Boeing is shopping a groovy list of options to foreign Super Hornet customers at an airshow in India:
Improvements include the Next Generation Cockpit outfitted with a new 11-by-19 inch large area display with integrated intuitive graphics and increased situational awareness.
“Basically, it’s one big iPad, which provides the pilot with a large increase in display surface area,” Boeing test pilot Ricardo Traven said.
Other unique features include improvements in the Hornet’s stealth and range a stealthy conformal fuel tank and a conformal enclosed weapons pod, for example. The weapons pod can carry a combination of AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground bombs, with each Super Hornet capable of carrying three pods. The conformal fuel tank also reduces drag.
Range and speed are also increased with the GE-414 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE).
“When you reduce the drag with the stealthy weapons pod and with an engine with 20 percent more thrust, you greatly increase range,” Traven said.
Configuration flexibility improvements include an internal Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system and a new missile and laser warning system.
Kuwait bought the original enhanced performance engine that eventually became the standard in later model FA-18Cs, while Switzerland bought a 9-g wing for their FA-18s – a mod that didn’t join the US fleet.
Used to be export versions of front line fighters were tuned down a bit, to leave the home team a morale boost should relationships go sideways. So it’s a strange salad bar indeed that serves non-aligned India with a higher performance, stealthier FA-18E than is serving aboard US naval aircraft carriers today.
I guess you get what you pay for.
Interesting. I’d love to see Boeing’s export license for all that stuff.
There are times, shipmate, when I can’t tell if I’m just becoming a cynical old man or whether the world I’m used to really is turning upside down.
Oyster – No worries, we have an APP for that…..
Same goes for India…..
“Basically, it’s one big iPad, which provides the pilot with a large increase in display surface area,” Boeing test pilot Ricardo Traven said.
So Pakistan is getting on your nerves ? We got an APP for that too.
What does the PAK App do? Nuke the entire place simultaneously?
As a diehard Mac guy, I should be happy.
It reflects the new reality – that we need India on board, in the long run, more than they need us. The default for them is to buy Russian hardware, and we certainly want to make sure that does not happen, for a whole variety of reasons. Yeah, we can use the business for sure. But more than that, we need them in our camp, and we need them to be capable.
The old alliances are fading – we need new ones with nations who are rising. And India is as good as it gets.
So… if India needs computer support for that bird, do they call an English accented Hindi speaker in the US? Oh the irony.
LOL!
Oh, hell no, they call Larry the Cable Guy!!!!
Video walk around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE3h8yImm4U
Conformal tanks instead of double ugly I could go for in theory. Or, just make it Super Texaco, and stop worrying about KC-x bidding!
And of course the reason the USN isn’t getting any of the good stuff is because they’re “saving” all the big bucks for the “even better” FA-35.
Nothing like “Waiting for Godot.”
The trend I hate seeing here is the exploding cost. The more these planes cost usually equates to more complexity, more expensive spares, maintenance, training, etc., and a loss of economies of scale That exploding cost also means you cant buy as many planes or have as many ships to fly them from. When will we be down to two carriers and 280 planes?
The way F-35 is going, we may be getting some of thsoe E/F upgrades ourselves. And if India buys in, it might be feasible to do the wing redesign that would get the pylons properly placed and aligned.
I remember a proposal to give India the Kitty Hawk for free if they would buy a bunch of Hornets. Seemed like a good deal to me, but I guess nothing came of it.
That would depend on what they would get in Kitty Hawk. If we said we would refit the thing before giving it to them, then they were probably fools to pass on it. If there was no refit included, then I’d pass on it too. I’d definietely pass on Enterprise given the type of nuke plant we have been told it has, refit or not.
Those 8 tea kettles been around doing what they do for better than 50 years, so let’s not knock ‘em too much. As for the Hawk, I’d just as soon see us refit it with turbines in place of boilers and put it back in service. Expensive? Yeah, but it’s still our ship and doesn’t belong anywhere else.
PS Same goes for the Connie…and the Kennedy.
Speaking as someone who helped put four years back on JFKs life in 2003 and then put her to rest in 2007, I’d rather see JFK sunk. I’ve worked the Sara and the Forrestal and always enjoyed the hard work because both ships had great crews. The JFK? Just the opposite. I have no good feelings for the JFK and was happy to see her leave Mayport for the last time.
The Big E? Pull the reactors and anything “hot”, make a museum out her. Never let that name leave the Naval Registry.
Mongo, Im fairly certain its cheaper to build a new ship than it would be to rip one apart and retrofit (possibly badly) a power plant it was not designed for. Plus there are all the other rusty parts that would also need some love. Remember they spent about $650mil to keep Enterprise afloat for just one more cruise before retiring her. Yikes.
Byron, it makes you wonder. Doesn’t it? America and JFK were both like that, hulks wasted before their time. Concur on Big “E”.
Spencer: A guy can dream. Can’t he? It would be ginormously expensive to convert and restore either ship. I’d rather we do something to keep both for ourselves, however, than betray their unimpeachable service through a Foreign Military Sale.
The idea of putting gas turbines into something like a Forrestal class carrier is scary. I don’t see that working well at all. Placing them in small ships, Figs for example, is one thing, but something as large as a carrier is a bit much for me to wrap my mind around.
They would be better refitting the existing engineering plant than doing something like replace it with gas turbines. Sending the Big E over, the ship that inspired the Nimitz class would be cruelty. It’s simply too hard to refuel and maintain. I have a feeling that Kitty Hawk is probably a better move.
Not being an Engineer, I’d still like to get my hands on a set of prints from Kitty Hawk and play with the idea. Mostly Engineering spaces from the boilers and engine rooms aft. Doubling up the LM2500+G4 powerplants in a CoGen environment for each screw is my notion, although I haven’t a clue as to what would be required to make it happen. Nominal output per screw would be around 94,740SHP, which is considerably above what we get now with Nimitz at 65,000SHP per screw. Intake and exhaust gas flow would definitely be a beast to resolve. Eight gas turbines providing CoGen steam and electricity could do some really good things for the ship.
Ah, but it’s all fanciful brain candy thinking.
The bowwave of an alternate path:
With the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program likely to be hit by further delays on top of the 13-month slip in development announced in February, competitors are beginning to see hope for the future despite tight budgets worldwide. The JSF program office canceled an appearance at Defense IQ’s October fighter conference here. People talking about other programs, though, were no longer shy about benchmarking their favorite jets against the ambitious U.S.-led project, now five years behind its original schedule with a sixth in the offing.”
Over the last 40 years Lockheed seems to have serious problems with development. The C-5 process was a mess, and some of the stories about it have been recounted here.
You’s think Lockmart could do better, but I guess not.
Lockheed did give create the F-22 which is no slouch of an airplane, even though lacking the one critical component, that being the tailhook. I can’t recall the F-22 development cycle, if it was as pained as the F-35. I suspect the bigger problem with the F-35 is the “one airframe for all missions” nonsense that we get saddled with every generation. Some Larry Lightbulb type manages to sell the concept again to Congress and the top brass and we get crap for several years, and wind up having to develop enhanced versions of the F-4 and the A-6 and … oh, wait that was last time around this hampster wheel.
Last time around the F-111 was found not to be all things to all missions and we eventually got the F-14 through 18. In a few years we are likely to see plans for developing new advanced fighters once the F-35 is seen for what it is.
Hopefully Lockmart hasn’t torn up components for the F-22 assembly line. The Russians, French, and now the Chinese make navalized versions of their land-based fighters. I can’t believe we’re not that capable.
George V.
I have occasionally toyed with the idea that any multi-use/multi-branch aircraft should be designed for carrier use first, then adapted to land operations. That worked quite nicely for the Corsair, Fury, and Phantom II among others.
Build in the robustness needed for carrier operations, then remove unneeded items (like a tailhook) for the Air Force.
And, yes, I wouldn’t mind picking up a wing or two of the latest Super Hornet, given the problems with JSF. Hell, why not buy some of the upgraded semi-stealth F-15s while we’re at it? Or some F-16Ks?
Makes sense – perhaps some value in that for rough-field operations, as well as procurement efficiency? Something that can handle carrier landings seems as if it should be able to deal with rougher airfields than a fighter designed for unmoving pavement.
The F-22 dev cycle was not as pained as the 35′s. It bothers me that LockMart would not look the military in the eye and tell them it will be pained. The C-5, however, keeps coming up before my mind’s eye, however. LockMart could do better, they just don’t.
Indian Hornets would not be the first with a greater than the home team version. Israel’s newest F16Is are more advanced than the last USAF models delivered. The UAE has purchased a bunch of F16E/Fs (Block 60) with an AESA radar system and conformal fuel tanks.
Remember this?
“I am a United States Navy flyer. My countrymen built the best airplane in the world and entrusted it to me. They trained me to fly it. I will use it to the absolute limit of my power. With my fellow pilots, air crews, and deck crews, my plane and I will do anything necessary to carry out our tremendous responsibilities. i will always remember we are part of an unbeatable combat team – the United States Navy. When the going is fast and rough, I will not falter. I will be uncompromising in every blow I strike. I will be humble in victory. I am a United States Navy flyer. I have dedicated myself to my country, with its many millions of all races, colors, and creeds. They and their way of life are worth of my greatest protective effort. I ask the help of God in making that effort great enough.”
I suppose it’s considered quaint now.
VX,
Not waiting for Godot; its the arrival of Obo
Flat,
Quaint is too serendipitous; planned obsolescence is closer.
I’m not too clear on the strength of the wings. I understood that a fighter should be able to pull 6g all day, every day, that being the most a human can be expected to take without passing out, but that on at least the prototype tests, they tried to pull 1.5 times that, just to tease out any weaknesses in the structure. Are you saying that the new wings can pull 9g all the time, and have been tested to 13.5g without distorting or breaking? How can you do that with a human pilot?
The F-16 already had a 9-g limit, but it’s not about continuous g, rather peak g, like in a break turn for example. Without a great deal more thrust than current engine technology delivers, you’ll be bleeding airspeed very rapidly in a 9-g turn, which is a good thing for the pilot: In the g-trainer at Warminster, I took 9g for 15 seconds, but it was truly exhausting.
I disremember what the failure model predicts on over-g, I think you’re ballpark on the 50% ultimate load limit. But if I recall correctly, that’s an elastic limit, and each over-g above a certain percentage reduces the ultimate margin by some inexpressible degree.
Regardless of what they choose, upgraded 18′s or the JSF, please for the love of all that is holy can we get the supply contracts to last for maybe a 1/4 of the service life? Tomcat guys use to hate the Hornet guys for there ease of maintaince and parts availability. Now we are all on the same airframe and now fight over fewer parts that do not have to go to Boeing to get repaired.
I think about a hundred forensic accountants and 15 US Marshals could really cut down on the overhead in the airplane price tags.
The furniture in the offices and the cars in the parking lots of the airplane factories are way too high tone….
Fixed price, bonus for compliance, penalties for not and an accountant up your invoice records with a bonus for finding peculation in his contract would help too.
I think they usedta sorta do it like that, a bit, when I was a kid back in the fifties.
P.s. Also, back when Ed Heinemann was still alive. I so want to get a pair of horn-rimmed eyeglasses just like his. I already have the short-sleeved white shirt and the narrow tie, and pocket protector. Gimme 20 minutes with the scissors on my head and I can look just like Heinemann, or Dilbert. Heinemann was superior to Dilbert, because he overcame the suits and made some really cool and wonderful airplanes which did very good work (and execution) for our country.
The AD and the A4D were right marvelous, not to mention the SBD and the A3D. (I always try to use pre-McNamara designations for Naval aircraft, because:
A. I hate and loathe and despise that guy, and
B. I think I’m somewhat autistic, and Change is Bad, Mmmkay?
Or, as Doctor Maturin explained to Captain Aubrey, new things are, of their nature, bad.
Hmm, it seems I might have appeared to be inconsistent in my post above, in praising the innovations of Ed Heinemann and also complaining about changes and new things.
Let me clarify: I am all for new useful technical things, but am right conservative, nay, maybe reactionary when it comes to the social stuff. Socially, McNamara was a troublemaker and a busybody. He tried to translate his social wrongness into military engineering, and predictably failed. Sadly, he was well-connected enough that he failed upwards, into the World Bank, where he could exert his failingness unto the whole world, not just the USA.