F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet equipped with the APG-79 AESA.

The AESA radar will provide Super Hornets with significantly improved reliability, situational awareness, target detection and tracking range.

"AESA will revolutionize the Super Hornet's warfighting capability," said Capt. Donald "BD" Gaddis, the F/A-18/EA-18G program manager for the U.S. Navy. "This will dramatically enhance the force commander's ability to prosecute targets, support our troops and protect our facilities and ships."

Featuring a fixed array with an agile beam that scans near the speed of light, the AESA will, for the first time, enable aircrews to conduct simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-surface operations with independent dual-cockpit operation. In air-to-air mode, the radar allows targets to be engaged at very long ranges, permitting weapons launch at maximum range and enhancing warfighter survivability and lethality. The system also offers high-resolution ground mapping at long standoff ranges for air-to-surface tracking.

Boeing Debuts Super Hornet with Advanced Radar System
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Now your looking at aircraft with increased radar capabilities coupled with a reduction of RCS of about 25%. Very cool.
The AESA, among other coming upgrades, will allow the F/A-18E/Fs to continue their roles till the JSF's come into play.




seekerof

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Ok, its till no F-14 but with this increased radar capability and a smaller RCS it should make for a good replacement, until the F-35 begins service.

Well I would like to learn more about how this will enable the SuperBug to handle a Rafale or Typhoon or Su-33.

Your right, it is still no F-14D. 10 YEARS Later.

Is this the same super hornet config offered to India?

Daedalus3. no it is not the same configured F/A-18.
The reason India turned the F/A-18 down was because of weight.

As a matter of fact, it has, heeding the assessment of Air Headquarters, virtually decided against buying F-18s. The Air Force brass found the aircraft to be on the heavier side and not quite in step with their requirements.

F-16: Air Force to be heard

Seems those 'light-weight' Indian aircraft carriers cannot handle the added weight of F/A-18s on their flightdecks.




seekerof

[edit on 22-4-2005 by Seekerof]

This would make it more attractive to Canada or Australia as a interim
Fighter. The FA-18A's they have got are running out of airframe hours.
The aussie hornets wont make it to the intro of JSF

Originally posted by Seekerof
Daedalus3. no it is not the same configured F/A-18.
The reason India turned the F/A-18 down was because of weight.

Seems those 'light-weight' Indian aircraft carriers cannot handle the added weight of F/A-18s on their flightdecks.

seekerof

[edit on 22-4-2005 by Seekerof]

How much does a F-18 weigh actually? As compared to a Harrier or a MiG-29 K
Its definitely heavier than a LCA for sure!! lol

hehe
Was it weight heavy or wallet heavy?...
Or both..



[edit on 22-4-2005 by Daedalus3]

another neat article on the super hornet :

www.bharat-rakshak.com...

The F/A-18 is a lot lighter than the F-14 and some carriers still cant operate wit them.
Weight of F/A-18 Super Hornet loaded is 46200lb, weight of F-14D loaded is 61200lb.

Radars and avionics aside, the raw performance of this fighter is pretty weak. Its wings create too much drag. Its top speed is worse than the F/A-18C/D. The drag really hurts its fuel efficiency too. You'll need speed, climb rate, and acceleration in BVR fights to give missiles a good boost in speed and altitude, and also to evade incoming missiles. Nevertheless, if the US will only be going after cave dwelling rebels out in the desert from now until JSF deployment, I guess it's more than enough.

Avionics and Radars aside? So you judge a fighter by their top speed and maneuverability?
In BVR you really don't need to be that maneuverable is when it comes to dog-fighting that maneuverability counts.

Originally posted by Taishyou
Radars and avionics aside, the raw performance of this fighter is pretty weak. Its wings create too much drag. Its top speed is worse than the F/A-18C/D. The drag really hurts its fuel efficiency too. You'll need speed, climb rate, and acceleration in BVR fights to give missiles a good boost in speed and altitude, and also to evade incoming missiles. Nevertheless, if the US will only be going after cave dwelling rebels out in the desert from now until JSF deployment, I guess it's more than enough.

Not true, not true at all. And the Super Hornet is a worthy replacement of the F-14. Furthermore, the JSF will NOT replace the Superhornet. The JSF will replace the F/A-18 C/D Hornets, while the Superhornet is replacing the F-14s.

The raw performance of the Superhornet is perfect for its role in the Navy. It is a great aircraft. It can get upgraded, more powerful engines, is having an upgraded avionics sweet put into it, has room for more upgrades in the future, it is significantly easier and cheaper to maintain than an F/A-18 C/D, it has increased range, increased payload, it handles and maneuvers jsut as good as the F/A-18 C/D, etc....it is an all-around great aircraft.

Don't believe all that stupid media hype about the plane sucking, again, journalists never have a clue as to what they are saying. The plane isn't as large as an F-14, but it can still carry considerable payload, and has virtually the same range (short of 40 miles of the F-14's range).

Taishyou, the Superhornet is plenty of an aircraft to take on most any aircraft out there. With these new avionics enhancements, that pretty much seals the deal. The maneuvering of the aircraft is excellent as well, though the media will tell you otherwise. But don't follow those leads.

A friend of mine in the RAAF said that F-18s handle quite well supersonic but subsonic it was like trying to fly a washing machine, while F-16s handled better subsonic than supersonic. Considering that most engagements happen at above mach 1, the F-18 should be a good BVR fighter, but I'll still prefer a F-14.

Of course everyone would prefer an F-14 but we have to make due with the Super Hornet and JSF. Also with fly-by-wire it should not be a problem flying the F/A-18 even at subsonic speeds. Look at he B-2 its a mother to try and fly that thing manually, but fly-by-wire can do it.

Without the computer a B2 would fall out of the sky...

likewise the typhoon, and any other naturally unstable aircraft

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Avionics and Radars aside? So you judge a fighter by their top speed and maneuverability?
In BVR you really don't need to be that maneuverable is when it comes to dog-fighting that maneuverability counts.

Raw performance is important in BVR as well as avionics. To give your missile more kinetic energy to extend range (in other words, to get a good launch perimiter), you need good speed, acceleration, altitude and climb rate. To evade an incoming missile, you need to either fly away from the missile as fast as possible or you have to beam the missile (flying perpendicular to missile's path), and that requires good manoeuvrability, little bleeding of speed during turns, stuff like that.

Considering that most engagements happen at above mach 1

No, actually, very few air combat ever happens above Mach 1. IIRC the fastest recorded speed used during air combat is Mach 1.6 but I don't remember the source very well. In BVR, you don't want to go too fast, you want to keep your distance from your opponent to prevent getting into the range of their BVR AAMs while launching your own load at them. What's useful is to suddenly boost your speed and altitude to get a good launch perimiter, launch your load, then slow down as much as possible while maintaining your lock to guide you missile. If you go too fast, you'll go too close to them, and if they evade your missile then go on the offensive, you'll have to face their missiles too. Dodging missiles at long ranges is easy (just fly away), but at close ranges it is not easy at all. Good speed is needed just for getting yourself a good launch perimiter and when dodging missiles, but otherwise it's better to go slow, keep your distance, and fight wisely.

Taishyou, the Superhornet is plenty of an aircraft to take on most any aircraft out there. With these new avionics enhancements, that pretty much seals the deal. The maneuvering of the aircraft is excellent as well, though the media will tell you otherwise. But don't follow those leads.

ok if you say so. I just see a general dissatisfication regarding this fighter around, such as in this article
www.flightjournal.com...

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Taishyou]

Originally posted by Lucretius
Without the computer a B2 would fall out of the sky...

likewise the typhoon, and any other naturally unstable aircraft

The B-2, a flying wing, falling out of the sky... Just like the non-computerized FLYING wings of the 40's and 50's?

Im not sure about the B-2 but the F-117 is flying purely on correctional computers..
Its called the "hopeless diamond"..

Will check out stability of the B-2, and then reply..

But the B-2 is the first flying wing to do without any form of fin or side area whatsoever, hence its reliance on FBW.

I'm curious can any shape with some lift and powerful engines fly with FBW, like a saucer?





West Point, Out.