I would like to add that 4 of the 24 F-15SGs (with the APG-63(V)3 radar) have been delivered thus far. I'm waiting to see if the Singapore air force upgrades to the APG-82 for their remaining F-15SGs.
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II Question
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
I don't know if all 178 planned will actually be upgraded. Contracts haven't been signed for anywhere near that number. According to this document, 18 ANG upgrades were financed from FY 06 to FY 08/09, but this article says 23 radars, of which one was a spare. Whichever, it's quite a slow rate. Ah - Globalsecurity says that 8 of those are for the USAF.
Gottit! 6+8+4 (18) upgrades for the ANG, plus one spare radar. 8 for the USAF. Total 26 upgrades, 27 radars, plus any in the current budget. The last 4 for the ANG have been funded since the Globalsecurity & Defense Update articles.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
I stumbled upon a different forum and the reason why the rate is rather too slow is that the USAF are still posturing in getting more F-22s? I guess the F-22 supporters are afraid that people in Congress and maybe Sec. Gates would feel confident about keeping to 187 Raptors and just upgrade the F-15s to ensure Air Dominance in the decades ahead?
edit: Do you guys look at the Block II Super Hornet as a Gen 4.5 plane?
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
My Opinion
Well i see the F-18EFG,Su30MKI, F-15SG and F-16(block 60) as all 4th generation Aircraft.
I do not like calling the above 4.5 generation Aircraft as the lines get blured between 4th and 5th generation.
Some people do call the F18 Super Bugs 4.5th generation(even Boeing call the super bugs 4.5 generation),but was dose the .5 represent? An advanced radar,sensors,ect.?
I consider a 5th generation aircraft to have a low observable Radar cross section,and internal weapons load with fused/networked sensors.
I consider a 4th generation Aircraft to have a radar,weapons carried externally,pods carried externally.
The term 4.5th generation ,i consider a smart marketing ploy.
Why would you buy a 4th generation fighter of XX when you can buy a 4.5 generation aircraft of YY.
:Be kind in your replies
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
^ I think a lot of people would give that 4.5 gen tag because of some "stealth" technologies in the aircraft (as per F22/F35 "stealth" definitions)? For example, the EF and Rafale are supposed to be "stealthy", but Boeing would claim, the SH would have lower frontal RCS than those two?
And would you consider the F-15SE to be a 4.5 gen? It's supposedly "stealthy" (depending how "stealthy" the US govt will allow it to be), carries weapons internally, and will have the APG-82
And would you consider the F-15SE to be a 4.5 gen? It's supposedly "stealthy" (depending how "stealthy" the US govt will allow it to be), carries weapons internally, and will have the APG-82
the road runner
Active Member
I can understand the logic behind calling an aircraft 4.5 generation:drunk1 cause it dose have some LO features but it is not in the same LO technoligies placed in the F-22 or JSF.
Usually LO features in such 4.5th generation fighters is in the front(nose section)of the aircraft.They do not have the LO features in engine inlets,air intakes,ect.....
Abe wrote about LO features of F-22 and JSF(i have looked but cannot find the link).Basically a F-22 has a radar cross section the size of a Marble.
JSF has the radar cross section of a golf ball.
An Aircraft that has some LO added as the F-18EF has, is not a Aircraft like the JSF or F-22 that has been designed from the beginning to be a LO Aircraft.
Listen to the Guys with Blue Collars on there names they will be the ones who will guide you(and me ) on having a greater understanding of LO on so called 4.5th:drunk1 Aircraft.
Comment welcomed
Usually LO features in such 4.5th generation fighters is in the front(nose section)of the aircraft.They do not have the LO features in engine inlets,air intakes,ect.....
Abe wrote about LO features of F-22 and JSF(i have looked but cannot find the link).Basically a F-22 has a radar cross section the size of a Marble.
JSF has the radar cross section of a golf ball.
An Aircraft that has some LO added as the F-18EF has, is not a Aircraft like the JSF or F-22 that has been designed from the beginning to be a LO Aircraft.
Listen to the Guys with Blue Collars on there names they will be the ones who will guide you(and me
) on having a greater understanding of LO on so called 4.5th:drunk1 Aircraft.Comment welcomed
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
IIRC some of the original parameters of 5th gen platforms were advanced sensors, sensor fusion and LO technology. So when Boeing brought out the Rhino B2, and it incorporated LO features and sensors and information management technology (sensor fusion) lifted out of a 5th gen program (X-32) it labeled it a 4.5th gen platform, because although it possesses some of the characteristics that distinguish 5th gen platforms from 4th gen, it is still essentially a 4th gen airframe. So the SH B2 isn't exactly a 4th gen platform, but it isn't a 5th gen either, so 4.5th is the interim. Personally i think this is a perfectly normal designation.I can understand the logic behind calling an aircraft 4.5 generation:drunk1 cause it dose have some LO features but it is not in the same LO technoligies placed in the F-22 or JSF.
Usually LO features in such 4.5th generation fighters is in the front(nose section)of the aircraft.They do not have the LO features in engine inlets,air intakes,ect.....
Abe wrote about LO features of F-22 and JSF(i have looked but cannot find the link).Basically a F-22 has a radar cross section the size of a Marble.
JSF has the radar cross section of a golf ball.
An Aircraft that has some LO added as the F-18EF has, is not a Aircraft like the JSF or F-22 that has been designed from the beginning to be a LO Aircraft.
Listen to the Guys with Blue Collars on there names they will be the ones who will guide you(and me
Comment welcomed
I think it starts to get messy when (to keep up I'm sure) the Russians started labeling things 4+ or 4++ gen, denoting that these platforms have been upgraded from the original 4th gen design. However this misses the point of labeling a platform "mid gen", every aircraft is upgraded over its lifetime. You don't hear the HAF referring to its F-4's as 3++ gen aircraft. The whole point with the .5 designation is that platform shares some of the major characteristics that distinguish 4th gen from 5th gen.
By the way the Rhino hasn't had LO tech added, it was designed from the ground up to have reduced RCS in the frontal aspect, same with the Typhoon.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #48
But isn't this true with the SH as well?
Although it's based on the original Hornet, it's only have like 70% commonality with the original right? I even read somewhere that only it's nose section is essentially the same as the original. So while it's not designed from the ground up, e.g. the Typhoon, it's also not an upgraded Hornet nor had just LO tech "added", i.e. it was "redesigned" with LO in mind? Or are these all semantics?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The E/F is a totally different airframe, it wasn't simply a redesigned hornet. In reality it deserved a new designation but 18 was kept for political reasons. It was designed from the ground up (i.e. from the initial concept/drawings) with LO in mind. Even if there are a couple of similar design features. Its comparable to the F-100 super saber compared to the F-86, the SH and H are totally different animals, even if they share some design features visually.
And I don't think it has 70% commonality, the engines are completely different (that alone makes up for more than 30% of the parts).
According to Wikipedia (I know - but on uncontentious stuff like this it's usually accurate) the F-18L had 71% commonality with the standard F-18, by parts weight.
The F-18E is 3000kg heavier, & has different engines. Those two, by themselves, make 70% commonality unachievable.
But it is not "a totally different airframe". It does have some common parts (most of the forward fuselage was originally common, though later F-18Es have a new nose, allowing the fitting of the APG-79), & is pretty well an enlarged F-18C. It's mostly a new airframe, not totally. Also, it originally had almost the same avionics, though again, that's changed.
It was different enough that it deserved a new designation & but for politics, as Ozzy Blizzard says, would have had one. It should be the F-24 or F-25, I think, which would make the JSF the F-25 or F-26.
Has anyone noticed the extraordinary reluctance of the US military to assign new marque designations nowadays? The F-16 has suffered from this to an extreme degree, to the extent where the F-16C designation is now rarely used, as the proliferation of variants has rendered it meaningless. The official designation system is also routinely ignored - e.g. F-18E, F-35, F/A-18, AIM-9X.
The F-18E is 3000kg heavier, & has different engines. Those two, by themselves, make 70% commonality unachievable.
But it is not "a totally different airframe". It does have some common parts (most of the forward fuselage was originally common, though later F-18Es have a new nose, allowing the fitting of the APG-79), & is pretty well an enlarged F-18C. It's mostly a new airframe, not totally. Also, it originally had almost the same avionics, though again, that's changed.
It was different enough that it deserved a new designation & but for politics, as Ozzy Blizzard says, would have had one. It should be the F-24 or F-25, I think, which would make the JSF the F-25 or F-26.
Has anyone noticed the extraordinary reluctance of the US military to assign new marque designations nowadays? The F-16 has suffered from this to an extreme degree, to the extent where the F-16C designation is now rarely used, as the proliferation of variants has rendered it meaningless. The official designation system is also routinely ignored - e.g. F-18E, F-35, F/A-18, AIM-9X.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
OK, it shares some parts with the F/A-18C, but IIRC the F-117 shares parts with the F-15 (lading gear), F-16 (FBW) and a few others, but it would be purely semantics to argue it was anything but a totally new design. The point i was making is the F/A-18F is a brand new design, independent of the F/A-18C (minus design influence and a few parts they picked up). It looks similar, it shared the fundamental design paradigm, it shares a few parts commonly (B2 dis different up front), but it is definitely not simply an upgraded hornet.
In any case it deserved a new designation.
F-117 was made up from the parts bin of 6 other aircraft so as to cut down development costs, speed up production and "filter" suspicion from any nosey individuals about its development.
I think I've listed all those aircraft in an earlier thread about LO development
Err - you've just agreed with me in an argumentative way. I don't really see your point, unless you're seriously arguing that the degree of commonality of the F-117 with the F-15 or F-16 is comparable to that between the F-18C & F-18E.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative (i guess tone of voice isn't portrayed as well through text). I apologize if that's how it came across, was not the intent.
I would wager that the degree of parts used on the F-117 that had been picked up from existing aircraft was larger than F/A-18F BII. Under the skin that thing was a mongrel. Apart from the design paradigm (your right SH is fundamentally an enlarged hornet) I'd bet more parts were designed from the ground up for the SH than the F-117. Thus a small amount of commonality does not negate the fact that this is a whole new beast, and not merely an upgraded hornet ala F-16E/F.
I was just trying to emphasize the fact that although the Rhino mat look like a hornet, and share a few parts, its a whole new platform and shouldn't be considered simply a larger hornet evolution (ala F/A-18A to F/A-18C to F/A-18E).
Haavarla
Active Member
What the engine specs are on those F/A-18 E/F SH aimed for the MMRCA in India?
Isn't it the same story with Su-27 vs Su-34?
Some elements are the same, but mostly its new parts on both airframe and engine, avionics etc etc?
Thanks
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
GE F414
General characteristics
* Type: Afterburning turbofan[2]
* Length: 154 in (3,912 mm)
* Diameter: 35 in (889 mm)
* Dry weight:
Components
* Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages
* Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage
Performance
* Maximum Thrust: 22,000 lbf (98 kN)
* Overall pressure ratio: 30:1
General Electric F414 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the Su-34 actually has the same power plant as the entire flanker series, so the commonality may be more than the Super. But in general terms yeah they are similar, the Fullback is a brand new platform and not simply a flanker evolution ala Su-30.
Understood. It happens all the time. Easy to misunderstand the register, in the absence of intonation.
It's a matter of degree, isn't it? We agree on the details. We just attach different weights to some of them. Fair enough: they're legitimate areas of disagreement, IMO, matters of opinion rather than fact.
We agree that the F-18E was a new aircraft, which should have had a new designation. What I disputed was that it was totally new, on the grounds already laid out & not disputed, & because it was basically an enlarged version of the same design. This is the chief remaining similarity, now that the nose & avionics have been changed.
Of course, enlarging an aircraft to that degree requires most components to be redesigned, but I see the shared planform as significant.
Haavarla
Active Member
Thx for the input on those GE F414
Wiki:
"As of 2006, GE has tested an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) with an advanced core. The EDE engine can provide a 15% thrust increase or longer life without the thrust increase. It has a six-stage, high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine.[1]
GE has tested the new high-pressure compressor and a two-stage advanced fan. These components with the advanced core could yield 20% increase in thrust over the current F414.[1]
The final growth step would produce an engine with 30% more thrust than the F414 - just under 29,000 lbf (130 kN). This thrust level is nearly equal to the F110 Increased Performance Engine. To reach this impressive thrust level will demand further airflow growth from the fan, a modest temperature increase, a new two-stage low pressure turbine and a new afterburner."
Do anyone think this development will see daylight?
It could all depend on if the F/A-18E/F win the MMRCA?
Yeah agreed.
I think the engine on the Fullback are an
upgraded AL-31FM1(13.500kgf) version.
But i have read several reports that the Fullback will receive more thrust as soon as new engine are ready.. it be 117-S, AL-31FM2 or AL-41F.. who knows...
Thanks
Wiki:
"As of 2006, GE has tested an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) with an advanced core. The EDE engine can provide a 15% thrust increase or longer life without the thrust increase. It has a six-stage, high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine.[1]
GE has tested the new high-pressure compressor and a two-stage advanced fan. These components with the advanced core could yield 20% increase in thrust over the current F414.[1]
The final growth step would produce an engine with 30% more thrust than the F414 - just under 29,000 lbf (130 kN). This thrust level is nearly equal to the F110 Increased Performance Engine. To reach this impressive thrust level will demand further airflow growth from the fan, a modest temperature increase, a new two-stage low pressure turbine and a new afterburner."
Do anyone think this development will see daylight?
It could all depend on if the F/A-18E/F win the MMRCA?
Yeah agreed.
I think the engine on the Fullback are an
upgraded AL-31FM1(13.500kgf) version.
But i have read several reports that the Fullback will receive more thrust as soon as new engine are ready.. it be 117-S, AL-31FM2 or AL-41F.. who knows...
Thanks
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Adding additional sensors/processors and modern radar to the Airframe over the life of type of the platform,but not altering the Airframe itself leaves me in 2 minds of the platform generation.Ozzy as you have stated its a 4th generation Airframe.I think the Airframe should dictate what the generation the Aircraft is classed.
The Russians made a smart marketing ploy calling there upgraded Su-27-30 ++. Upgrades preformed on Aircraft should be called just that ,an Upgrade.I think that if we call Aircraft 4.2......4.5......ect we are just opening up pandoras box.It gives a reader a mis conception of the Platform.
Would Australias upgraded F18 AB now be generation 4.25
Thanks Ozzy for clarifying my stupidity:drunk1
I think calling an aircraft 4.5 generation gives you a false meaning,and assumes a 5th generation aircraft is only 0.5 generation behind a 4.5.
Just some ideas floating in my head
Last edited:
Haavarla
Active Member
Adding additional sensors/processors and modern radar to the Airframe over the life of type of the platform,but not altering the Airframe itself leaves me in 2 minds of the platform generation.Ozzy as you have stated its a 4th generation Airframe.I think the Airframe should dictate what the generation the Aircraft is classed.
The Russians made a smart marketing ploy calling there upgraded Su-27-30 ++. Upgrades preformed on Aircraft should be called just that ,an Upgrade.I think that if we call Aircraft 4.2......4.5......ect we are just opening up pandoras box.It gives a reader a mis conception of the Platform.
Would Australias upgraded F18 AB now be generation 4.25
Than Ozzy for clarifying my stupidity:drunk1
I think calling an aircraft 4.5 generation gives you a false meaning,and assumes a 5th generation aircraft is only 0.5 generation behind a 4.5.
Just some ideas floating in my head
Then again people like to put aircraft abilities in certain "category", witch i don't see the big deal about..
It's a sales strategy/promotion, just like the LM "supercruise" abilities, same nonsens
Much more interesting to see beond all those invented marketing plotts.
You just can't downplay one like the "4.5 generation" and not all the other ones
Thanks
Last edited: