F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II Question

[fretburner]

I've been watching a few Top Gun clips as I was looking for Cheap Trick Videos, and so I was wondering...

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?

I can't find any article talking about this. I know it can detect/track simultaneously Air and Ground (fixed and moving) targets simultaneously, and drop individually targeted JDAMs, but can it do the same with air tragets and AMRAAMs?

My feeling is that it can. And if it can, it's going to be even better than the F-14 especially when the AIM-120D becomes operational.

Thanks!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I've been watching a few Top Gun clips as I was looking for Cheap Trick Videos, and so I was wondering...

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?

I can't find any article talking about this. I know it can detect/track simultaneously Air and Ground (fixed and moving) targets simultaneously, and drop individually targeted JDAMs, but can it do the same with air tragets and AMRAAMs?

My feeling is that it can. And if it can, it's going to be even better than the F-14 especially when the AIM-120D becomes operational.

Thanks!

Yes and yes, it can track multiple targets at once and its way better than the F-14.

 

[fretburner]

Cool Stuff.

Anybody else care to chip in?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can a Block 2 Super Hornet Track and Engage multiple targets simultaneously? Kinda like what the F-14 was designed to do?

The F-14 never had AESA
The F-14 never had digitised systems
The F-14 had a far slower development cycles whereas the Shornet is modular.
The F-14 never had even he remotest co-operative engagement capability as the Shornet
The F-14 could not match the Shornet for a "tri-service" CEC capability.

At an avionics, at a systems level, there is no comparison.

The best thing to understand things like this is to look at the fitout of each aircraft and then look at the publicised data and do a relative analysis.

Bear in mind that publicly released data on weapons, mission and system "systems" is very very lightweight - and deliberately so. So material in the public domain should only be indicative for assessment - its never empirical and "defensible"

Finally, this thread is skating close to the wind on being a comparison or "vs" thread - and if it's to stay open it will need to be consciously steered away from that kind of discussion (eg have a look at the Forum Rules)

 

[fretburner]

^ Thanks for reminding me about the "vs" thingy. The mods locked my 1st ever post because of that.

I'm just curious as to why Boeing or the USN isn't advertising so much the Super Hornet's air-to-air capabilities, when it really seem to be quite a capable A2A "platform"?

I know that the USN have the Aegis cruisers/destroyers, nowadays, are doing the fleet defense role, but with the super hornet able to engage multiple targets simultaneously, missiles heading to different targets at the same time, it's going to be an awesome "fleet defense" or BVR A2A fighter for countries without Aegis cruisers/destroyers.

By the way, what's CEC?

And co-operative engagement means that one fighter can pass on information via datalink and assign targets to other planes right?

Thanks!

 

[Sheriff]

Cec

CEC = Cooperative Engagement Capability
Via tactical data link all platforms can share sensor data. This way everyone can (theoretically) be reading from the same. page i.e. the Single Integrated Operational Picture (SIOP)

 

[Scorpion82]

^ Thanks for reminding me about the "vs" thingy. The mods locked my 1st ever post because of that.

I'm just curious as to why Boeing or the USN isn't advertising so much the Super Hornet's air-to-air capabilities, when it really seem to be quite a capable A2A "platform"?

I know that the USN have the Aegis cruisers/destroyers, nowadays, are doing the fleet defense role, but with the super hornet able to engage multiple targets simultaneously, missiles heading to different targets at the same time, it's going to be an awesome "fleet defense" or BVR A2A fighter for countries without Aegis cruisers/destroyers.

By the way, what's CEC?

And co-operative engagement means that one fighter can pass on information via datalink and assign targets to other planes right?

Thanks!

Well the CEC and multi target engagement capabilities aren't something special at all now adays. Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well the CEC and multi target engagement capabilities aren't something special at all now adays. Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

CEC is for theater level distribution. MIDS et al. are tactical, e.g. four ship, although both carry fire control quality data.

 

[ROCK45]

I'm not sure if this was covered or not but I was wondering besides this attached article providing some useful information does anybody know more?

Would being bring the thrust up 26,600 per engine help the SH in air to air? Or because of the design 30,000 lbs or 32,000 lbs is needed? The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120C7, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade
Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade

 

[Bonza]

The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120D, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

It's not. Don't let the Sukhoi fanboys fool you, the SH Block II is a damn capable aircraft. I'm just an enthusiast so I don't want to act as though I'm blessed with expert knowledge, but with some google searches you should be able to find some decent commentary on the aircraft from actual pilots and military personnel, rather than the self proclaimed "experts" who love to sound off on the aircraft's shortcomings on the internet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Virtually all halfway decent fighters provide these capabilities today.

SHornet is slated for Link22. Link16 in comparison, is an ark compared to the extra capability that we're already seeing in the Link22 project.

Not all capabilities are the same - and even some of the current non-US 4th gens are still being fitted out with Link16

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm not sure if this was covered or not but I was wondering besides this attached article providing some useful information does anybody know more?

Would being bring the thrust up 26,600 per engine help the SH in air to air? Or because of the design 30,000 lbs or 32,000 lbs is needed? The way some people talk about the the Super Hornet any modern fighter can beat it. I'm sure with 9X,AIM-120D, weapons systems, ASEA radar, etc it can't be such an easy mark right?

Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade
Boeing's Super Hornet seeks export sale to launch 20% thrust upgrade

It certainly isn't going to hurt. The extra thrust will assist with acceleration, important for missile launch and also in the "knife fight" so, yes extra thrust will improve capability in this area.

As an overall benefit? It will probably make it seemingly more competitive against those fighters that tout their "performance advantage" because most of the Super Hornet's real capability in comparison to it's competitors is in it's EW, sensor/sensor fusion and weapons capability and these capabilities are not as "sellable" to the gullible as flashy air show manoeuvres...

The real test will be whether USN opts for the upgrade. If they do, it can be inferred to offer a genuine improvement. If not...

 

[fretburner]

If I may ask another:

Would you folks believe of Boeing's claims that the Super Hornet would have the lowest frontal RCS for any current non-stealth aircraft?

It's supposed to be a bigger aircraft than the original Hornet and if you look at it from the front, it looks the same apart from the redesigned intakes. I don't know how big a factor the LO technologies on the intakes is.

Thanks again!

 

[ROCK45]

Hornets

Thanks everybody your input it was useful but I still have questions. How fighters merge always intrests me but shouldn't a SH have a solid egde with its radar for getting into a good firing postion? Don't Hornet's beat Eagles and Vipers some times in mock fighting in inter squadron training?

 

[Bonza]

If I may ask another:

Would you folks believe of Boeing's claims that the Super Hornet would have the lowest frontal RCS for any current non-stealth aircraft?

It's supposed to be a bigger aircraft than the original Hornet and if you look at it from the front, it looks the same apart from the redesigned intakes. I don't know how big a factor the LO technologies on the intakes is.

Thanks again!

Others are far more qualified to answer this than myself, but it's my understanding that the application of radar absorbent materials to the airframe plays a large part in the signature reduction of any LO platform. I imagine this would be particularly true for a "non-LO" airframe such as the Super Hornet.

GF could explain it much better than I could, and there's a thread on this forum somewhere (I can't remember where exactly but I'll have a look for you) where he gave an excellent brief rundown of LO capability and history.

EDIT: Here's a link to the thread in which GF gave a rundown on LO I think you'll find very interesting, it's post #99 on the following page:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...-towards-european-solution-7135-7/#post125848

 

[fretburner]

Others are far more qualified to answer this than myself, but it's my understanding that the application of radar absorbent materials to the airframe plays a large part in the signature reduction of any LO platform. I imagine this would be particularly true for a "non-LO" airframe such as the Super Hornet.

I haven't read about the Super Hornet have RAM?

I got this from Janes: Boeing hedges against JSF delays with stealthier Super Hornet - Jane's Defence Business News

The basic Super Hornet already incorporates some LO technology, including edge alignments, swept inlets and treated blocker vanes in front of the engines, and the Phantom Works has been working since the early 1990s on ways to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of conventional aircraft and external stores.

I don't know how RCS reduction you can get from those?


By the way...thanks for the link. I read the entire post

 

[Scorpion82]

SHornet is slated for Link22. Link16 in comparison, is an ark compared to the extra capability that we're already seeing in the Link22 project.

Not all capabilities are the same - and even some of the current non-US 4th gens are still being fitted out with Link16

And what has this to do with the fact that multi target and cooperative target engagement capabilities are neither extraordinary, nor unique to the SH? BTW is LINK 22 supposed to be downwards compatible with LINK 16?

 

[OPSSG]

By the way...thanks for the link. I read the entire post

Read this link written by Greg for more background Super Hornet information.

 

[fretburner]

Read this link written by Greg for more background Super Hornet information.

Cool stuff. That was the 1st website I read that mentioned RAM coatings:

"...he geometry of the engine inlets was tweaked and more RAM was fitted; a baffle was developed by GE that was fitted in front of the F414 engines to eliminate reflections from the engine fan; and some airframe changes were made to eliminate radar traps. "

Nice

Maybe the Super Hornet really does have that low a RCS.

 

[Firn]

While the Super Hornet has a substantially smaller radar cross section than the original Hornet, Boeing engineers believe that it can be cut further. Boeing has introduced new conformal fuel tanks for the F-15 that incorporate "stealthy" weapons bays for an AAM or light munition, and that might well be an option for the Super Bug as well. The new avionics of the Block 2 Super Hornet, particularly the AN/APG-79 AESA, may make the fighter more attractive in the export market as well.

* The Super Hornet has been a thoroughly abused aircraft, with its critics sparing little in their attacks, and its defenders calling the critics liars. Its murky origins are not inspirational, and even its defenders admit it lacks an edge in speed and agility.

However, it is worth asking if that edge makes a big difference. The second-generation Harrier II VTOL strike fighter is distinctly slower than the first-generation Harrier I, but the Harrier II is a far more capable aircraft, with greater load and range, as well as much more sophisticated avionics. Nobody makes much fuss about degraded performance -- though admittedly the Harrier II is regarded strictly as a strike aircraft. The Super Hornet has much the same set of advantages over the Hornet I, and can carry an awesome range of weaponry. In the era of advanced AAMs that really work, its defects as a dogfighter may not count for much.

I rather liked the summary. It never ceases to amaze me that raw flight performance, while valuable and important always seems to come first in many minds. The Superbug seems to be a well cooked menu with the right ingredients in place.