to US interests without compromising their interests etc. Airplane itself and its performance are at the bottom regardless how good/bad they are. From the history of aircraft procurement it is clear that some mysterious forces are at work, that defy common sense.

[citanon]

Low end operators without need for two engines probably default to F-16.

Despite Boeing marketing, high end operators with defined need for fifth generation will default to F-35.

The middle tier will look to F-18 for compatibility with Western forces, but there is also the Rafale and the Eurofighter or even the F-15. If they don't care or don't want Western compatibility, then Su-35 enters the picture.

There's also the fact that the F-18 is optimized for the unique requirements of the US Navy, where as in most parts of the world it's the Air Forces doing the shopping and the planes will never take off or land on a ship.

[Steven Jaime]

What do other people think about the SH sales prospects, and the reasons why it has failed on the export markets so far, in spite of being such a capable aircraft?

It might be its top speed and kinetic performance. #1 reason why it's losing. It's not Mach 2 capable while country's buy planes with mach 2. Mabye not able to intercept the airspace, which most country's like intercepting undetified planes.

[Chogy]

Anything more than mach 1.5 is of limited utility... With an F-15, it takes nearly the entire internal fuel load to accelerate to M2.0+

High speed is useful for dash intercept, but not much else. Bragging rights maybe? A better option is to install detection systems with the capability to early-warn, permitting those slow-poke M1.5 platforms to get there in time.

[kato]

Despite Boeing marketing, high end operators with defined need for fifth generation will default to F-35.

Actually i see pretty good chances in all those countries deciding to probably opt out of F-35. Canada in particular, Denmark might be more open to European solutions. Those that do not opt out are those with major financial offsets involved in the program. It's by no means a "default" choice anymore, especially since in recent months heavy doubts about delivery schedules and costs have risen in possible additional procurement countries (see Singapore and South Korea).

[Jimmy]

Anything more than mach 1.5 is of limited utility... With an F-15, it takes nearly the entire internal fuel load to accelerate to M2.0+

High speed is useful for dash intercept, but not much else. Bragging rights maybe? A better option is to install detection systems with the capability to early-warn, permitting those slow-poke M1.5 platforms to get there in time.

Dash intercept is about all a lot of countries need.

[Loke]

Actually i see pretty good chances in all those countries deciding to probably opt out of F-35. Canada in particular, Denmark might be more open to European solutions. Those that do not opt out are those with major financial offsets involved in the program. It's by no means a "default" choice anymore, especially since in recent months heavy doubts about delivery schedules and costs have risen in possible additional procurement countries (see Singapore and South Korea).

IF Canada opts out of F-35 then I think the SH would be the natural choice however I don't see that happening. F-35 will most likely be more expensive than the SH, but the difference may not be that big.

And that is part of the point I am trying to make; the SH is quite capable but it is also quite expensive. Keep in mind that to keep the SH relevant it needs a substantial MLU in the near future that will push the price up; it would need the EPE engines, CFTs, RCS reductions, low-RCS weapons pod, upgrade in avionics, IRST system, etc. Without those things (or most of them) it is difficult to see how the SH can remain relevant over the next 40 years.

With those things, the price will go up...

This is why I think that high-end operators that currently consider the F-35 for the most part will go for F-35. In particular partners have a strong incentive to do so, and both Canada and Denmark are partners.

[citanon]

IF Canada opts out of F-35 then I think the SH would be the natural choice however I don't see that happening. F-35 will most likely be more expensive than the SH, but the difference may not be that big.

And that is part of the point I am trying to make; the SH is quite capable but it is also quite expensive. Keep in mind that to keep the SH relevant it needs a substantial MLU in the near future that will push the price up; it would need the Without those things (or most of them) it is difficult to see how the SH can remain relevant over the next 40 years.

With those things, the price will go up...

This is why I think that high-end operators that currently consider the F-35 for the most part will go for F-35. In particular partners have a strong incentive to do so, and both Canada and Denmark are partners.

And worse yet, 10 years down the line, Canada might find herself the only country in the world operating a couple of dozen out of production SHs with unique "EPE engines, CFTs, RCS reductions, low-RCS weapons pod, upgrade in avionics, IRST system, etc." Can you imagine the maintenance costs? Ouch!

[Stitch]

IF Canada opts out of F-35 then I think the SH would be the natural choice however I don't see that happening. F-35 will most likely be more expensive than the SH, but the difference may not be that big.

And that is part of the point I am trying to make; the SH is quite capable but it is also quite expensive. Keep in mind that to keep the SH relevant it needs a substantial MLU in the near future that will push the price up; it would need the EPE engines, CFTs, RCS reductions, low-RCS weapons pod, upgrade in avionics, IRST system, etc. Without those things (or most of them) it is difficult to see how the SH can remain relevant over the next 40 years.

With those things, the price will go up...

This is why I think that high-end operators that currently consider the F-35 for the most part will go for F-35. In particular partners have a strong incentive to do so, and both Canada and Denmark are partners.

Interestingly, with all of that said, the F-15SE looks like a more attractive offering; better T-to-W ratio, equivalent stealth characteristics, longer range, more flexible airframe, better avionics, etc.

I'm still scratching my head as to why the F-15SE hasn't garnered any international orders; granted, it's a legacy airframe, but people have been operating "upgraded" MiG-21's for decades now, why not the F-15?

[Jimmy]

Because the countries that can afford an F-15SE can afford newer designs. Countries that are buying MiG-21s can't (with one exception).

[gf0012-aust]

Interestingly, with all of that said, the F-15SE looks like a more attractive offering; better T-to-W ratio, equivalent stealth characteristics, longer range, more flexible airframe, better avionics, etc.

I'm still scratching my head as to why the F-15SE hasn't garnered any international orders; granted, it's a legacy airframe, but people have been operating "upgraded" MiG-21's for decades now, why not the F-15?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33290[/ATTACH]

well, for RAAF it was driven by issues of support tail commonality, and a big influence was that the USN was prepared to break their own delivery cycle so as to give us earlier access into the new platforms. + USN is heavily linked into RAAF with other aviation developments. +there was no readily identifiable wild weasel equiv in F-15's unless we wanted IDF involvement (and which would have been a longer streched out development issue)

all in all I'd argue that it all came down to logistics and TLS. F15 was never in the hunt when you considered how tight we are with the USN and what they were willing to do to help

[Chogy]

+ USN is heavily linked into RAAF with other aviation developments.

Curious, why in bed with the USN? With all due respect to our squidly friends, their mission centers around fleet operations and power projection. In terms of an overall force, the USAF is better rounded.

[Jimmy]

Curious, why in bed with the USN? With all due respect to our squidly friends, their mission centers around fleet operations and power projection. In terms of an overall force, the USAF is better rounded.

For whatever reason, the Navy works with them far more. Unless the RAAF comes to Red Flag, the only Americans they practice with is the USN. I've got a few ideas why it evolved this way, but that's it.