,

Silent Hornet?

The F/A-18 family has been a pretty successful program for Naval Aviation, from it’s origins as an inexpensive lightweight fighter, to a replacement for legacy F-4 Phantom and A-7 Corsair II aircraft.  It’s evolution into the much larger F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EF-18G Growler were surprisingly smooth programs. But the program isn’t without its faults. …

The F/A-18 family has been a pretty successful program for Naval Aviation, from it’s origins as an inexpensive lightweight fighter, to a replacement for legacy F-4 Phantom and A-7 Corsair II aircraft.  It’s evolution into the much larger F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EF-18G Growler were surprisingly smooth programs.

But the program isn’t without its faults.  For instance, the major weakness of the family has always been seen as its relatively low “fuel fraction,” that is, the percentage of the aircrafts weight devoted to fuel.  A low fuel fraction leads to relatively short range.  External tanks and aerial refueling mitigate this to some extent, but not without penalties in performance, payload, cost, and time.

The Super Hornets also have one other minor issue. A fair amount of attention was paid to reducing the radar cross section of the jet, without having to go full stealth. But when weapon separation tests were conducted on the prototype, it turned out that some loads were not leaving cleanly. The modified wing of the Super Hornet was doing things to airflow that no one had foreseen. Rather than have to redesign the entire wing, the fix turned out to be toeing out the external wing pylons by 4 degrees.  Of course, this imposes a healthy bit of drag, both for the pylons themselves, and for any stores on them. It also pretty much shot to hell all the attention to reducing the radar cross section of the jet.

So, with the pylons off, the Super Hornet is pretty sprightly, and has fair low observable characteristics. But it doesn’t have any range, or any weapons.

Boeing is trying to work around that issue.  In recent years, other “teen” series fighters, the F-15 and F-16, have used “conformal fuel tanks” fitted to the outside of the airframe to increase “internal” fuel, rather than having to carry drop tanks on pylons. With care, the design can have minimal impact on airframe drag or radar cross section. That goes a long ways toward tacking the range issue. But what about weapons? Boeing is also designing a semi-stealthy pod for the centerline that resembles a drop tank, but is instead a weapons pod.

Jason pointed out this article at The DEW Line showing a mock-up of the configuration that Boeing and the Navy will flight test this summer.

DSCN0273-v2.jpg

You can see the Conformal Fuel Tanks over the wing root, and the weapons pod on the centerline. Close observation will also show a sensor window under the nose, as opposed to the usual method of mounting a pod on one of the engine bays. Less drag, more stealth.

The concept is to give the Super Hornet fleet some limited ability for “first day of the war” stealth to penetrate enemy air space. My major concern is that the weapons pod right now is only configured (so far as we can tell) to carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, giving it a fair air-to-air capability. What it really needs is a capability to carry weapons to attack enemy surface to air defense systems.  Some way of carrying anti-radiation missiles, or at a minimum, GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs is going to be critical. I suppose designing an alternative pod shouldn’t be too great an engineering challenge.

Boeing is smart enough to see that its rival Lockheed Martin is struggling to make the F-35C a reality, and is trying to offer a low cost, low risk alternative that will keep the carrier air wing viable through the first half of the 21st Century.

  1. tmi3rd

    Here’s hoping they (Boeing) get it right. There were folks I talked to at Lockheed who were quietly very surprised they got the F-35 contract, because they felt like the Boeing product was a better aircraft. These same folks were openly calling the -35 “Aardvark II”, and one was a line manager in Fort Worth.

    There are a whole lot of shortcomings about the -35 that seem to indicate its inadequacy for any of its missions, anyway… I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that the aircraft that seem to handle multirole work the best are Navy birds adapted to AF and Marine Corps missions (F-4, F-18, F-8/A-7). The -35 has shown itself to be less than suited to any of its missions thus far.

    Like

  2. xbradtc

    The real cause of the compromised capability was in the insane STOV/L requirement for the “B” model. First, I don’t think STOV/L is as critical as the Marines think it is, and if it was, the better route would have been to have Navy lead a two-plane program for the Navy and Air Force, and then leverage the engine/avionics into a separate airframe for the Marines.

    Like

  3. Jeff G (@gman79)

    By the time the F-35 finally gets to the fleet in sufficient numbers to fill up flight decks we will we well on the way to having VAD squadrons aboard (V=Fixed Wing, A= Attack, D= drone).
    I’m sure there is some back channel conversation telling Jaime Engdahl to hurry the heII up and get those things developed/tested/built cuz the 35 isn’t going to give the COCOM what he needs.

    Like

  4. wandering neurons

    Except that the picture shows the conformal tanks and centerline pod on a regular F/A-18 Hornet, not a Super Hornet. Kidney-shaped engine inlets, not the rectangular ones on the Super.

    Like

  5. xbradtc

    That’s an optical illusion of the picture angle. If you click through to the DEW Line, it’s pretty clearly a Super, with the rectangular inlets.

    Like

  6. Casey Tompkins

    While I agree that there have been many excellent Navy designs which crossed over (you forgot the FJ Fury -> F-86 {g}), two of the finest multi-role aircraft have been the F-15 & F-16. Then again, they were both designed for air-to-air first and only… 🙂

    Perhaps the best approach is go with a high-performance/good cost design, then add on other roles. The Mustang and Thunderbolt worked out that way as well.

    Like

  7. Casey Tompkins

    While I’m no F-35-basher, it’s looking more & more a good bet to invest in an improved F-18 & F-15. Can’t speak what sort of new stuff has been whipped up for the Viper.

    Like

  8. xbradtc

    While the F-15 and F-16* have matured nicely as multi-role aircraft, they are incompatible as multi-service aircraft. Neither can reasonably be adopted to carrier service.

    Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any AAF/USAF aircraft that has been successfully adopted to carrier service.

    *yes, I know the Navy operates the F-16, but in a niche adversary role, not as a deployable asset.

    Like

Leave a comment