EA/18G Growler

[rossfrb_1]

slightly OT: Nagging software problem plagues Super Hornet radar

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw070110_1_n.shtml
Stephen Trimble JDW Americas Bureau Chief
Washington DC

The advanced radar developed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has completed a key testing period with a nagging software problem still unresolved but showing improvement, according to the US Navy. The Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar - the first dual-mode sensor in service on a US military fighter - completed its operational test and evaluation phase on 6 December 2006.

The APG-79 continues to suffer from software glitches but programme officials believe that projected growth curves will produce an effective product by the time the first squadron is due to deploy by the end of Fiscal Year 2007, said Commander John Green, integrated product team leader for the radar. Currently, some of the 28 APG-79-equipped fighters fly more than 200 hours without experiencing a shutdown of the sensor, while others are reporting such system failures more frequently, said Shirley Franko, deputy leader of the integrated product team for the AESA radar.

155 of 372 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract]

If the RAAF does get some SHs, I'm sure this 'little' problem will have been sorted out. Just goes to show though if it's true, it's not just the JSF that is having its niggles. (Not knowing at what stage of development it's at, I wonder if the APG-81 is having similar problems?)
Mind you, a sensor shutdown at the wrong time would be a tad inconvenient.
I wonder if our resident hornet (rhino?) jockey is allowed to add anything more?

rb

 

[Todjaeger]

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw070110_1_n.shtml
Stephen Trimble JDW Americas Bureau Chief
Washington DC

The advanced radar developed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has completed a key testing period with a nagging software problem still unresolved but showing improvement, according to the US Navy. The Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar - the first dual-mode sensor in service on a US military fighter - completed its operational test and evaluation phase on 6 December 2006.

The APG-79 continues to suffer from software glitches but programme officials believe that projected growth curves will produce an effective product by the time the first squadron is due to deploy by the end of Fiscal Year 2007, said Commander John Green, integrated product team leader for the radar. Currently, some of the 28 APG-79-equipped fighters fly more than 200 hours without experiencing a shutdown of the sensor, while others are reporting such system failures more frequently, said Shirley Franko, deputy leader of the integrated product team for the AESA radar.

155 of 372 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract]

If the RAAF does get some SHs, I'm sure this 'little' problem will have been sorted out. Just goes to show though if it's true, it's not just the JSF that is having its niggles. (Not knowing at what stage of development it's at, I wonder if the APG-81 is having similar problems?)
Mind you, a sensor shutdown at the wrong time would be a tad inconvenient.
I wonder if our resident hornet (rhino?) jockey is allowed to add anything more?

rb

I do have to wonder about the accuracy of parts of the article. I was under the impression that the F-22A Raptor, which has reached IOC with a squadron, used the APG-77 AESA. Unless the APG-79 AESA has a drastically different configuration or the APG-77 AESA isn't dual mode. Can anyone enlighten me?

As for software integration issues, nothing new (unfortunately) about that. That's the delay on the Wedgetail and one of the issues with the Sea Sprites. It had even caused a problem with the FBW system of the F-22, causing the crash of one shortly after takeoff.

Let's just hope MS isn't doing the coding... :shudder

-Cheers

 

[spratone]

FELLOWS ,LOOKING at has been said,I think that the super ht has got some advantages in a dog fight,but it doesn't vector thrust which allows pin pitch roles in a dog fight.This is the problem,F-18 sh or typhoon,rafale,are closest variants to su-30-27. But as for speed the f-22 and f-111 are the fastest fighters today.

LIST OF WHAT SPEED EACH FIGHTER CAN DO,

HORNET MACH 1.8
SUPER HORENT MACH 1.92
JSF MACH 1.6
F-22 MACH 3.01
F-111C MACH 2.5
SU-27 MACH 2.35
SU-30 MACH 2.35
F-15 MACH 2.5
RAFALE MACH 2.3
TYPHOON MACH 2.01

As for payloads f-111 max payloads at 48,895kgs,
f-15 at 30,845kgs,JSF 30,000kgs,f-18sh 29,937kgs,
su-30 at 34,000kgs,su-27 at 33,000kgs,su-27kub at 45,000kgs and max speed of 1.85 mach.f-22 at 27,215kgs,typhoon at 23,000kgs,rafale at 24,500kgs these are all specified in international military aircraft directory, some of spec will change due to new models.

Speed is nice for sure, but the capabilities of the SH make it very formidable to all of those aircraft. In actual training flights against the Typhoon and the F-22, the SH held up very well and even kicked some ass. It does not have vectored thrust, but doesn't need it as the advanced FBW flight controls can give the pilot very large pitch transients and yaw piroetts that lets the pilot walk the nose to the target for gun and or missile acquisition.
The F-111 is really a bomber only. The SH can be a self escorting tanker, bomber, fighter and most times any multiple of the above. With the Block II the WSO in the back can target, track, and fire on aircraft at will. With AESA, they can do both A/G and A/A at the same time.
The LO characteristics of the SH vary with the LO equipment installed. In the US, they are required to remove several things to comply with Air Traffic Control systems.
With the JSF coming out possibly in 2012 now, and the F-111 maintenance man hours per flight hour skyrocketting like the F-14, the SH is a good choice. Ever wonder why the US does not fly the F-111?

 

[Magoo]

The LO characteristics of the SH vary with the LO equipment installed. In the US, they are required to remove several things to comply with Air Traffic Control systems.

Really? I thought they just switched on their transponders??? This statement may need some verification.

...and the F-111 maintenance man hours per flight hour skyrocketting ... Ever wonder why the US does not fly the F-111?

This statement DEFINITELY needs some verification.

All the resources I've studied and people I've spoken to suggest F-111 man-hours are falling, not increasing. The SRSPO's annual support budget has trended downwards in recent years as a percentage of the RAAF's operating budget, and the Pigs are probably more reliable now in AUP C4 guise than they've ever been.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Todjaeger]

With the JSF coming out possibly in 2012 now, and the F-111 maintenance man hours per flight hour skyrocketting like the F-14, the SH is a good choice. Ever wonder why the US does not fly the F-111?

From what I recall, the F-111 was retired by the USAF shortly after the end of GWI. It was not, I believe, retired due to maintenance issues. For whatever reason, the Air Force as a whole didn't like the F-111, that's why the aircraft name, aardvark, wasn't given to the aircraft until after it had been retired from US service. Incidentally, the F-111 had been used for many of the strike missions during GWI, where according to the pilots, it did quite well.

-Cheers

 

[Occum]

What Magoo is saying is Correct

Sorry Spratone,

What exactly are the LO characteristics of the SH? Careful you are not taking the marketeer's bait here. Suggest you read The Radar Game by Dr Rebecca Grant - best unclas primer on LO technologies.

What Magoo is saying re the F-111 is correct. In fact, apart from having accrued just over half its original design life in flying hours (before any consideration of life extension), the F-111 fleet is in better condition with far better availability than it has been since the 1970s. The cost of maintenance has come down considerably - the SPO budget is some A$150 million per annum which covers all contractor support costs, etc (but not Defence personnel costs). Given all Defence aircraft fall into the low utilisation category, quoting costs per flying hour or even costs per aircraft is quite inappropriate (in fact, in error). The correct way to do Cost Benefit Analysis for such aircraft with such low utilisation is to base the analysis on the output - that is, Defence's 'products' which are capability and preparedness - and do this on a total fleet operating expenses basis.

For strike capability, the basic metric of capability is throw-weight/range with a more analytically challenging (but appropriate) metric being throw-weight/range/effectiveness. Simply put, the F-111 represents over 50% of the ADF's strike capability and could be considerably more if the strategic guidance in the Defence 2000 White Paper were to be followed.

You should find the following cost/benefit analysis, based on Defence annual report figures and financials, of some interest and, hopefully, enlightening -

http://www.ausairpower.net/home/carlo/APAW/Source/FTAR-PAG-180404.pdf

TodJ - As for the name, Aardvark. There were two reasons for the name. Firstly, the long nose of the F-111 and the view held by many that when on the ground, the aircraft takes on a less than 'good look'. The other reason is the name Aardvark comes from the Afrikaan words meaning 'earth pig' which was seen as an appropriate term for the aircraft, particularly the 'D' Model, due to the amount of time they spent on the ground. The name became a term of some endearment and pride amongst F-111 operators (as has the name 'Pig') and was certainly in broad colloquial use from the early 1970s and onwards. Any assertion that this name only appeared after the F-111s were retired from USAF service is not correct nor is the claim 'the Air Force as a whole didn't like the F-111'. As you rightly indicated, the F-111 performed well (extremely) during GW1.

FYI - The F-111's were retired from USAF service in the early 1990s for budgetary reasons (during the time of the 'downsize to right size' mentality in the US DoD) and to make way (budgetary wise) for such aircraft as the F-22 and F-117.

 

[PETER671BT]

Speed is nice for sure, but the capabilities of the SH make it very formidable to all of those aircraft. In actual training flights against the Typhoon and the F-22, the SH held up very well and even kicked some ass. It does not have vectored thrust, but doesn't need it as the advanced FBW flight controls can give the pilot very large pitch transients and yaw piroetts that lets the pilot walk the nose to the target for gun and or missile acquisition.
The F-111 is really a bomber only. The SH can be a self escorting tanker, bomber, fighter and most times any multiple of the above. With the Block II the WSO in the back can target, track, and fire on aircraft at will. With AESA, they can do both A/G and A/A at the same time.
The LO characteristics of the SH vary with the LO equipment installed. In the US, they are required to remove several things to comply with Air Traffic Control systems.
With the JSF coming out possibly in 2012 now, and the F-111 maintenance man hours per flight hour skyrocketting like the F-14, the SH is a good choice. Ever wonder why the US does not fly the F-111?

I think, not sure though f-111 was disbanded after Boeing bought out gumman and what was left of General dynamics.I think parts for the plane were stopped.And most of the f-111 seen cold war action,which made them need constant upgrading.The plane itself has proven to be most reliable from that time.

 

[PETER671BT]

Really? I thought they just switched on their transponders??? This statement may need some verification.



This statement DEFINITELY needs some verification.

All the resources I've studied and people I've spoken to suggest F-111 man-hours are falling, not increasing. The SRSPO's annual support budget has trended downwards in recent years as a percentage of the RAAF's operating budget, and the Pigs are probably more reliable now in AUP C4 guise than they've ever been.

Cheers

Magoo

magoo have you ever heard of the super hornet locking ground targets and shooting air to air missile at the same time,I'm not sure that i'v heard a system do that .what type of system will do that.The only it could happen is that the air combat is lower than the Hornet towards the ground.

 

[Todjaeger]

TodJ - As for the name, Aardvark. There were two reasons for the name. Firstly, the long nose of the F-111 and the view held by many that when on the ground, the aircraft takes on a less than 'good look'. The other reason is the name Aardvark comes from the Afrikaan words meaning 'earth pig' which was seen as an appropriate term for the aircraft, particularly the 'D' Model, due to the amount of time they spent on the ground. The name became a term of some endearment and pride amongst F-111 operators (as has the name 'Pig') and was certainly in broad colloquial use from the early 1970s and onwards. Any assertion that this name only appeared after the F-111s were retired from USAF service is not correct nor is the claim 'the Air Force as a whole didn't like the F-111'. As you rightly indicated, the F-111 performed well (extremely) during GW1.

FYI - The F-111's were retired from USAF service in the early 1990s for budgetary reasons (during the time of the 'downsize to right size' mentality in the US DoD) and to make way (budgetary wise) for such aircraft as the F-22 and F-117.

Occum, about the name Aardvark for the F-111. Do you know what year the F-111 received that as it's official name designation? The information I have is that the naming was done on retirement from US service. Naturally there would've been some sort of unofficial naming (like Huey for the UH-1...) but from what I've read, there wasn't an official Air Force designation for the F-111 while it was in service, aside from the EF-111 Raven. As for the name Aardvark, I prefer the Aussie Pig, works better for me. Now if there is a followup design to perform similar roles to the F-111, particularly if it is of approximately the same size and shape, I'd call it the Razorback, but that's just me...

As for the F-111 retirement, yes, it was done in the early 90's as part of the "peace dividend" following the end of the Cold War. My point of view remains though about the Air Force/DoD overall not being overly fond of the F-111. Given that it performed well in GWI and not much was publisized about that, and that the F-111 was retired without replacement, or even a replacement program being setup... Granted with budget cuts, something had to be dropped from the Air Force budget, I just have to wonder given what wasn't dropped and was retained.

From a historical perspective (and jump to correct me where I'm wrong) but the F-111 program was initiated by DefSec McNamara, with the goal of having a joint/common fighter-bomber jet for use by the USAF & USN. Teething issues with the V-G design, plus reluctance from both the USAF & USN ended up causing the common effort to be dropped, and the F-111 (and FB-111) became a strictly USAF jet. The work the USN had done instead was directed into a program for a smaller aircraft which became the F-14 Tomcat.

-Cheers

 

[Magoo]

magoo have you ever heard of the super hornet locking ground targets and shooting air to air missile at the same time,I'm not sure that i'v heard a system do that .what type of system will do that.The only it could happen is that the air combat is lower than the Hornet towards the ground.

An AESA radar system with GMTI can do that, as can either a two-man crew or a single pilot with a semi or fully-integrated weapons/sensor suite, i.e high resolution infra-red targeting pods or off-board buddy targeting assets.

Currently, (Occum please confirm) I think the only operational aircraft which are capable of simultaneous swing-role ops would be the F-22 and the F/A-18E/F. I think I read a test where a Super employed a JDAM against a barge and an AMRAAM against a manoeuvring QF-4 drone simultaneously in a test at Eglin, both of which found their marks.

Eurofighter and Dassault have plans to integrate AESA radars with their Typhoon and Rafale respectively, and Boeing's F-15S and proposed enhanced F-15E with the APG-68(v)3 should also allow simultaneous surface and airborne targets to be tracked and engaged.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[chrisrobsoar]

An AESA radar system with GMTI can do that, as can either a two-man crew or a single pilot with a semi or fully-integrated weapons/sensor suite, i.e high resolution infra-red targeting pods or off-board buddy targeting assets.

Currently, (Occum please confirm) I think the only operational aircraft which are capable of simultaneous swing-role ops would be the F-22 and the F/A-18E/F. I think I read a test where a Super employed a JDAM against a barge and an AMRAAM against a manoeuvring QF-4 drone simultaneously in a test at Eglin, both of which found their marks.

Eurofighter and Dassault have plans to integrate AESA radars with their Typhoon and Rafale respectively, and Boeing's F-15S and proposed enhanced F-15E with the APG-68(v)3 should also allow simultaneous surface and airborne targets to be tracked and engaged.

Cheers

Magoo

Currently, I think you are correct. And in the future when the CAPTOR radar is updated with an AESA Tranche 3, it will have this capability with the full range of A-A & A-G weapons.

However, the present Mechanically Scanned Antenna (MSA) has extremely high slew rates.

Tranche 1 included all the A-A modes, including ACM, with the interface with the Helmet Equipment Assembly (HEA). (That is the combined Helmet Mounted Sight and Display, that has just started to be integrated on the Typhoon aircraft and is scheduled to be in production 2008). The Tranche 1 standard also included basic mapping modes (DBS mapping – (Doppler Beam Sharpening) and SAR mapping – (Synthetic Aperture Radar)), but with limited performance due to the constraints of the processor.

The Tranche 2 standard will introduce a new much more powerful LRI 2 Processor, Radar and the full range of A-G modes. The new processor will also support the AESA radar (it is planned that the modification to the radar should take less than a day to embody).

So Tranche 2 will include at least the following modes : -

DBS mapping & SAR mapping – with significant improvements in performance over Tranche 1.

FTT – (Fixed Target Track)
PVU - (Precision Velocity Update)
GMTI/T - (Ground Moving Target Identification & Track)
Sea SS & TWS – (Sea Surface Search & Track While Scan)
AG-ranging
TA – (Terrain Avoidance)

Some of the modes (perhaps with a basic capability) will have been deployed with the enhancement to Tranche 1 to provide an Austere A-G Capability.

Because, the present (MSA) has extremely high slew rates, it is hoped that the Tranche 2 radar might make some degree of swing-role operation possible, although it will be interleaved rather than simultaneous.

Even without true swing-mode operation, it should be relatively easy and (quick) to identify and engage (and/or hand off a target to another system, such as an EO/IR Pod) and attack another target. (Many A-G & A-A modes will have the capability to identify both A-G & A-A targets, so the opportunity to switch from A-G to A-A or vice versa, will be provided as standard).

The showstopper is likely to be the maturity of the integration of the A-A & A-G weapons with the aircraft weapons systems computer rather than the radar, so that any degree of swing-role operation that might be possible is likely to be deployed in the latter Blocks of Tranche 2.

If there is a requirement for an Austere Swing-Role, for emergency self protection, then I sure that something could be provided with specific modes and A-G & A-A weapons.


Chris

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[icelord]

$4bn Hornet buy tipped to get nod
Patrick Walters, National security editor
February 08, 2007

A $4 BILLION deal to purchase 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters from the US is expected to be approved by the Howard Government's national security committee within weeks.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is driving the acquisition amid concerns that Australia may lack a fully deployable air combat capability early next decade following the retirement of the F-111 strike force.
Defence officials are now close to finalising details of the Super Hornet deal with the Pentagon, with the new warplanes expected to enter service from 2009-10.

The Pentagon told the US Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 of the upgraded Hornets in a deal worth $US3.1 billion ($4 billion). The package includes the aircraft, 48 engines, radars, guided missile launchers and other military equipment.

A spokesman for Dr Nelson said the Government was still to decide whether to buy or lease the planes. "A decision (on the purchase) will be made soon," he said.

Dr Nelson's push for the interim fighters is driven by concerns about possible production delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter destined to become Australia's front-line combat aircraft from 2014.

But the $4 billion purchase will lead to a major revision of the Defence Department's 10-year capital equipment plan, which is already facing big cost blowouts from other planned equipment buys, including the navy's air warfare destroyers.

One option for the Government will be to cut the 100-strong $14 billion joint strike fighter purchase.

The Super Hornet acquisition will enable the retirement of the F-111s in 2010 without the need for a further costly extension of their service life.

It could produce savings in the RAAF's current $1.5billion upgrade of its existing F/A-18 fleet with fewer of the aircraft needing to be overhauled.

The F/A-18F Super Hornet has better range and more sophisticated avionics than the current F-18 A/B models and has been used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It costs about $75 million for each warplane. They have a combat radius of 681 nautical miles and are equipped with the latest APG-79 radar.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21190098-31477,00.html
On top of that press release, it could be decided by tomorrow if we get an interim SuperHornet. To work out correctly, how many would be cut back from the 100 order to work into budget, and what would be the expected delievery date and lasting, would it fly with JSF till say 2018 to get bit of use out of them, or be scraped once the JSF was fully operational

 

[Magoo]

On top of that press release, it could be decided by tomorrow if we get an interim SuperHornet. To work out correctly, how many would be cut back from the 100 order to work into budget, and what would be the expected delievery date and lasting, would it fly with JSF till say 2018 to get bit of use out of them, or be scraped once the JSF was fully operational

The plan is to push back the introduction of the F-35 from 2012/14 until the the Block 4 becaomes available in the 2016 sort of timeframe.

The Super Hornets will either be upgraded or more likely replaced by either more F-35s or perhaps UCAVs in the early 2020s.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Paxter]

Malaysia’s Long Wait for Super Hornets Continues (news article)

quite an interesting read... i guess funding is a prob and from a country who prefers making money then spending it on defence. Malaysian defence budget is so small% in the pie chart during our national budget its really really sad.

oh also if anyone is going to lima07 end of this year you get to see the Su-30mkm the first two will be there in malaysian colors.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2476235&C=airwar

 

[renjer]

Actually it's not a matter of funding. A deferment is usually a polite "no".

The article cites sources in favour of the SH. This is not news. There's always going to be someone in the air force in favour of a particular aircraft type.

 

[qwerty223]

actually, i had post this news quite some time ago.
Its in "RMAF Future, need opinions".
You can join us there...

 

[MarcH]

Why does Australia procure two bombtrucks ? Well, the Super Hornet got something in common with the vanilla Hornet, but hey, it is a flying barn door. They got even wingfences. :shudder And that wingflutter problem has been solved buy restricting the flight envelop even more.
On one side there was so much fuzz about 5th generation JSF, sometimes even F-22, that your government is willing to pay $3 billion to keep your vintage Hornets airworthy till that 5th generation lawn dart becomes available.
And on the other side Australia decides to buy the crappiest of all 4.5 generation fighters. :unknown
Could someone explain that to me ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Could someone explain that to me ?

Perhaps it would be useful if you explained your background first? - then the aviation industry professionals or military professionals in here can gauge how much they need to expand on to explain their views.

I gather you have read all the posts in here, and have worked out the background of some of the respondents?

 

[Tasman]

And on the other side Australia decides to buy the crappiest of all 4.5 generation fighters. :unknown
Could someone explain that to me ?

There seem to be quite a few experts, the USN for one, who have a very different view of the capabilities of the FA18E/F Super Hornet to the view that you hold. Can you explain why it is that you regard the SH as the 'crappiest of all 4.5 generation fighters'?

Cheers