F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II Question
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
At Avalon this year I was talking to an F-111 pilot who had done quite a bit of flying in the Super Hornet, and he was telling me a great deal of the Block II avionics capability was adapted from Boeing's X-32 JSF bid. I imagine the LO treatments on the SH were applied with lessons learned from the X-32 in mind, so the RCS reduction is most likely, as the saying goes, "tactically significant".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.
Wasn't the APG-79 intended for the X-32?
Which reminds me - what number should the F-18E really have? F-24? That would make the JSF F-25, of course.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Depends how if you number the X-32 as the F-25 or F-26
the road runner
Active Member
The APG-79 and some avionics of the superbugs, was used in Boeings bid for the JSF the X-32.
The Superbugs is used by US Navy.The US Navy are the ones who project power anywhere on our worlds oceans.For this Reason,i see the F18EFG as an awsome Capability.It fights in littoral environments,fights from thousands of miles from home,fights from hundreds of miles from the carrier,fights in a salty/harsh environment.
It has dual roles,strike and fighter capability,its a versatile platform,was delivered on budget and ahead of Schedual.Pilots that fly the Aircraft...swear by its capabilities.
Superbugs are known to have the 3rd lowest Radar cross section,after the F-22 and JSF.
Gf,Aussie Digger and Aberaham G.........wrote of the RCS of the Superhornets in this forum somewere........im not sure if its in the Indian Airforce thread of Raaf thread but i will try to find the info...and post the link
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
Good stuff. Gotta look up those threads.
Did the US Navy get what they really asked for? It seems like they did. I read somewhere that it was like what they imagined the TomCat to be decades ago, as far as fleet defence is concerned, and what they really wanted in a strike fighter at the same time. After all, the original hornet, has been viewed by some as a 2nd rate fighter, a USAF reject.
Neither. It doesn't get an F- number, any more than the X-29, X-31 or other technology demonstrators.
Huh? Because CEC is not CEC, or all CEC's aren't "equal". It's the sum of systems included at the time. If you look at CEC that operates today in some airforces it is an ark compared to what we're currently testing.
Link22 has to work with Link16 because its still a core capability - why would it not? We all need to be able to "down" talk to Link16 as its on more than aircraft.
At the capability level, I've seen nothing in the roadmap to date which even indicates a spiral development of Link22 into the F-22 - and thats due to a number of reasons. (it's one of the very significant development differences between JSF and F-22 and the lessons learnt from he F-22 program of what not to do). F-22's like Gripens can do discretionary hands off to themselves. (Although the F-22 has an extended comms reach)
The Shornet was designed to be able to take advantage of COTS solutions as well, I can't think of any other current production non US fighter that has leveraged off of COTS principles as much as the Shornet
If you think that anyone else has the same degree of CEC at a triservice level as the US then I'm all ears. I know what partners come to our ewarfare development meetings and that includes UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Canada and a few others that have observer status. No one in that group reaches the same degree of sophistication that the US has at a tri-service,/multi-service level in a full theatre battlespace.
If they did we'd all be clammering to their development doors. Hence why all of us are riding the US train to take advanage of their largesse and capability. CEC at flight and short squadron level between fighter planes is what generally everyone on the internet gets excited about - we've moved way beyond that. Sweden and UK (who are regarded as having good discretionary localised CEC certainly know that this is in a different league.
CEC is not new as a principle - but the capability developed and in development now sure as hell is different between the primary player and everyone else. Thats the harsh reality
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
Talk about the Super Hornet Radar... the APG-72 and APG-63v3 should have roughly the same capabilities right?
Found this article in aviationweek.com:
Japanese Patient For Tacair Opportunities | AVIATION WEEK
However, aerospace industry officials say the JASDF is upgrading its single seat F-15Js with APG-63(v1) radars that provide digital reliability but not the AESA effect. It retains a mechanically scanned antenna. Japanese officials are looking for money to add the AESA antenna, which would convert the radar to v3 models. The further modification practically triples the radar’s range to 125-150 miles and makes it possible to lock on small targets, like cruise missiles, and stealthier aircraft.
Awesome!
Makes you wonder too if the F-22's radar would hit 200miles
the road runner
Active Member
Alot of info on Radars is speculative...........i just basically re gurgitate info i have read in mags and websites.
I would think the APG-79 would be a much more advanced radar system,being developed in the late 90's.It was designed from the outset to be an ASEA radar......
The APG-63 radars were developed in the 70's and have technology added over time..........
APG-70 was a re design in the 80's of the original APG-63 for greater reliability
APG-63(V)1 is a re design in the 90's of the original APG-63.
The APG-63(V)2/3 is a very intresting radars, with technology of the APG-79 ASEA added.
I would assume that the APG-79 would be more advanced ,than the original APG-63,but the APG-63(V)3 would have to be on par with the APG-79.
Altho i do think the APG-79 would have better sensor and overall,greater capability.......but not by much.
Comments welcomed
Good post - basically, USN and the USAF are constantly developing and improving their AESA radar technology. Over time, they will infuse new technology from other developmental efforts into even older platforms.
There's now the APG-82 - a Raytheon supplied AESA radar upgrade for the F-15E of the USAF. This is actually a very clever marketing maneuver. It's a repackaged front-end from an APG-79 and a back-end derived from the APG-63(V)3. But the USAF supplied designation means Raytheon can boast a "newer" radar than the Northrop Grumman APG-82 flying on the Lockheed Martin F-35.
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
Super Hornet don't has LINK22 right now, LINK 22 isn't fielded right now, so what's the point? And what makes you so sure others won't adopt it as well?
I think you mean APG-82.
Sorry typo... yes, I mean the APG-82.
Where did I say it wouldn't? In fact there are 8+2 partners involved. (Invitation only - not an FMS article/artifact)
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
How capable do you think will this APG-82 be? Probably more capable than the SH's and F-15SG's, but not as capable as the F-35's? It's still based on the APG-79 afterall right?Sorry typo... yes, I mean the APG-82.
While it is hard to say for certain, I would presume that the APG-82 would be the most capable AESA radar on the F-15. Some background information of the development of AESA radar for the F-15s may help place things in its proper context for you.
(i) The USAF first installed Raytheon’s APG-63(V)2 in the F-15Cs at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska in December 2000.
(ii) The APG-63(V)3 AESA radar combines APG-63(V)2 software with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s APG-79 AESA radar. The APG-63(v)3 uses lighter and more advanced AESA technologies that include a tile array arrangement, and a new processor. This model of AESA radar is installed in the USAF's F15Cs and the F-15SGs.
(iii) In October 2008, Boeing was awarded a System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract by the USAF for F-15Es - this SDD contract resulted in Raytheon's development of the APG-63(V)4 (and subsequently renamed APG-82). It's a repackaged front-end from an APG-79 and a back-end derived from the APG-63(V)3. I would speculate that this new radar model would have improvements in its air-to-ground mode, as it is intended for Strike Eagles.
Kindly note that the USAF's Strike Eagles perform a slightly different role from the USN's SH. Logically, the design of the radar should follow the intended mission function of the aircraft. I'm sure that Raytheon is constantly seeking to improve its products and given that the APG-79 (on the SH) was developed earlier, I would presume (but I'm not sure) that the APG-82 radar model (to be installed on the F-15Es) is more capable.
I'm not keen in trying to compare the F-15E's new AESA radar vs the F-35's radar - as I have thus far not seen information released that would enable us to make a meaningful comparison.
Last edited:
18 F-15Cs received the APG-63(v)2.
The first contract for the APG-63(v)3 upgrade of F-15Cs (178 planned, but most not contracted for yet) was awarded in October 2007, for ANG aircraft. Boeing said then that the upgrades would begin in early 2009. AFAIK, no F-15C is operational with the APG-63(v)3. The ANG said in 2007 it would upgrade 6 to 8 aircraft a year.
Thanks for the clarification/correction.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
^Very cool stuff OPSSG and Swerve!
I didn't know the USAF are upgrading that many F-15C radars to AESA, more so, to the APG-63v3. I read that they were upgrading those in Alaska (Golden Eagles they call it?) but didn't know they're at least planning to upgrade to the v3 - the same radar on the F-15SG - for almost 200 of them. I thought they're were only doing the upgrades to test or gain knowledge "in advance" before the F-22's replace all the F-15C's. I guess they're doing this now since they'll only be getting 187 F-22's?
I know that they're not going to retire the F-15E's as it has a very different role than the C's. This APG-82 seems like a much more capable radar than the APG-63v3, and maybe even more capable than the APG-79, even though, as you've mentioned, the Strike Eagles have quite a different role than the Super Hornets.
I think the Super Hornets with the F-35s, and the Strike Eagles with the F-22s (and F-35s) would be around for a long time. Seems like these "legacy" fighters can still hold their own against the 4.5gen fighters, especially when the AIM-120D becomes fully operational.
Thanks for the replies!
I didn't know the USAF are upgrading that many F-15C radars to AESA, more so, to the APG-63v3. I read that they were upgrading those in Alaska (Golden Eagles they call it?) but didn't know they're at least planning to upgrade to the v3 - the same radar on the F-15SG - for almost 200 of them. I thought they're were only doing the upgrades to test or gain knowledge "in advance" before the F-22's replace all the F-15C's. I guess they're doing this now since they'll only be getting 187 F-22's?
I know that they're not going to retire the F-15E's as it has a very different role than the C's. This APG-82 seems like a much more capable radar than the APG-63v3, and maybe even more capable than the APG-79, even though, as you've mentioned, the Strike Eagles have quite a different role than the Super Hornets.
I think the Super Hornets with the F-35s, and the Strike Eagles with the F-22s (and F-35s) would be around for a long time. Seems like these "legacy" fighters can still hold their own against the 4.5gen fighters, especially when the AIM-120D becomes fully operational.
Thanks for the replies!