fretburner
Banned Member
I thought the Rafale is this aircraft? Or was that just a claim by the French? I know I read that somewhere.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The Rhino name is quite important for the US Navy due to carrier landing. When approaching the carrier the pilot calls the name of his aircraft “ball”. If they used the name “Super Hornet Ball” then it could easily be confused with “Hornet Ball”. In night and bad weather this is the only thing the flight deck has to go by. They set the arrestor gear for the expected weight of the aircraft. If they set the gear for a Hornet and a Super Hornet lands the much heavier Super Hornet is not going to be stoped before it rolls over the edge of the flight deck. Likewise for the Hornet with arrestor gear set for Super Hornet it might pull the hook of the fighter sending it into the drink.
So the USN allocates an unofficial nickname for the Super Hornet for use in all radio traffic. The name is used so much it pretty much becomes common talk about the squadrons. Like how everyone in USAF calls the F-16 Falcon the ‘Viper’ no matter what the public name is. Rhino was chosen because it was the nickname used for the F-4 Phantom II when it entered service (for similar reasons). Also it is explained because the Super Hornet is ‘big, grey and slow’ it’s a Rhino.
The RAAF was trained by the USN on the Super Hornet and has adopted a lot of their terminology. Rhino is used everywhere by the RAAF in naming the Super Hornet. The air force likes to keep its names simple, two syllables at the most, and clear distinct ones. These names have to be said over the radio and keeping it simple and clear makes it possible for effective communication.
So the USN allocates an unofficial nickname for the Super Hornet for use in all radio traffic. The name is used so much it pretty much becomes common talk about the squadrons. Like how everyone in USAF calls the F-16 Falcon the ‘Viper’ no matter what the public name is. Rhino was chosen because it was the nickname used for the F-4 Phantom II when it entered service (for similar reasons). Also it is explained because the Super Hornet is ‘big, grey and slow’ it’s a Rhino.
The RAAF was trained by the USN on the Super Hornet and has adopted a lot of their terminology. Rhino is used everywhere by the RAAF in naming the Super Hornet. The air force likes to keep its names simple, two syllables at the most, and clear distinct ones. These names have to be said over the radio and keeping it simple and clear makes it possible for effective communication.
Thanks AD and Abe for your in-depth replies, very informative.
Regarding the Tier II tactical surveillance UAV, we lease the Herons at the moment. My question is will Australia purchase a like platform or go one step further and acquire a strike capable MALE UAV (ie:Mantis, Reaper) in the future? Would this increase security for Aussie troops abroad or would the Tiger ARH be sufficient?
Any opinions,
Cheers.
Regarding the Tier II tactical surveillance UAV, we lease the Herons at the moment. My question is will Australia purchase a like platform or go one step further and acquire a strike capable MALE UAV (ie:Mantis, Reaper) in the future? Would this increase security for Aussie troops abroad or would the Tiger ARH be sufficient?
Any opinions,
Cheers.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There's no DCP project for it. That doesn't mean it couldn't be added to a DCP update, but I can't see it being a priority in the immediate future, especially if we pull out of Afghanistan in 2014 as is rumoured...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Have a look at some close-ups of the 2 aircraft and make your own mind up... One is smooth and coated in RAM, littered with conformal antennas an internal refuelling probe, saw-tooth edges and has radar blockers in the air inlets.
The other aircraft is the Rafale...
My opinion is that there are some some very bold claims are made about the Rafale, that don't stand up to scrutiny. It's a nice enough aircraft and will probably suit it's users well. But that doesn't mean all sorts of mythical capabilities have to be ascribed to it.
It wasn't so long ago that certain French posters were informing the world how it didn't need the usual LO treatments because it has "active stealth"...
That of course was shown to be rubbish so they've completely changed tack...
On another forum there was an journalist ("Rezende" I think his name was) that got access to the Brazilian FX-2 summary report. According to him the numbers in that report showed that Rafale with a weapons loadout had lower RCS than the SH with a weapons loadout.
Also I have noticed that Saab has implied that after the planned RCS reductions on the Gripen NG it seems they don't see any benefit of reducing RCS further since the weapons loadout will dominate the RCS even in a2a config. In fact they have implied that replacing Sidewinders with IRIS-T and AMRAAM with Meteor seems to significantly reduce the RCS. They are also working on the pylons
Will a Rafale with MICA have a lower RCS than a SH with AMRAAMs? I don't really know although it seems the previously-mentioned Rezende may have indicated just that.
So whether the clean SH has much lower RCS than a clean Rafale and other clean 4.5 gen fighters may not be so important, since they will all need to fly with external stores.
Reducing RCS with external stores seems important and that's probably why Boeing has suggested a stealthy weapons pod for prospective international customers.
BTW; I believe the Rafale does have sawtooth patterns ; and the current Gripen C/D has radar blockers in the air intakes.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I saw that comment too. He claims to be a journalist in Brazil, so you can infer how much LO data he got to see from that... Suffice to say he never verified it in anyway nor supported the idea when challenged. He was also proven wrong on other aspects of the Rafale deal, by other Brazilian journalists who COULD verify he was wrong on other points, so take from that what you will.
Me, I'll take what I can see with my own eyes in the absence of confirmed data.
What I see is stuff like this:
http://tinyurl.com/4yq7ugm
Yes, there are some saw toothed edges there. They may scatter some radar waves, but what they are used for on a truly LO aircraft is not a seemngly random inclusion, that appears to be there, merely for the sake of having them, but rather to enclose panels, joints and seams, purposes they are clearly NOT being used for on the Rafale.
http://tinyurl.com/3lr6vf3
What else can we see? Hmm, fixed external refuelling probe, external FLIR/IRST sensor, canards, numerous external and non-LO shaped bumps on the airframe...
On the Super Hornet we see LO shaped, RAM coated and enclosed IFF transmitters on the front of the aircraft and that's IT. All other systems (besides FLIR pod) are conformal or internal. All the seams are filled and RAM coated, presenting a smooth airframe from a radar scattering and absorbtion POV. We know the SH Block II features a canted backwards, fixed AESA radar and the Rafale does not and so on.
http://tinyurl.com/43pyjj3
http://tinyurl.com/3l4ws3f
We don't have the RCS data-sets to make any kind of accurate call on this topic, but features that are commonly understood to provide LO are patently observable on the SH and not on the Rafale.
How this translates to the aircraft carrying weapons, neither of us can actually say, but I personally suspect it has been devised through the same methods as some of the more mythical SPECTRA capabilities (plasma stealth etc) some of the truly astonishing range performance that some attribute to such a small aircraft with such a small fuel load (the Dassault aerodynamicists and engine builders must clearly be in a league of their own eh?).
The fact that old mate didn't even describe what configuration the aircraft were in, tells me something about the reliability of that 'info'. Did he mention anywhere if the Shornet was (as an example) loaded up with a pair of SLAM-ER's, 3 drop tanks, 3 AMRAAM's, a pair of Winders and a targetting pod whilst the Rafale only had a pair of wing tip MICA's?
Of course he didn't. No mention of actual configurations and no supporting evidence of his claim.
I happen to know that the Super Hornet has a lower RCS than the F-35A, greater range and payload than an F-111 and better aerodynamic performance than an F-22A. I know this because I am a journalist and had the appropriate media accreditation at the Avalon airshow this year to attend RAAF delivered briefings on the subject.
How credible does this sound? Not really does it? Yet 3 parts of that story ARE true...
(I was at Avalon. I did have a media pass and I did attend a RAAF briefing). The rest is for you to decide on...
I've heard much the same thing from Boeing. The Super Hornet represents about the limit of what is worth doing to lower RCS on an aircraft designed to carry external weapons according to them.
Seriously doubt the claim about the weapons themselves. Are they suggesting those European weapons are carrying RAM for instance? Or are designed with the geometry needed to lower RCS? Please...
Even the larger standoff weapons (Tauras and Storm Shadow etc) don't feature the LO reduction measures that the latest weapons do (JSOW, JASSM).
I remember SAAB having boasted about it's LO because of how "small" the Gripen is compared to other aircraft. That's no doubt true as far as it goes, but when you clearly lack the materials, shaping, internal structures and LPI sensor and communications systems that feature on "real" LO platforms, your "LO" is really just marketing gobbledegook or fanboi wishes and your small aircraft, is still going to show up on modern radar well outside it's own weapons envelope, so the advantage becomes what, exactly?
Anyone who could say for sure, won't be saying so here even were they allowed to, because these aren't static values. At what distance? At what radar angles? Over what frequency range?
As a generality, I would say it seems unlikely. Rafale is a bit smaller than the SH, but the SH clearly has LO features that are not present on the Rafale, or the Gripen for that matter.
USN describes the LO measures taken with the Super Hornet as "tactically effective" and the fact that SAAB is saying much the same thing, seems to validate this idea.
Internal weapons are always going to be stealthier than weapons out in the wind, plus the Super Hornet has a rather well-known and severe drag issue with it's pylons, swhich is why I believe that the pod and CFT's mooted for the "Super Hornet International" are really methods to reduce some of the more "public" concerns of the Super Hornet design.
USN won't be using these mods in all likelyhood because conformals can't be ejected if weight needs to be shed quickly for a return to the carrier and the pod takes up the centre-line hardpoint, which is the preferred EFT location. Australia won't be doing any major upgrades that aren't done by the USN first due to their "interim" nature.
I believe because of this that they are aimed mostly at the marketing aspect of selling the bird, because of the above problems, because it's users are generally happy with it as is and because it's meeting the technical requirements of multiple other potential users (Brazil and India most prominently) who have down-selected it...
As to SAAB's claims. Again, it's easy to claim things without providing proof. I ahve never noticed any such claims and I've done a bit of research on the Gripen over the years...
Saw-tooth patterns. Addressed above, but there are saw-tooth patterns and saw-tooth patterns. There are some saw-toothed patterns on the front landing gear on this REAL LO aircraft. Look just a tad more serious than the supposed examples on the Rafale, don't they?
http://tinyurl.com/44edhpt
The official unclass description of the stealth capability of the Super Hornet:
Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction.
RCS reduction is a significant feature of the F/A-18E/F. While the maintenance community is tasked with maintaining the RCS features of the aircraft, it is in the best interests of the aircrew community to take an active role to ensure the survivability characteristics of the aircraft are retained.
RCS reduction is accomplished through numerous airframe design features. See figure 1-3. The baseline feature is planform alignment of as many surface edges as feasible. The outer moldline of the aircraft is treated to make it a smooth, conductive surface in order to reduce radar scattering.
Treatment entails metalizing the navigation lights, canopy, and windshield. Permanent joints and gaps around infrequently opened panels are filled with a form-in-place (FIP) sealant, which is blended flush and conductively painted. Gaps around frequently opened panels are filled with a conductive FIP (CFIP) sealant, which allows for easier repair. Conductive tape is applied to a few gaps where there is no substructure to support FIP material, such as along LEX edges. Conductive tape can also be used to quickly repair damaged FIP joints.
Since CFIP in the gaps around frequently opened panels will experience the most wear and tear, a corrosion-proof radar absorbing material (RAM) is applied in front of many of these gaps. RAM is also applied (1) on the inlet lip and duct, (2) as diamond-shaped patches around drain holes, and (3) in various locations that tend to highly scatter radar energy such as around pitot tubes, vertical tail openings, vents and screens, flap hinges and fairings, and portions of the pylons and external tanks. A multi-layer RAM is used in a few locations, such as around AOA probes and on the top, front surface of the pylons.
Gaps around landing gear doors are treated in two ways. Nose landing gear doors use flexible conductive blade seals on leading and trailing edges; main landing gear door edges are wrapped with RAM. Scattering from trailing edges (i.e., trailing edge flaps and rudders) is controlled by a radar absorbing boot which is bonded to the surface. Scattering from the back edge of the windshield is controlled by a gray, laminated material called the aft arch termination strip.
The engine inlet ducts incorporate a device to minimize engine front face scattering. The edge of the canopy incorporates a conductive bulb seal to block radar reflections from that joint. Conductive bulb seals are also used where there is significant structural flexure, such as at the wing-to-LEX interface.
Eleven electro magnetic interference shields (EMIS) III radar shields are permanently installed on the radar antenna hardware. To allow the aircraft to achieve its full RCS reduction potential, a missionized kit consisting of twelve more EMIS III radar bulkhead shields, are installed for combat missions only. Additionally, SUU-79 pylons can be fitted with a set of low observable (LO) hardware.
Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction.
RCS reduction is a significant feature of the F/A-18E/F. While the maintenance community is tasked with maintaining the RCS features of the aircraft, it is in the best interests of the aircrew community to take an active role to ensure the survivability characteristics of the aircraft are retained.
RCS reduction is accomplished through numerous airframe design features. See figure 1-3. The baseline feature is planform alignment of as many surface edges as feasible. The outer moldline of the aircraft is treated to make it a smooth, conductive surface in order to reduce radar scattering.
Treatment entails metalizing the navigation lights, canopy, and windshield. Permanent joints and gaps around infrequently opened panels are filled with a form-in-place (FIP) sealant, which is blended flush and conductively painted. Gaps around frequently opened panels are filled with a conductive FIP (CFIP) sealant, which allows for easier repair. Conductive tape is applied to a few gaps where there is no substructure to support FIP material, such as along LEX edges. Conductive tape can also be used to quickly repair damaged FIP joints.
Since CFIP in the gaps around frequently opened panels will experience the most wear and tear, a corrosion-proof radar absorbing material (RAM) is applied in front of many of these gaps. RAM is also applied (1) on the inlet lip and duct, (2) as diamond-shaped patches around drain holes, and (3) in various locations that tend to highly scatter radar energy such as around pitot tubes, vertical tail openings, vents and screens, flap hinges and fairings, and portions of the pylons and external tanks. A multi-layer RAM is used in a few locations, such as around AOA probes and on the top, front surface of the pylons.
Gaps around landing gear doors are treated in two ways. Nose landing gear doors use flexible conductive blade seals on leading and trailing edges; main landing gear door edges are wrapped with RAM. Scattering from trailing edges (i.e., trailing edge flaps and rudders) is controlled by a radar absorbing boot which is bonded to the surface. Scattering from the back edge of the windshield is controlled by a gray, laminated material called the aft arch termination strip.
The engine inlet ducts incorporate a device to minimize engine front face scattering. The edge of the canopy incorporates a conductive bulb seal to block radar reflections from that joint. Conductive bulb seals are also used where there is significant structural flexure, such as at the wing-to-LEX interface.
Eleven electro magnetic interference shields (EMIS) III radar shields are permanently installed on the radar antenna hardware. To allow the aircraft to achieve its full RCS reduction potential, a missionized kit consisting of twelve more EMIS III radar bulkhead shields, are installed for combat missions only. Additionally, SUU-79 pylons can be fitted with a set of low observable (LO) hardware.
Last edited:
Sounds like there is a very credible grounds for adding additional RAAF Super Hornets and reducing the number of JSFs.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I was being sarcastic with that comment earlier to illustrate my point. None of those 3 claims about the Super Hornet are true...
If more Super Hornets are acquired by RAAF the seemingly only likely reasons will be because of fatigue concerns with the Hornets and schedule concerns with JSF.
Both Government and RAAF are firmly committed to JSF and all the nonsense over this issue since 2002, nor even the change of Government has changed that one bit...
t68
Well-Known Member
Better read the whole post in conjunction with whom he is reply to and about what.
My personal take on it is we should have the mixed fleet of Super Hornet/F35A as well as 24 more SH. When F35A enters service in numbers we should still keep the hornets, so in 20/30 years we do not have the same problems with our legacy hornets.
If we could afford it no reduction in the F35A buy.
I had thought the claims were somewhat surprising and only skimmed the post (note to self: read more carefully)
Although I do readily admit to having limited knowledge and happily defer to people with better understanding than myself.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was a point I was making about believing everything you read on the internets...
The point he brought up was in relation to an anonymous person who claimed to be a reporter in Brazil and claimed to have seen a official Brazilian Air Force report that claimed the Rafale had a lower RCS than a Super Hornet when loaded with weapons. No mention of the Gripen was made or the circumstances, configuration of the respective aircraft, scenarios under which the assessment was made, the means by which the conclusion was reached (ie: Brazil never got their hands on a Rafale or a Super Hornet and put them on an actual RCS test range) so the information was in reality, rather suspect...
On top of which, no further information was provided, no verification was possible and other points this "journalist" made were confirmed as being incorrect through other sources.
My point was a caution about believing everything available on the Internet. Hence my cautious 'conclusion' about this debate.
The SH is likely to offer a superior LO capability because it is widely known and can be seen when looked for, that it has LO design elements and properties that are absent on some other 4th Gen aircraft.
That is no guarantee however, because this is Internet and we don't have all the information...
Cheers,
AD
fretburner
Banned Member
This is awesome info! Thank you!
Where do you guys ever get this kind of info?
This is the first time I've read of using RAM coatings, conductive paint, "metallizing" the canopy of the Super Hornet.
However, are these RAM coatings similar to those of the F-22 and F-2? Or more like a those of the F-117?
I'm jealous, how did you swing that?
On a different tack, it will be interesting to see how the RAAF transport capability evolves.
AA had an interesting write up suggesting that as the weight and perhaps more important the width of the Armys equipment increases the C-130 becomes less viable for the future and the A400M starts looking better. As the article suggests, chances are Lockheed will eventually develop a competitor to the A400M for those precise reasons.
This leads me to wonder how this will affect the Battlefield Airlifter. The C-27J was the front runner for a variety of reasons including availability under FMS and its commonalies with the C-130J, including cargo bay cross section and engines etc. If we go the way of a C-17 / A400M (or notional Lockheed Super Herc) the C-27J loses its commonality arguement.
In this case would it be viable to go for a significantly greater number of smaller Battlefield Airlifters, perhaps even jointly operated by the RAAF / RAAF Reserve and Army Aviation?
AA had an interesting write up suggesting that as the weight and perhaps more important the width of the Armys equipment increases the C-130 becomes less viable for the future and the A400M starts looking better. As the article suggests, chances are Lockheed will eventually develop a competitor to the A400M for those precise reasons.
This leads me to wonder how this will affect the Battlefield Airlifter. The C-27J was the front runner for a variety of reasons including availability under FMS and its commonalies with the C-130J, including cargo bay cross section and engines etc. If we go the way of a C-17 / A400M (or notional Lockheed Super Herc) the C-27J loses its commonality arguement.
In this case would it be viable to go for a significantly greater number of smaller Battlefield Airlifters, perhaps even jointly operated by the RAAF / RAAF Reserve and Army Aviation?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
One has certain connections in the Defence media industry...
Had to write an article in return, though it remains to be seen if it will be published...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It's from the un-classified version of the Super Hornet NATOPS Manual.
You can read the whole thing here:
http://tinyurl.com/3d4g6kc
Incidentally, that's the NATOPS Manual Peter Goon is so proud of possessing and the one that allows him to speak with such "authority" on exactly what the Super Hornet can and can't do...
It can be found with a simple Google search, yet he has the nerve to preach and harp on about it, as if he is some special case because of it...
:lol2
I look forward to reading it at some point. You looking to a career change?One has certain connections in the Defence media industry...
Had to write an article in return, though it remains to be seen if it will be published...