F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

smestarz

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
You however do realise that with each new Generation, the technollogy and plane becomes more expensive and complicated. YES China and USA could be on next Gen, and maybe a year away from being bankrupt.
The future of air war is not the next gen, but combination of it, where the expensive higher generation plane plays the "officer:" and directs cheap less technologically advance planes to the mission. thus maintaining the balance of advancement of technology and also ensuring the cost is controlled.
For example, you know the cost of B2, imagine USA had replaced all its B-52H with B-2 ? The sheer cost of making and using them would have put USA in state of misery and that is why they still use 3 different bombers
The cost effectie and value for money B-52H , the high flying and fast B-1 and the most advanced B-2 only against really difficult targets.

With the rate of how Indian weapons system are being developed I am very certain that AMCA will take decades to develop. By the time the IAF is confident about its reliability then the US, Russia and China have already moved on to the next generation.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
I don't know how you can believe that. A modern fighter jet cannot fly without integrated flight control systems. You cannot stick in a 3D thrust vectoring nozzle on to the back of 2 powerful jet engines and then manually steer it independent of aelirones, rudders, etc.... That's crazy.

Anyway, here's a 1980's video of ACTIV and see for yourself how fully coordinated are its movements:
Check General Dynamics F-16 VISTA with MATV.
video.....................
Fully integrated means there is no other button to engage TVC .Both NA 16 VISTA ,F 22 ,Su 30 varient and F 15S had button to engage TVC which are the position accordingly by flight computer .Mig 29 OVT was the first one to lack such a system ,TVC engagement is fully automatic.
You do not belittle the capabilities of the Iraqis in 1991. Perhaps what they lacked was leadership and discipline. But in terms of hardware they had a formidable collection of it and should have inflicted more damage than the measly lone F18 (the Tornado is not confirmed).
Mig 21 that was used was Mig 21 Bision which had latest jamming capability while the Iraqi planes were downgraded .
To defeat missiles in WVR a plane only needs sudden rolls (and a lot of prayers that the missile will lose lock). No current or future fighter can out turn current infrared AAMs. Think about it, the most agile fighters are only rated 9Gs while current infrared missiles are rated up to 60Gs. How can you compete with that?
Turn rate depends on two things ,your speed and ability to take high G.Fighter having lower speed have a high turn rate so they have just take a 8g turn for missile to overshoot .
Air combat is not only about agility or speed. Sensors, weapons systems and systems integrations is better since these 4 or 4+ gen planes are closely matched in terms of agility and speed.
Sensors matter less in WVR.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
You however do realise that with each new Generation, the technollogy and plane becomes more expensive and complicated. YES China and USA could be on next Gen, and maybe a year away from being bankrupt.
The future of air war is not the next gen, but combination of it, where the expensive higher generation plane plays the "officer:" and directs cheap less technologically advance planes to the mission. thus maintaining the balance of advancement of technology and also ensuring the cost is controlled.
For example, you know the cost of B2, imagine USA had replaced all its B-52H with B-2 ? The sheer cost of making and using them would have put USA in state of misery and that is why they still use 3 different bombers
The cost effectie and value for money B-52H , the high flying and fast B-1 and the most advanced B-2 only against really difficult targets.
What you have to invest in are weapons for DAY 1 or the ability to bring the fight directly to the enemy if they start it. In other words your strike aircraft and fighters must be technologically advanced to successfully penetrate the air defense of the enemy on day 1 so that you can achieve air dominance or at least take the initiative of the air war. This is where 4+ gen and 5th gen with with first see and shoot capabilities and EW comes in.

If you allow China to have decisive edge in day 1 air war then India will be at the losing end. One has to match if not surpass what China will have to bear on the first engagement. This you can do by closely working with the US. Note that WW2 type of war will no longer happen since we have nukes. What is possible if ever major powers do directly engage each other is short but decisive skirmishes for limited goals or territories.
 
Last edited:

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
Fully integrated means there is no other button to engage TVC .Both NA 16 VISTA ,F 22 ,Su 30 varient and F 15S had button to engage TVC which are the position accordingly by flight computer .Mig 29 OVT was the first one to lack such a system ,TVC engagement is fully automatic............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Variants

MiG-29OVT............
The aircraft is one of the six pre-built MiG-29Ms before 1991, later received
thrust vectoring engine and fly-by-wire technology. It served as a thrust-vectoring engine testbed and technology demonstrator in various air shows to show future improvement in the MiG-29M. It has identical avionics to the MiG-29M. The only difference in the cockpit layout is an additional switch to turn on vector thrust function. The two RD-133 thrust-vectoring engines, each features unique 3D rotating nozzles which can provide thrust vector deflection in all directions. However, despite its thrust-vectoring, other specifications were not officially emphasized. The aircraft is being demonstrated along with the MiG-29M2 in various air shows around the world for potential export. The aircraft is usually used as an aerobatic demonstrator.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Sensors matter less in WVR.
That would be a tragic mistake. Sensors are equally crucial in WVR combat. Just consider a dogfight between 2 jets one has HMCS and the other has none, both have HOBS with LOAL short range missiles, which would you chose to be in?

Just take a look at the capabilities of the AMerican AIM 9x:


It clearly can target an enemy aircraft anywhere in the firing jets 360 degrees envelope. The clear implication is that the jet with the quickest sensors and targeting system will have a slight but enough advantage to turn WVR combat in its favor. Maneuvering to get a firing solution is not an issue anymore.
 
Last edited:

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Variants

MiG-29OVT............
The aircraft is one of the six pre-built MiG-29Ms before 1991, later received
thrust vectoring engine and fly-by-wire technology. It served as a thrust-vectoring engine testbed and technology demonstrator in various air shows to show future improvement in the MiG-29M. It has identical avionics to the MiG-29M. The only difference in the cockpit layout is an additional switch to turn on vector thrust function. The two RD-133 thrust-vectoring engines, each features unique 3D rotating nozzles which can provide thrust vector deflection in all directions. However, despite its thrust-vectoring, other specifications were not officially emphasized. The aircraft is being demonstrated along with the MiG-29M2 in various air shows around the world for potential export. The aircraft is usually used as an aerobatic demonstrator.
The latter one which lead Mig 35 ,not the first one .
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,436
Likes
7,055
Country flag
Then you don't know the air combat doctrine of the US. On A2A combat they primarily fight in the BVR. They want to see first and shoot first. But they also learned from Vietnam War that there will be instances that their pilots will find themselves in WVR (but not as much nowadays since technology has matured and advanced far) against agile fighter planes hence they are investing in Red Flag, Top Gun and dissimilar trainings to simulate WVR. They also keep on updating their short range weapons to keep up with the threats. But their emphasis on WVR is only secondary to BVR. They will avoid WVR combat at all cost.

As I already said please read the scholarly material on the trends of A2A combat.
No need of you help Bro.
BVR is a fantasm. In a real war I'm sure it will be useless. It's my opinion.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,436
Likes
7,055
Country flag
Friendly A2A shootdowns in 1991 Gulf war? Zero. That is an excellent record if you ask me since on the first day alone the coalition was able to generate 1,300 air combat sorties over Iraq as against 100+ Iraqi air sorties. This would have been lush vegetation for fratricide on the part of coalition forces.
It's normal : iraki air force was destroyed at the end of first day ! All communication node, all radar, all airfield were under ALCM attacks.
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2185

Boeing Turns Focus to Military Aircraft Upgrades, Support Services

By Sandra I. Erwin , 5/16/2016

Amid concerns about future sales of combat aircraft, Boeing is working to secure long-term work upgrading and maintaining military hardware.

The company already does significant work supporting military aircraft fleets, and believes this is one area where it can expand its business as it faces a slowdown in new combat aircraft production.

The next immediate target is a life-extension program for the Navy’s primary tactical fighter, the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Boeing executives expect to soon lock up a potentially multibillion-dollar deal to overhaul the entire fleet of more than 580 Super Hornets over the next several years.

The details of the Super Hornet service life extension program, or SLEP, are still being negotiated, said Dan Gillian, Boeing vice president and program manager for F/A-18 programs.

The company received a Navy contract to provide a “service life assessment” of the Super Hornet. “We're finalizing contracting activities related to SLEP,” Gillian told National Defense. “The number of Super Hornets that go through this program per year will depend on a lot of factors but based on information today, we expect to extend the life of 40 to 60 Super Hornets per year once we ramp up.”

Boeing is still building two new Super Hornets per month to fill existing Navy orders — for both fighters and electronic-warfare Growlers — and anticipated foreign military sales. New aircraft manufacturing will continue into the 2020s, Gillian said, but the Navy needs the fleet to last until the 2040s.

Naval aviation chief Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker has said the Super Hornet would require a life extension program because of the domino effect of delays in the next-generation fighter, the F-35C, coupled with growing demands on current carrier air wings. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told lawmakers that the Super Hornet fleet is short by two to three squadrons, which amounts to 24 to 36 aircraft.

Boeing’s congressional delegation is pressing the Navy to buy more Super Hornets, and is pushing the White House to approve pending orders placed by Kuwait and Qatar. The company also is competing for upcoming procurements by Belgium and Canada. Gillian said the company has recommended the Navy buy another 100 new aircraft, a mix of Super Hornets and Growlers. To meet the demands of the fleet in the years before the F-35C enters service, the Navy will also need to overhaul existing fighters once they reach 6,000 hours of service so they can fly an additional 3,000 hours, he said. Boeing is prepared to expand its capacity if needed. “The size and scale of the Super Hornet program is one of our biggest challenges.”

The Navy is in the midst of updating its older fleet of 150 Hornet fighters. The Super Hornet SLEP, however, “is a whole other animal,” Gillian said. “It’s a challenge to build the capacity to move that many airplanes through the system as they reach 6,000 hours,” he added. “We think we’re well positioned working with the Navy to build that program.”

In the Super Hornet overhaul, Boeing wants to avoid the problems encountered in the legacy Hornet SLEP, a program to extend the aging fighters’ service life to 10,000 flight hours. The Navy found it had insufficient engineering and manufacturing capacity to overhaul badly outdated aircraft.

Boeing took two Super Hornets to its engineering lab in St. Louis, Missouri, to “tear them apart to understand the material condition,” said Gillian. “Every airplane you open up has different challenges.” These two aircraft are referred to as "learning aircraft," he said. “The purpose is to identify and resolve unknowns related to corrosion, fatigue and any other unexpected issues.”

Gillian said Boeing also will raise the possibility of adding more expensive upgrades for each Super Hornet as they go through the SLEP, including more advanced sensors and conformal fuel tanks. The argument is that it would cost less to do these upgrades when the aircraft are already in the depot, compared to doing them later. “We are still in discussions with the Navy but it would make sense to insert upgraded capabilities while we are extending the life of them from an efficiency and affordability perspective.”

Boeing is hoping to seal a long-term Super Hornet upgrade deal soon so the work can begin in 2017. This would follow another significant services contract the company signed with the Air Force in January to maintain the T-38 trainer for another 10 years. The $855 million program would cover avionics, cockpit displays, control panels and communications systems for 456 aircraft and 37 training devices.

Executives are telling investors that Boeing is focused on building up the services business. “It's something that we have talked about for some time,” Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing's chairman, president and CEO told analysts in a conference call last month. “I can tell you that we are very serious about growing our services business. So as we've laid in our strategy for the next planning cycle and more broadly for the next decade, that is one of our focused growth areas.”

The plan is to tackle the services market as a “One Boeing” unified approach across the commercial and defense sectors, said Muilenburg. “The market is large, about $4 trillion over the next 20 years.” The strategy is to “leverage the OEM [original equipment manufacturer] knowledge that we have, and traditional parts business, and mods and upgrades businesses.”

Industry analysts said Boeing executives are wise to pursue lucrative services contracts, but that work is unlikely to fill the void left by dwindling new aircraft orders.

“SLEP and aftermarket work is profitable business, no question,” said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group. In terms of preserving an industrial base, however, it’s not enough, he said. “Creating new products, designing integrating and manufacturing new combat aircraft is a different skill set. It's profitable but different from an industrial capability standpoint.”

Boeing has a large infrastructure, and “they should take advantage of that to grow services,” Aboulafia said. “It's really profitable and feels really good but it's not the same. … In the world of combat aircraft it's not the same as cranking out 48 Super Hornets a year, that's for sure.”

Byron Callan, defense industry analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, projected that Boeing’s defense sales will be mostly flat in the 2017-2020 timeframe based on the funding outlook for major aircraft programs. Executives are playing down the impact of losing the Air Force B-21 bomber contract, and are predicting future wins in Air Force procurements like the T-X trainer and the JSTARS surveillance aircraft, but those are relatively small programs. Absent big foreign military sales deals for F/A-18s and F-15s, Callan said, Boeing faces “potentially large sales holes to plug as legacy fighter programs end.” One of Boeing’s most successful Navy aviation programs, the P-8 surveillance plane, is scheduled to wind down in fiscal year 2019, “so that program too will rely on international orders to keep the line open.”

Aviation support and services, said Callan, “remains a valuable franchise segment for Boeing as it’s a mix of spares and support for in-production aircraft and helicopters, performance-based logistics and simulation and training.”
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
That would be a tragic mistake. Sensors are equally crucial in WVR combat. Just consider a dogfight between 2 jets one has HMCS and the other has none, both have HOBS with LOAL short range missiles, which would you chose to be in?

Just take a look at the capabilities of the AMerican AIM 9x:


It clearly can target an enemy aircraft anywhere in the firing jets 360 degrees envelope. The clear implication is that the jet with the quickest sensors and targeting system will have a slight but enough advantage to turn WVR combat in its favor. Maneuvering to get a firing solution is not an issue anymore.
Not as much as Kinematic performance ,even when Mig 29 equipped with HBSM ,F 18 were still occasional able to get Kill
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
The latter one which lead Mig 35 ,not the first one .
Mig-35 :confused1:

OK sir, you are the boss.

Now you provide a link for your claim. ---> "...........Mig 29 OVT was the first one to lack such a system ,TVC engagement is fully automatic............"

 
Last edited:

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Mig-35 :confused1:

OK sir, you are the boss.

Now you provide a link for your claim. ---> "...........Mig 29 OVT was the first one to lack such a system ,TVC engagement is fully automatic............"
At 25:27
..................................................................................
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
It's normal : iraki air force was destroyed at the end of first day ! All communication node, all radar, all airfield were under ALCM attacks.
You seem to be totally unaware of the history of the Gulf War. Iraq's air force was not immediately destroyed on the first day, it took almost a week of sustained air assault by coalition forces before Iraqi pilots started running towards Iran with their planes. On the first day (Jan. 17, 1991) the Iraqi Air Force was able to make more than 100 sorties against coalition fighters. In fact, on the first day an Iraqi Air Force Mig-25 managed to destroy s US Navy F18 from BVR. During teh first week of February the Iraqi Air Force was still sending sorties against coalition aircraft but of course by then they were too depleted and their air defense system was a wreck already. One should also consider Iraq's SAMs which were still formidable even after the first week of the air war.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Not as much as Kinematic performance ,even when Mig 29 equipped with HBSM ,F 18 were still occasional able to get Kill
What kenematic performance? In WVR combat which is in subsonic region you do not talk about kenematic performance of fighters. You talk about the fastest fighter that can aim and shoot its infrared missile at the enemy. What you need in WVR are excellent fused sensors, HMCS and mach 2+ infrared missiles with HOBS and LOAL capabilities. The latest infrared missiles in particular will have more "kenematic performance" than any current or future super duper fighters in WVR.

In other words, if you have HMCS and HOBS with LOAL missile you don't need much maneuvering to shoot at the enemy, you just need to face the direction of your enemy to fire you missile. In fact you can shoot the enemy even if it is behind, below or above you.
 

sob

Mod
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
6,425
Likes
3,805
Country flag
@Yusuf @sayareakd @bengalraider
New Kit on the Block II
Changing Course, Rules of Engagement for Maritime Strike
May 16, 2016 in Defense
During recent flight tests at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Boeing and the Navy launched a network-enabled Harpoon Block II Plus from an F/A-18. Once in flight, the crew input new coordinates that redirected the missile to hit a moving target.

“Adding a datalink to the Block II Harpoon is much like adding an app to a smart phone,” said Beth Kluba, vice president of Boeing Weapons & Missile Systems. “It gives warfighters a brand-new level of precision targeting and flexibility to stay ahead of threats while keeping costs and the learning curve low.”

The U.S. Navy and Boeing are on schedule to deliver this new capability to the fleet in 2017.

Watch the video to learn from the program’s lead test pilot how the Harpoon Block II Plus will redefine war-at-sea tactics.

The Harpoon Block II Plus missile rests on the wing of the F/A-18 moments before a test launch at Naval Air Station China Lake in California.

The Harpoon Block II Plus missile completed a successful test launch from an F/A-18.
http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/05/new-kit-on-the-block-05-16.page
 

su35

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
242
Likes
184
Country flag
Sir, total how many sorties they made in entire Iraq war.

Out of it , how many numbers you are talking about "forcing them to abort their mission" / "shot down" in your post.

Don't you think the difference in numbers matters a lot.
I am not able to understand your post can you please explain a bit more?, and about no, I do not think any site will provide clear and unbaised view.
Perhaps what they lacked was leadership and discipline. But in terms of hardware they had a formidable collection of it and should have inflicted more damage than the measly lone F18 (the Tornado is not confirmed).
Tornado soht is confirmed the two pilots were
John Nichol and
[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peters_%28RAF_officer%29']John Peters

You have to look at the holistic picture of the Gulf War, not isolated incidents or claims of incidents.
That's what I am doing in earlier post you claimed the supiority of American aircraft about technology, BVR fighting and brand and I just tried you tell that it is not just the technology or ADVERTISING which makes the Difference but is Leadership and pilot skills.

[/URL]
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top