No, there are new-build F-16C/D (block 52+) without AESA entering service right now, & more on order for at least 3 countries. There are non-AESA F-15s being built as I type, & F-18A-D scheduled to stay in service beyond 2015. Unless everyone retrofits them, there will be many non-AESA F-15 & F-16 in service past 2020.
Current F-16 Versions Are World's Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighters?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
Thanks Magoo.
As always you have come up with a summary of the leading contenders that non experts like me can follow reasonably easily.
Cheers
Most Advanced Multi-Role Nomination
I found a pretty decent Power Point Slide show that summarizes some of the F/A-18E/F's capabilities. See below...
http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/International/4202_Wallace.ppt
...Take a look when you get a chance.
Also, remember that all F/A-18F can be converted to EA-18G configuration to provide the most powerful fighter borne EW aircraft platform in the history of war:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/ea18g/index.html
Additionally, F/A-18E/F are capable of conducting mine and limited ASW warfare task:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n75/Htm/ConceptDocs/Navy_USMC/MWP4thEd/images/pg80.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n75/Htm/ConceptDocs/Navy_USMC/MWP4thEd/appendix_e.htm
I think it goes without saying that this aircraft is without equal as a multi-role platform.
DA
P.S. It's also getting more powerful less maintenance intensive engines:
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20020722i.html
Boeing has also said that the Super Hornet Block III will have even more intensive signature management for further reductions in RCS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Super_Hornet#Upgrades
Raytheon AESA Technology Summary:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_018786.pdf
I found a pretty decent Power Point Slide show that summarizes some of the F/A-18E/F's capabilities. See below...
http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/International/4202_Wallace.ppt
...Take a look when you get a chance.
Also, remember that all F/A-18F can be converted to EA-18G configuration to provide the most powerful fighter borne EW aircraft platform in the history of war:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/ea18g/index.html
Additionally, F/A-18E/F are capable of conducting mine and limited ASW warfare task:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n75/Htm/ConceptDocs/Navy_USMC/MWP4thEd/images/pg80.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n75/Htm/ConceptDocs/Navy_USMC/MWP4thEd/appendix_e.htm
I think it goes without saying that this aircraft is without equal as a multi-role platform.
DA
P.S. It's also getting more powerful less maintenance intensive engines:
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20020722i.html
Boeing has also said that the Super Hornet Block III will have even more intensive signature management for further reductions in RCS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Super_Hornet#Upgrades
Raytheon AESA Technology Summary:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_018786.pdf
Last edited:
Thanks Tas
I've amended some info on Rafale and Sukhoi based on some feedback I've received.
Cheers
Magoo
Thanks for the power point presentation DA. Even allowing for some 'sales pitch' it does provide an impressive outline of the multi role capability of the Super Bug.
Cheers
Scorpion82
New Member
@Magoo
Believe me the Eurofighter Typhoon has already achieved mach 1.2 with AAMs and external fuel tanks though the exact configuration is unknown. I have received more than one confirmation about that. And its not limited to specific weather conditions though that might have an effect. The aicraft was even able to supercruise in the singapourean evaluation.
@DA,
the block III SH hasn't been ordered and was more a Boeing proposal for the case the F-35 being canceled or significantly delayed. I think this version won't be developed at all. But time will tell...
The Captor is not that limited in the AG role at all. Though not all features are available for block 5 aircraft it already features a number of AG modes.
Believe me the Eurofighter Typhoon has already achieved mach 1.2 with AAMs and external fuel tanks though the exact configuration is unknown. I have received more than one confirmation about that. And its not limited to specific weather conditions though that might have an effect. The aicraft was even able to supercruise in the singapourean evaluation.
@DA,
the block III SH hasn't been ordered and was more a Boeing proposal for the case the F-35 being canceled or significantly delayed. I think this version won't be developed at all. But time will tell...
The following is the first paragraph for the link.
“The EA-18G, currently under development for the U.S. Navy, will be the cornerstone of the naval airborne electronic attack (AEA) mission. Derived from the combat proven F/A-18F aircraft, the EA-18G incorporates advanced AEA avionics bringing transformational capability for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and integrated air/ground operations.”
It states clearly that the EA-18G is derived from the F/A-18F. It does not state that an EA-18G can be created by converting a F/A-18F.
Embodying the necessary modifications by retrofit is likely to be difficult and expensive. Deploying some of the systems used on the EA-18G on the F/A-18F may be possible. If you want an EA-18G buy a new one.
It is worth remembering that in order to equip the EA-18G for the SEAD role, some equipment installed on the F/A-18F has had to be omitted from the EA-18G. So even if full conversion is possible, the resulting aircraft would loose some of the capability of the F/A-18F.
There may be a half-way house for the RAAF, if it does not want to buy dedicated EA-18G aircraft. It may be possible to include provision for some of the EA-18G systems in the new build F/A-18F aircraft. If the wiring is included during build, the equipment can be added as required. This could provide an enhanced SEAD capability, but not at the level of capability of the EA-18G.
The halfway house approach has some advantages, but also has a down side. If the enhanced SEAD capability is not included in the whole fleet two standards of aircraft have to be supported. If the capability is only included in a few aircraft, then there may be problems with aircraft availability and operational losses. A similar argument can be made for the acceptable degree of divergence form the standard US F/1-18F & EA-18G aircraft. If the RAAF aircraft are too far from the US aircraft then further developments may be difficult to incorporate in the RAAF aircraft.
Ideally if the SEAD “Lite” approach was adopted all of the aircraft should be built to the same standard. Unfortunately I think that the RAAF needs the aircraft quickly and must settle for USN specified aircraft. In which case the best option would be to purchase all of the F/A-18F aircraft to the same USN specification and buy a small number of standard dedicated SEAD EA-18G aircraft.
BTW:
Much of my career has been spent developing modifications to avionic equipment and integrating it with the aircraft.
I have found that the difficulty involved increases by the 2nd order power law for the number of configurations involved, multiplied by a 4th order power law factor taking account the distance between the special version from the standard version. The moral here is if at all possible stick with the standard version.
If deviation from standard is required then meticulous attention to detail is required. Even within the same block of aircraft there are often small changes in configuration that can be significant when developing modifications. (e.g. wiring that should be connected A-B-C is connected A-C-B, work the same, but if the modification instructions says, remove link from A-B and connect A-D, the maintainer is stuck because there is no link between A & B, instead there is a link between A & C.)
And finally a little saying, “Configuration Control, like virginity, once lost is rather difficult to retrofit”.
Chris
Scorpion82
New Member
Not all F/A-18F can be converted to EA-18G, only the newer modells. And as Chris said such conversion would be not that easy or at least the quality of new EA-18G might be more difficult to reach. You have to take into account that the EA-18G as such is new aircraft. The armament of this version will be limited to AMRAAM and HARM.
ASW warfare is an task which could be adapted to any other aircraft as well in the form as it is the case of the SH. That's the same with most of the missions. The question is does the customer need these capabilities? There is a reason why many customers integrate only a limited range of weapons. Most haven't the requirement, but if it is required nearly every advanced fighter could be adapted for the most roles.
And again neither the range of weapons being integrated, nor the range of mission which can be performed define the most advanced.
CAPTOR does have some a2g modes but the current capability is limited and doesn't hold a candle to what will be possible if Tranche 3 if properly managed and the technological/financial issues are worked out. For now though Eurofighter is very limited as a "swing-role" fighter. You can confirm this from company and user literature alike. That is a fact.
Block III SH is a planned upgrade for the SH series. This is the USN's premier fighter for the next 30 years and you better believe that Block III will not be the last upgrade over the life span of the platform. It's fascinating that people speak of upgrades to other platforms but when it comes to the DoD, their platforms seem to be "fixed" in place. Thats not a supportable conclusion nor is it objective.
DA
F/A-18F to EA-18G is and has always been part of the USN plan to maintain its carrier borne EW capability throughout the life span of that platform. It's neither difficult or expensive. The power point slide is not an all inclusive document as I stated prior to posting the link. Additionally, the EA-18G is not limited to HARMs and AMRAAMs.
Another thing, this thread isn't about "IF" other fighters can be adopted for a different role. All F-15 and F-16s could get APG-77/80 and F119 engines ect. But that would be pure speculation and irrelevant without evidence that such modifications were even proposed. The thread is about "which" fighter is the most advanced multi-role platform.
An objective thorough look at the current state of the art clearly shows the Block II Super Hornet to be the most advanced multi-role platform flying
today by far. Looking into whats planned for the next 10 years shows it will not be challenged in that role until the introduction of the F-35A-C and possibly the advanced versions of the F-15E and F-22A Block 40.
DA
Scorpion82
New Member
Block 1 F/A-18F won't be converted to the EA-18G. There're to many differences.
According what I read/heared about the Growler it will be limited to these weapons and it doesn't need other weapons for this mission. You have to take into account that a lot of the aircraft's pylons will be reserved for the jamming pods and some for fuel.
I'm still not convinced that the block 2 SH is the most advanced multirole fighter "by far". The Super Hornet might be more capable in some directions as other fighters, but a lot of technologies are offered by other fighters as well as technologies which aren't available for the Super Hornet.
The Super Hornet lacks technologies like ESM, LWR, MAW, TRN, MLS, DVI etc. Its autopilot isn't as flexible and external FLIR pods are more unlikely to be carried during AA missions or at least would be carried at the expense of drag.
The only new thing I learned from your links about the Super Hornet is the fact that the block 2 model has more sensor fusion, though that was something I had expected.
Scorpion82
New Member
Did I mentioned or alledged anywhere that the Typhoon's current AG capabilities are very limited? NO I didn't so why do speak about things and try to prove them which were neither the topic nor questioned anyhow.
Full AG potential is planned for Block 10/15 (Tranche 2). Tranche 3 will see more improvements, but the capabilities will be already very good with the later Tranche 2 modells.
I never said something like "the Super Hornet won't be upgraded". I suggest you to read more carefully and stop to lay things in my mouth I never said.
All SHs now on order are block 2. These will be further upgraded in the future that's for sure, but to my understanding the block 3 model was proposed for the time beyond SHs production run for the USN, as an alternative in the case the F-35C might be canceled or significantly delayed. If you have more up to date information about that feel free to share them.
Why are you on the defensive and cherry picking your argument? Why is there even a need for an argument? I haven't said anything different than the vast majority of others here. All I've done is summarize and consolidate the evidence that demonstrates some of the fact behind the SH being the most advanced multi-role strike fighter. Moreover, I've provided several real world examples backed by official links. The case is overwhelming.
I do however respect your right to disagree. In which case we can leave it at that unless you have some specific data that you can provide. That way we can weigh them in the balance and avoid a "mine is better cuz it's mine" or acronym contest.
DA
you should put su-34 in there instead of su-30mk, although it's replacing su-24s in Russian AF, it actually still has decent air combat capability. In terms of range, payload and maneuverability, it does quite well. I would list that as the most capable multi-role plane from the flankers series.
Scorpion82
New Member
You say the F-teens are superior to the ECDs in any area except flight performance where they are on par and that's not what the "vast majority" here says. It's something where I disagree and I already said why. That is how our discussion started. Now it has more moved to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet particulary.
But should we even consider the SH when we speak about F-teens and ECDs? You say the SH is a completly new aircraft and that it is 5th generation, while the F-teens are 4th generation. I agree with you that the SH is next generation in contrast to the F-teens. But that doesn't matter as the topic is "which type is the most advanced multirole fighter".
The main problem in my opinion is the definition of "most advanced multirole fighter". Basically all advanced 4th and 5th generation fighters are multirole, but to a different level.
The F/A-18E/F is currently the aircraft which can perform the widest range of missions, closly followed by the F-16 and F-15E, though it has to be considered that not all F-16s or F-15Es use the same weapons and perform the same missions. That isn't the case for the Super Hornet and so it is the most flexible platform to date.
Without any doubt the F/A-18 Super Hornet is one of the most advanced and capable multirole fighters in the world, but it is neither the best at everything nor superior in every area to the ECDs.
Eurofighter and Rafale has similar NCW capbilities using the MIDS and MIDS seems not to be MIDS. It depends on the systems integration with other systems. In terms of EWS it would be interesting to know what the ALE-214 is capble to do. Does it use ESA for jamming beam direction? The ALR-67V3 is an advanced RWR but it seems to lack ranging capabilities as it is the case with the RWR/ESM of Rafale or Typhoon. The Rafale even incooperates ELINT capabilities and it can silently attack aircraft without using the datalink at BVR distances. The ECDs RWR/ESM can present lethal zones of airdefences and scanning zones of airborne radars takeing terrain profiles into account. The SH has no MAWs which might be essential for the aircraft's survivability on the battlefield and it has no LWR though I don't think that this is that important at the moment. How developed is the SHs sensor fusion at all? Does the sensor fusion create track files integrating the data from all the sensors or does it only present the different sensor inputs on a single display with differentiation which sensor provides what?
What about MMI? The Super Hornet lacks VTAS and a comprehensive DVO, I couldn't find any information about electronic checklists and automatic display switching on a "need to know" basis. As mentioned its autopilot seems to be limited to carrier approachs, catching and holding the heading to track flight path and altitude and attitude stabilization. No Autothrottle AFAIK, no terrain following and no autoattack in the primary selected target. The SH lacks a digital terrain reference navigation system ensuring covert terrain following flights at low altitude (though this kind of mission profile has become a little bit outdated today).
The capabilities described for the ECDs are available NOW. The Rafale can conduct strike missions with long range stanoff missiles or with IIR/INS/GPS guided bombs. The AASM bomb offers a range up to 60 km thanks to its rocket booster and it can engage a vaste array of targets.
You see there're a lot of areas where the Super Hornet lacks behind, though there're other areas like versatility due to weapons integration and AESA radar where the Super Hornet has an edge. To reveil the truely most advanced multi-role fighter it is necessary to weight the factors against each other and an analysis about specific mission performance, using predefined scnearios would be the best way to come to a conclusion.
But it has to be taken into account that there're a lot of unknown variables and that the reality might look different, if the variables significantly differ from the assumptions.
This is the problem when comparing aircraft A with aircraft B...there's just too much subjectiveness to wade through!!!
Most air arms when shopping for a new combat aircraft lay out a set of requirements, some of which are mandatory baselines, and others optional or "preferred".
They will specifiy their desired combat radius, the aircraft's range/payload minima, what missions will be required of it, what it's loiter time at a certain number of kms from base must be, whether it can be datalinked, what weapons it must be able to carry, whether it is compatible with the incumbent AAR and AEW and other assets (e.g. Singapore has GE powered F-16s so it chose GE powered F-15s), and perhaps most importantly, that you can get about the number of airframes you require for your budget.
Once a shortlist of eligible contenders is drawn up, then smaller but no less important considerations like local industry participation and in-country support come into play, as do planned or projected growth paths, non-recurring costs, and political alliances are taken into account if going through FMS or government to government agreements.
And lastly, when you do business in certain parts of the world, it is almost a given that some kind of kickback will be required to paythe middle men in the transaction - it's not corruption, it's just how you do business, and it may mean the difference between getting or not getting a contract.
Cheers
Magoo
Most air arms when shopping for a new combat aircraft lay out a set of requirements, some of which are mandatory baselines, and others optional or "preferred".
They will specifiy their desired combat radius, the aircraft's range/payload minima, what missions will be required of it, what it's loiter time at a certain number of kms from base must be, whether it can be datalinked, what weapons it must be able to carry, whether it is compatible with the incumbent AAR and AEW and other assets (e.g. Singapore has GE powered F-16s so it chose GE powered F-15s), and perhaps most importantly, that you can get about the number of airframes you require for your budget.
Once a shortlist of eligible contenders is drawn up, then smaller but no less important considerations like local industry participation and in-country support come into play, as do planned or projected growth paths, non-recurring costs, and political alliances are taken into account if going through FMS or government to government agreements.
And lastly, when you do business in certain parts of the world, it is almost a given that some kind of kickback will be required to paythe middle men in the transaction - it's not corruption, it's just how you do business, and it may mean the difference between getting or not getting a contract.
Cheers
Magoo
Please name a mission where a ECD would out perform a Super Hornet?
No, they don't. The AESA adds the capability for much higher bandwidth and data collection. It's like comparing a telephone modem and paper encyclopedia to the internet and a T1 line connection. They do the same things yes. But one is much more efficient and faster. Then there is the matter of the Super Hornet being set up to use the Wideband Networking Waveform, TTNT and is already Link-16 compatible. Now lets face a fact. Typhoons and Rafales are operated by close allies and will probably receive the MIDS JTRS eventually. But this is a FY07 Super Hornet capability and is second to none for NCW so on the basis or NCW comparison, ECD are not competitive with the Super Hornet if NCW is a key requirement...
http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1104
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/1059.html
Again, these are incorrect assertions. Not only is the F/A-18E/F's IDECM as capable as SPECTRA or DASS. It also has a towed decoy system. The Super Hornet's AESA also adds superior ELINT and Offensive AEA capability...
http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/brochures/pdfs/01_b38_001.pdf
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Feb06_EOE.pdf
...this should settle the debate on ECM within reason. The Super Hornet actually has a more comprehensive ECM suite considering the towed decoy. And all ECD lack AEA capability all together.
I provided data on sensor fusion. The F/A-18E/F has sensor fusion just like the ECD. You are bringing in a very subjective analysis to even include it. I could sit in a Eurofighter, and for me, I could think its the greatest sensor fusion in the world. Another person may think the F/A-18E has the best. We might as well be discussing which is the best color paint job at this point. MMI???...LOL. All aircraft have MMI. Just more or less. People who have flown and been to war with the Super Hornet scream nothing but praises. Its said to be one of the easiest aircraft in the world to fly. Considering the difference between life and death combat and a manufactures unverified claims, there is no higher praise.
AASM bombs aren't operational. Nor can Rafale use these weapons on the fly real time. Super Hornet can do that with AESA/JDAM though...
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031021m.html
...Beyond 60km, on the fly and against unplanned targets while simultaneously firing AMRAAMs conducting terrain avoidance and offensive electronic warfare against threat radars. In addition, the F/A-18F can fight from both cockpits against both air and ground targets independently.
To date, other than state subjective opinion, you have provided no explanation or evidence to suggest that the Super Hornet Lacks behind the ECD in any way. Oh, except that it doesn't let you talk to it...
DA
When the Australian Wheat Board 'allegedly' did this in Iraq to gain wheat contracts it was certainly seen as corruption by critics both within Australia and overseas, including the USA. Sadly though I suspect you are correct when you say that 'its just how you do business', at least in some parts of the world.
Cheers
Last month, they were about where the F-18Es AESA radar was last September, i.e. in production & undergoing final operational qualification tests before being accepted for service. In an emergency, they'd be used.
I seem to remember you saying much the same about the F-18E before the APG-79 entered OPEVAL (July 2006) as you're saying now, & citing the AESA radar as one of the reasons for its superiority, even though it was then further from operational acceptance than the AASM is now.
[Addendum]
Raytheons website still says the APG-79 is undergoing OPEVAL. What's the expected date for service entry?