Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The E-2d is an AESA with LPI. the Chinese have serious catching up to do in LPI and integrated warfare. Not all LPIs are created equal. The US has been fielding AESAs for years and no one question their lead in this area, especially in LPI.
    The problem is the US does not have a lead in this area, The US might establish a lead here, once we are in the game. The E-2D is not yet fielded, the E-3 is not AESA etc. The US leads in fighter sized AESA platforms. While this is a huge edge, it is offset to a high degree by enemy AESA platforms on AWCS aircraft. The Chinese claim that the KJ2000 system is superior to the Israeli Phalcon.

    See how the debate has turned to system vs system. This is EXACTLY my point.

    I'm obviously making no headway here so I will leave you the last word. I've enjoyed the discussion.
    A point of note, I am trying to compare what is not what might be. In the context of the super bug and its most likely foe- Chinese Flankers, the F/A-18 does not stack up well at all when the total picture is considered. (mission vs actual capabilities vs enemy assets)
    In one on one fighter on fighter combat with no support the F/A-18 with the AIM-120D owns the BVR fight. However if the fight moves WVR the Flanker has more power, more agility, better sensors and only a slight trailing in IR-AAM missile capabilities more than offset with helmet mounted cueing the USN does not have.

    If the total package is involved, then the short comings in US AWAC aircraft is telling. Chinese KJ-2000 can operate from behind a HQ-9/ fighter screen and still see into the likely combat area while the USN Hawkeyes will be behind an SM-2 screen/Figher. This is going to make it very hard on USN strike fighters to complete any missions other than local air defense of the carrier or Taiwan. While Chines fighters will also be limited to the Chinese coast or Taiwan, being over Taiwan is where they want to be as they can conduct offensive missions there.

    Over Taiwan where each side is about even in technology, the Chines lead in numbers, at least until multiple carrier groups can arrive is worth noting. Unless the US has enough Tomahawks at see to seriously attrit the PLAAF the numbers game does not look good. If the PLAAF disperses the mission gets harder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zinja
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D
    Even if it has but 150km,...... ... really?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    The fact of the matter is, the Shornet is not the interceptor the Tomcat is/was, nor is it the bomb truck the Intruder is/was.

    Does the latest technology compensate for some of it's short-fallings? Sure. But I'd like to see what the Tomcat would have turned out with the latest gizmo package the Shornet has.

    For fleet defense, you bet that speed advantage definitely matters.

    I can understand the Navy wanting to cut cost and dumping the F-14 and A-6, and having one platform for both offense and defense does make alot of sense but I can't help but feel we've lost some punch in both areas with the advant of the Shornet.

    As someone mentioned here before, the Shornet is the Honda Accord of fighters: Not exceedingly good in any area but good enough to get the job done for now.

    It is what it is...
    Well said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    No I am not, for the USN, the superbugs most likely flanker foe is the PLAAF which is equipped with the KJ2000/KJ200 class AESA AWCS so the LPI advantage goes to the them. The PLAAF also has the YJ-12/SD-10 AAM uses a licence built version of the R-77 Ameranski/Vympel missile seeker. The USN will also likely be fighting outnumbered unless its a multi-carrier task force beycase it will ahve to leave fighters behind to protect the carriers if it wants to conduct any strikes on the mainland. The only other option is to remain east of Taiwan, which will drastically cut the US' ability to stop PRC missile strikes on the RoC.
    The E-2d is an AESA with LPI. the Chinese have serious catching up to do in LPI and integrated warfare. Not all LPIs are created equal. The US has been fielding AESAs for years and no one question their lead in this area, especially in LPI.

    See how the debate has turned to system vs system. This is EXACTLY my point.

    I'm obviously making no headway here so I will leave you the last word. I've enjoyed the discussion.
    Last edited by Phoenix10; 03 Oct 10,, 23:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    The fact of the matter is, the Shornet is not the interceptor the Tomcat is/was, nor is it the bomb truck the Intruder is/was.

    Does the latest technology compensate for some of it's short-fallings? Sure. But I'd like to see what the Tomcat would have turned out with the latest gizmo package the Shornet has.

    For fleet defense, you bet that speed advantage definitely matters.

    I can understand the Navy wanting to cut cost and dumping the F-14 and A-6, and having one platform for both offense and defense does make alot of sense but I can't help but feel we've lost some punch in both areas with the advant of the Shornet.

    As someone mentioned here before, the Shornet is the Honda Accord of fighters: Not exceedingly good in any area but good enough to get the job done for now.

    It is what it is...

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    Now you're just stretching! The USN has the E-2C and soon the E-2D. Again, the point is that when you place the SH in an itegrated battle network it is more than potent. Not all aircraft are intended for this type of fight or have been allocated the resources to fight this way. The SH has the tools that many a/c do not. THIS is how the US will fight in the 21st century.
    No I am not, for the USN, the superbugs most likely flanker foe is the PLAAF which is equipped with the KJ2000/KJ200 class AESA AWCS so the LPI advantage goes to the them. The PLAAF also has the YJ-12/SD-10 AAM uses a licence built version of the R-77 Ameranski/Vympel missile seeker. The USN will also likely be fighting outnumbered unless its a multi-carrier task force beycase it will ahve to leave fighters behind to protect the carriers if it wants to conduct any strikes on the mainland. The only other option is to remain east of Taiwan, which will drastically cut the US' ability to stop PRC missile strikes on the RoC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    the USN does not have the wedgetail, does the RAAF even have it yet?
    Now you're just stretching! The USN has the E-2C and soon the E-2D. Again, the point is that when you place the SH in an itegrated battle network it is more than potent. Not all aircraft are intended for this type of fight or have been allocated the resources to fight this way. The SH has the tools that many a/c do not. THIS is how the US will fight in the 21st century.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The USN does :-). RAAF, or any other Super Hornet customer, can purchase the 120D at a later time. The point made is that with the right CONOPS the SH can indeed be effective in A2A
    the USN does not have the wedgetail, does the RAAF even have it yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D
    The USN does :-). RAAF, or any other Super Hornet customer, can purchase the 120D at a later time. The point made is that with the right CONOPS the SH can indeed be effective in A2A

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Here is an interesting article supporting the RAAF decision to buy the Super Hornet. Call it a response to the "scenarios" presented over at APA. I do not agree with everything in here but since we are on the topic of the SH in A2A combat, this might spur more great discussion. I apologize, I can't seem to find the original link to the interview but this is the gist of it.

    Ozzy Blizzard's Australian Defence Times: Search results for F-18 Su-30

    "I just thought I'd address a few points of fact, implications or analysis presented in the programme that I thought was factually wrong, misleading or just plain stupid. This is a statement mad by Wing Commaneder Chriss Mills when refering to the SU-30 "It's a formidable weapon, it can fly higher, faster,.... its got better weapons". In a point of fact that statement is simply false. The Su-30's weapons package is distinctly inferior to the Super Hornet's, in fact even our legacy hornet fleet. The Flankers strike weapons are a generation behind the Hornets, relying on the KAB 500/1500L family of laser guided bombs, KH 29 "Kedge" laser guided missile and KH 59 TV guided missile. All of these systems are of the same technological generation as the F-111C's Paveway/Pave Tack combination. They are simply outclassed by the J series PGM's utilized by the hornet family, which provide an unmatched all weather, fire and forget stand off capability. The only strike weapon used by the Flanker which is even competitive is the KH 31 Krypton anti-ship/anti-radiation missile, with over 100km maximum range, it is a very capable ARM. Its range and kinematics are slightly better than the AGM 88 HARM anti radiation missile although is apparently less capable in terms of ECCM. As for the air to air stuff the situation is the same. The Flankers WVR missile is the R73, which is outclassed kinematically, aerodynamically, in seeker performance, off-broadsight capability, range and IRCCM by the AIM 9X which was specifically designed to outperform the R73. The primary BVRAAM is the R77, which again is completely outclassed by the AIM 120D. AIM 120D is a better performer in terms of range (>180km compared to >90km), ECCM, has a more capable 2 way datalink and better seeker performance. As you can see Super Hornet clearly has a superior weapons package.

    Four Corners "asked" Air Vise Marshal Criss and Wing Commander Mills to do a "hypothetical" simulation of an air strike on Indonesia by a squadron of F/A-18F's in 2012. i can say without hyperbole that this was one of the most ridiculous and unrealistic simulations i have ever seen. Where was JORN or Wedgetail and the information dominance these systems provide? Who in their right mind would use strike profiles designed for a pig, i.e. a low and fast sprint to get to weapons release point when you have a HUGE EW advantage to exploit? There was only one outcome that was going to come out of that "hypothetical" but thank god these men are no longer in running strike missions for the RAAF. Lets look at a more realistic scenario with similar assets: 16 SU 30's are on CAP (combat air patrol) above Java in 4 packets of 4. All of these platforms are tracked by JORN as soon as they took off. A squadron sized package of 16 Super Bug's takes off from RAAF Tindell or RAAF Learmouth for their targets, 4 with a mixed JSOW AAW load and 8 with a full AAW load. They are preceded by a Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft (escorted) and 2 A330 tankers. The Wedgetail sets up shop several hundred kilometers out into the Indian ocean, its radar footprint extending throughout the battlespace, which remains undetected due to the MESA's LPI capability (and the fact that it remains outside of the Flankers/ground based radars detection radii). The 8 AAW equipped super bugs move towards their individual flanker flights as they turn to the north in their orbits, allowing them to stay out of the flankers radar footprint. The pairs of Super Bug's make super sonic runs toward their targets while staying emissions cold, all target information being provided by the Wedgetail via Link 16. When the Bugs reach ~150km from the Flankers they launch missiles, 2 at each Flanker, still emitions cold. At this point the Indonesians may still be unaware they are even being attacked, while there are missiles in the air. As the AMRAAM's leave their hardpoints the flankers are hit with an electronic attack, disrupting their datalinks and severely reducing their radar performance (the SH's EA capability is claimed to be effective in the 150km+ range bracket). While the Indonesian pilots are still trying to figure out why they cant contact command & controll their RWR's light up as the AMRAAM's start pinging. At this stage (within the NEZ and with ample energy) the AIM 120D's kill probability is 90%+, with 2 inbound the chances of survival are minimal. ALL 16 FLANKERS ARE SHOT DOWN. Strike designated bugs move in to weapons release range and hit 16 individual targets throughout centrell Java with JSOW C's. Sound too easy? RAAF picks when to fight and how to fight because it see's the enemy, in addition to effectively blinding him. That is an advantage that no realistic ammount of raw performance will change. That is what information dominance allows you to achieve, and when you bring the ADF's actuall capabilities into the simulation, information dominance is virtually guarenteed."

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    You make very good points and I tend to agree with you. However, everything you have stated is based on Air-to-Air. When did this become a discussion about A2A only? The original statement was:

    "I have been reading some comments as of late about the F/A 18 SH and from the majority of opinions, it almost seems that the SH is considered "substandard" to the plane(s) it replaced, (F-14), to it's probable opponents." - I hear no reference to A2A here, just that it is "substandard" and this is what I am challenging.
    The F/A-18 Super Hornet repalced the F-14 , although the F/A-18 is a fighterbmber, the plane it repalced spent almsot its interior life as a dedicated fighter. That means A2A.

    The only point I was trying to make is that the while the SH may lack in kinematics compared to other platforms, as a tactical aircraft "system" it is far from "substandard". If you consider the broad range of missions flowing by carrier based aircraft, the SH can do many of them better than an F-14 and even the current flankers.
    many... maybe, but can it defend the carrier effectively?

    Your acceleration calculation doesn't hold much weight unless you state a reference or how you got to those numbers. If you did the math, you need to include more information. What was the fuel load? What was the payload (parasite drag)? What was the altitude? There are a lot of things to consider and assumptions to make (and information not known). No disrespect intended!
    google-fu

    I hope we never see the day, but if the USN ever takes a carrier into the Taiwan Strait (or another region with flankers), my prediction is that the SH will be able to do more than hold its own because of the way that it is used against a wide range of threats. Assuming and A/C is "substandard" based only on a spec sheet is a little short-sighted. Do I think the SH is a step backwards based on kinematics alone? Most definitely! Do I think it is a "substandard" tactical aircraft? No way!
    Hoperfully we never find

    I appreciate the good discussion!
    as do I

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    The problem is long term is not 20 years, but more likely 5. The most capable flankers already outclass the superbug in many areas.



    raw acceleration is hard to pin down, using rate of climb for both the SU-27 and F/A-18E/F as a stand in reveals the following...

    SU-27 300m/s
    F/A-18E/F 254m/s



    Not in all areas it isn't, the F-14D was half a mach faster for example and at the time of its retirement had a better ability to go after bombers and enemy hi-val targets like awacs platforms. As AWACs systems continue to spread across the globe, that half mach is going to be critical. Most of the flying radars fly at high subsonic speeds and can see a very long way. Popping them means getting a firing platform close enough fast enough to allow a missile to reliably hit the target. The AIM-54 could do this, as there is little difference between the F-14's designed bomber targets, and an AWACS as far as speed and agility is concerned.

    Also, one of the most critical, if not the most critical role for a fleet superiority fighters is interception of inbound bomber threats. The faster fighter can also get farther from the carrier when an airborne threat is detected and hopefully engage it, before the threat can engage the carrier in turn.



    Times have changed, weapons now have longer ranges and are harder to avoid. Thus the more energy a fighter can enter the fight with, or use to get to the fight the better. In the case of a naval fighter, range+speed are as critical as sensors+weapon.



    The law of diminishing returns, unless there was a redesign of the aircraft's profile, more power will not add a 1:1 improvement in speed and will probably prove to be a negative factor on range. More powerful engines likely will only result in a bigger payload, which in the context of A2A means little.
    You make very good points and I tend to agree with you. However, everything you have stated is based on Air-to-Air. When did this become a discussion about A2A only? The original statement was:

    "I have been reading some comments as of late about the F/A 18 SH and from the majority of opinions, it almost seems that the SH is considered "substandard" to the plane(s) it replaced, (F-14), to it's probable opponents." - I hear no reference to A2A here, just that it is "substandard" and this is what I am challenging.

    The only point I was trying to make is that the while the SH may lack in kinematics compared to other platforms, as a tactical aircraft "system" it is far from "substandard". If you consider the broad range of missions flowing by carrier based aircraft, the SH can do many of them better than an F-14 and even the current flankers.

    Your acceleration calculation doesn't hold much weight unless you state a reference or how you got to those numbers. If you did the math, you need to include more information. What was the fuel load? What was the payload (parasite drag)? What was the altitude? There are a lot of things to consider and assumptions to make (and information not known). No disrespect intended!

    I hope we never see the day, but if the USN ever takes a carrier into the Taiwan Strait (or another region with flankers), my prediction is that the SH will be able to do more than hold its own because of the way that it is used against a wide range of threats. Assuming and A/C is "substandard" based only on a spec sheet is a little short-sighted. Do I think the SH is a step backwards based on kinematics alone? Most definitely! Do I think it is a "substandard" tactical aircraft? No way!

    I appreciate the good discussion!

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    No one is talking long term. The discussion opened was about the SH and the plane that it replaced (F-14) and the current flanker series. Long term I agree with you, but that is a topic for another forum.
    The problem is long term is not 20 years, but more likely 5. The most capable flankers already outclass the superbug in many areas.

    You missed my point completely. Of course speed in very important. My point was that kinematics are not everything. The Foxbat had a higher speed than the F-15 but I don't think any informed person would consider the F-15 "substandard" to the Foxbat because of that (I am not saying that you were implying such, just making a point). The Su-30 may be half a mach faster but from what I have read, fighters like the F-15 (which is Mach 2+ capable), rarely break Mach 1.5 in operational service (if ever). Any pilot will tell you that acceleration is far more important than top speed. The ability to change your energy state quickly is what its all about.
    raw acceleration is hard to pin down, using rate of climb for both the SU-27 and F/A-18E/F as a stand in reveals the following...

    SU-27 300m/s
    F/A-18E/F 254m/s

    Again- my point is that a tactical aircraft and it's effectiveness MUST be considered in terms of the system in which it operates and the CONOPS with which it is employed. This is how things go in the 21st century. You can't say any aircraft is substandard to another just because it's has a kinematic disadvantage. The system in which the SH operates allows it to be more effective than the the F-14 in the system in which it operated.
    Not in all areas it isn't, the F-14D was half a mach faster for example and at the time of its retirement had a better ability to go after bombers and enemy hi-val targets like awacs platforms. As AWACs systems continue to spread across the globe, that half mach is going to be critical. Most of the flying radars fly at high subsonic speeds and can see a very long way. Popping them means getting a firing platform close enough fast enough to allow a missile to reliably hit the target. The AIM-54 could do this, as there is little difference between the F-14's designed bomber targets, and an AWACS as far as speed and agility is concerned.

    Also, one of the most critical, if not the most critical role for a fleet superiority fighters is interception of inbound bomber threats. The faster fighter can also get farther from the carrier when an airborne threat is detected and hopefully engage it, before the threat can engage the carrier in turn.

    Times have changed, lessons have been learned, and the playbook has been updated. Modern air combat is not 2 sports cars racing to the finish. There is a reason they are called "tactical" aircraft.
    Times have changed, weapons now have longer ranges and are harder to avoid. Thus the more energy a fighter can enter the fight with, or use to get to the fight the better. In the case of a naval fighter, range+speed are as critical as sensors+weapon.

    Also, why can't you make the SH faster? Engines are upgraded all the time. Sure, the angle of the leading edge of the SH wing limits the speed at which it can efficiently cruise but all things equal, higher thrust = higher speed. I don't need my aeronautical engineering degree to tell you that.
    The law of diminishing returns, unless there was a redesign of the aircraft's profile, more power will not add a 1:1 improvement in speed and will probably prove to be a negative factor on range. More powerful engines likely will only result in a bigger payload, which in the context of A2A means little.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Doubtful, at least not long term. The SH's sensor lead is rapidly running out as her competitors get better radars and their own RCS reduction technologies. She may already be out ranged in the missile envelope and she is not very agile compared to the latest flankers.

    while Russian systems can add better sensors as they come online, you can't make the SH faster. Despite all the technology, speed is still a critical factor in how well a fighter can fight. In 91, an older Hornet with better missiles, better radar, more pilot hours, and AWACS support was gunned down by an Iraqi foxbat whose pilot used his aircrafts strengths- speed and height to control the fight. Lt Cmdr Spiecher was unable to disengage. Also during ODS, Iraqi Mig-25's were able to use their speed and height to fight effectively against superior numbers of F-15's. In one engagement four F-15's fired 10 missiles at 2 Mig-25's and scored zero.

    The modern SU-27 is more than half a mach faster than the F/A-18 about the same edge enjoyed by the Foxbat over the F-15
    No one is talking long term. The discussion opened was about the SH and the plane that it replaced (F-14) and the current flanker series. Long term I agree with you, but that is a topic for another forum.

    You missed my point completely. Of course speed in very important. My point was that kinematics are not everything. The Foxbat had a higher speed than the F-15 but I don't think any informed person would consider the F-15 "substandard" to the Foxbat because of that (I am not saying that you were implying such, just making a point). The Su-30 may be half a mach faster but from what I have read, fighters like the F-15 (which is Mach 2+ capable), rarely break Mach 1.5 in operational service (if ever). Any pilot will tell you that acceleration is far more important than top speed. The ability to change your energy state quickly is what its all about.

    Again- my point is that a tactical aircraft and it's effectiveness MUST be considered in terms of the system in which it operates and the CONOPS with which it is employed. This is how things go in the 21st century. You can't say any aircraft is substandard to another just because it's has a kinematic disadvantage. The system in which the SH operates allows it to be more effective than the the F-14 in the system in which it operated. Times have changed, lessons have been learned, and the playbook has been updated. Modern air combat is not 2 sports cars racing to the finish. There is a reason they are called "tactical" aircraft.

    Also, why can't you make the SH faster? Engines are upgraded all the time. Sure, the angle of the leading edge of the SH wing limits the speed at which it can efficiently cruise but all things equal, higher thrust = higher speed. I don't need my aeronautical engineering degree to tell you that.

    Regards
    Last edited by Phoenix10; 03 Oct 10,, 07:12.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X