Stealthy Super Hornets in the pipeline?

[MaverickSawyer]

One of the pages I frequent recently posted this:

For those of you who go "TL;DR", here's the nutshell version:

Spare military aircraft and unneeded prototypes wind up at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tuscon, AZ. Recently, the aft section of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet arrived. However, it was unlike any currently either in development or in service. It has extensive stealth features across the entire airframe.

I think that Boeing is betting that the F-35 Lightning II is going to be a fiasco, and they are putting themselves in position to pick up the pieces with a much cheaper, more flexible (but equally stealthy) aircraft.

Thoughts?

[K^2]

Makes sense. Low radar cross-section is the name of the game in modern air combat. While US were the only ones making extensive use of the tech, it wasn't critical, but Russia and China have jumped on board, and it's not going to be long before 3rd world is going to be able to afford to buy a few such planes. It'd be a shame to have to retire such a magnificent F/A as the Super Hornet just because of its cross-section when all it needs is a face lift.

[Pondafarr]

If that is truly a technology demonstrator model, then its highly likely the project was a failure. We would not put functional "future tech" into the bone yard if the project worked, it would remain hidden at Holloman or a Area 51-type test area. Significantly, the vertical stabilizers are almost completely stock. As these are areas that extensively affect the RCS, I would guess this model was an incremental test model for FEATURES of the current technology base, like the panel edges and exhaust nozzles, or possibly an early test article for the FA-18E/F.

wiki quote:

The F/A-18E/F's radar cross-section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear.[7] The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross-section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.[55]

The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to direct reflected waves away from the aircraft in uniformly narrow angles.[7]

It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal radar cross-section an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.[55] Additional RCS reduction measures can be installed on an as needed basis.[56]

Ultimately, if its in the bone yard, its simply awaiting reclamation.

[Klingon Admiral]

I wonder what sense a stealthed carrier-based fighter has when the carriers themselves scream "shoot me" at the top of their lungs?

[Nibb31]

If it's in a boneyard, then it's quite probably from an old or cancelled project. Claiming a stealth version of the FA-18 is jumping to conclusions.

Stealth technology isn't exactly new these days. For all we know, this prototype could be 20 years old. It could have been a test platform for developing individual stealth components or for flying components and solutions that would go on the F-22 or F-35 before they were available... Or it could be from a cancelled project that came up before the F-35.

[Raven.]

I doubt we'll see this, especially with the F-35N coming in very quickly.

[Klingon Admiral]

I doubt we'll see this, especially with the F-35N coming in very quickly.

The F-35 is a joke. Worse air superiority than the F-22, worse anti-ground then the A-10 and costs as much as 2 to 4 F-18s. The guys at Lockheed are probably still chuckling that they got a buyer for this piece of crap.

[Simon Ross]

Hey guys

You can still buy the Typhoon you know, matches the F35 in air to air combat at a fraction of the price.

Ah, but it's European, so thats never going to happen LOL

[K^2]

To be fair, F-35 wasn't meant to be as good air superiority as F-22. It only needs to be capable of dealing with Migs and Sukhois, which it can do, so long as it stays out of their range. But as far as cost/quality, it's definitely an expensive turd. I just wouldn't blame guys at Lockhead for it. The specs from the military were silly to begin with. It really is an example of what happens when you design a vehicle by committee.

If that is truly a technology demonstrator model, then its highly likely the project was a failure. We would not put functional "future tech" into the bone yard if the project worked, it would remain hidden at Holloman or a Area 51-type test area.

All this really tells us is that this particular project failed. The important bit here is for there to be a failed project, there had to be an interest. And if there were several competing projects, which is likely, they might still have the selected project under wraps somewhere.

Unless, of course, F-35 was that competing project, in which case, somebody somewhere made a bad call.

You can still buy the Typhoon you know, matches the F35 in air to air combat at a fraction of the price.

F-35 can target and fire on Typhoon before it is a blip on Typhoon's radar. Typhoon also won't be able to go up without casualties against newer Sukhoi's. It's all about BVR, and if you aren't showing up on enemy's radar, while you have them ready for a lock, it doesn't matter that your fighter has terrible flight characteristics. They'll be eating your missiles.

Edited February 24, 2014 by K^2

[Nibb31]

The F-22 or the A-10 can't operate from carriers. Air superiority these days is mostly the affair of weapon systems rather than the airframe, and ground support is done by drones. It's a post-Cold War world, and most countries don't need or can't afford the F-22. They also don't want to maintain multiple aircraft types for different mission roles. Most air forces in the World are looking to reduce the number of aircraft types in service in order to streamline their logistics, which means that they are ready to compromise on mission specialization. The rationale behind a multirole fighter like the F-35 makes sense.

...Of course, most of those operational cost advantages have been negated by the budget overruns.

[K^2]

The F-22 or the A-10 can't operate from carriers. Air superiority these days is mostly the affair of weapon systems rather than the airframe, and ground support is done by drones. It's a post-Cold War world, and most countries don't need or can't afford the F-22. They also don't want to maintain multiple aircraft types for different mission roles. Most air forces in the World are looking to reduce the number of aircraft types in service in order to streamline their logistics, which means that they are ready to compromise on mission specialization. The rationale behind a multirole fighter like the F-35 makes sense.

This rationale only makes sense in the congress. In reality, it cost a lot of money, hurt military readiness, and set us back a decade if we do decide to replace it with something functional and future-proof. Of course, when the only air force that can compete with USAF belongs to US Navy, things aren't all that bad overall.

[Simon Ross]

To be fair, F-35 wasn't meant to be as good air superiority as F-22. It only needs to be capable of dealing with Migs and Sukhois, which it can do, so long as it stays out of their range. But as far as cost/quality, it's definitely an expensive turd. I just wouldn't blame guys at Lockhead for it. The specs from the military were silly to begin with. It really is an example of what happens when you design a vehicle by committee.

All this really tells us is that this particular project failed. The important bit here is for there to be a failed project, there had to be an interest. And if there were several competing projects, which is likely, they might still have the selected project under wraps somewhere.

Unless, of course, F-35 was that competing project, in which case, somebody somewhere made a bad call.

F-35 can target and fire on Typhoon before it is a blip on Typhoon's radar. Typhoon also won't be able to go up without casualties against newer Sukhoi's. It's all about BVR, and if you aren't showing up on enemy's radar, while you have them ready for a lock, it doesn't matter that your fighter has terrible flight characteristics. They'll be eating your missiles.

With respect, please do a wee bit more research on the subject.

In real life combat trials, Typhoon and F35 kill ratios are pretty much 50/50 when they are matched against each other

The CAPTOR radar on the Typhoon is one hell of a lot better the the US airforce would like to admit in public

Stealth is good, but once it's acquired a F35 is a sitting duck, it's not a true fighter aircraft, a Typhoon is

Edited February 24, 2014 by Simon Ross

[jwenting]

With respect, please do a wee bit more research on the subject.

In real life combat trials, Typhoon and F35 kill ratios are pretty much 50/50 when they are matched against each other

having some experience in how those "trials" are choreographed, I'm not surprised.

They're engineered to yield a politically desirable result, and Typhoon beating the living crap out of the US's vaunted Join Strike Fighter isn't going to go down well with the political leaders.

Same happened with the F-23/F-22 flyoff. It had been decided in Washington that the F-22 would be the winner, so the tests were tweaked to ensure there'd be no chance for the F-23 to prove its superiority.

For example a main factor in the decision to buy the F-22 had been that the F-23 had not demonstrated life fire capabilities. What was glossed over was that the F-23 had never been scheduled to fire life weapons by the Air Force project office in order to save some money (after all, the same systems were used in both aircraft so only one needed to be used to test if they worked...).

[Klingon Admiral]

The F-22 or the A-10 can't operate from carriers.

This assumes that carriers will remain a backbone of military might. There are a couple of reasons against this assumptions.

For the multi-billion cost of one supercarrier, a nation could afford a couple houndred to a thousand ore more anti-ship missiles. The Soviet/CIS/Chinese Kh-55 has a range of up to 3000 kilometres, beating every modern fighter jet, and can be deployed by aircraft long, long before the carrier's fighters launch their first mission into the hostile country. And although a CBG has an impressive missile defense, they would have serious, serious trouble against the missile spammage a modern military, most famously the Russians, could unleash.

Once the US get sucked into a fight where the opposing side can actually shoot back, the carriers will be in a lot of trouble.

[Seret]

It's all about BVR.

Probably not as much as you think in the real world, short range fights can and do happen regularly, for a number of reasons. Besides, with the imminent arrival of Meteors Typhoon is a very dangerous animal BVR. An F-35 can't actually engage without lighting itself up like a christmas tree on radar, at which point it would face a volley of ramjet-powered return fire, both sides would turn tail and try to outrun the missiles. Until the F-35 has a ramjet weapon Typhoon has a better chance of surviving the first exchange, growing moreso the longer the engagement range. That's going to affect tactics, the F-35 would want to get reasonably deep inside their AMRAAM range before they shot, max range engagements wouldn't be good percentage for them. That means in practice it would take more F-35s to cover the same area against Typhoons, and lessens the impact of their stealthiness. Besides, stealth isn't even useful for everything, there are times in air-to-air you're going to have your radar on.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the Typhoon myself, it's lack of stealth is a huge flaw. But I don't think there's likely to be a decisive gulf in capability between Typhoon and the F-35.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Seret

[Seret]

Air superiority these days is mostly the affair of weapon systems rather than the airframe

I would include AEW as well. Modern fighters are part of a network that shares sensor data, they can even hand over control of their weapons systems to the controllers sitting way back in their AEW aircraft.

[K^2]

With respect, please do a wee bit more research on the subject.

In real life combat trials, Typhoon and F35 kill ratios are pretty much 50/50 when they are matched against each other

The CAPTOR radar on the Typhoon is one hell of a lot better the the US airforce would like to admit in public

Stealth is good, but once it's acquired a F35 is a sitting duck, it's not a true fighter aircraft, a Typhoon is

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but this is absolutely wrong. It might have come from some lope-sided study putting the two under "equal conditions", but this is absurd. The two are never going to fight in equal conditions.

In a real combat situation, F-35 is going to fly with passive radar and in full stealth. Now, with CAPTOR in active mode, it can, indeed pick up F-35 from a good range. Unfortunately, flying with active radar is like flying with a bull's eye. F-35 will be able to pick up and lock onto the radar long before it's in radar's actual range. Some of the newer versions do have passive mode. However, it's nowhere near as good, and when you take into account the cross-section difference, it's not even a competition. F-35 will be able to lock and fire before it is detected.

Fact is, the first Typhoon pilot will know of F-35's location will be from RWR warning. Now, this does, in principle, create an opening. With the active lock alarms going off, the pilot should, without delay, switch radar into active mode, get the lock on F-35 before it closed its bays. Since Typhoon is in F-35's passive range, CAPTOR in active mode should be able to maintain lock on F-35 even after it closes its bay doors and goes full stealth again. Now, provided that F-35 pilot doesn't do anything to shake that lock, Typhoon pilot can turn as necessary, and fire back on F-35. All of this while two AIM-120 AMRAAM's are already on the way.

Now, keeping in mind that low cross-section and passive mode make F-35's countermeasures far more effective, F-35 pilot will actually have a good chance to escape this counter-attack. Typhoon's pilot, in contrast, must sacrifice valuable seconds he needs to escape, and furthermore, make self a much easier target by going active, in order to counterattack.

So given a suicidal Typhoon pilot and best possible situation of 1 on 1 combat, this is not even close to 50-50. Given that very few pilots are even going to think about counterattack before doing evasives, and that F-35s are going to operate at least in pairs, where they have huge radar advantage, this whole 50-50 thing is just absurd.

An F-35 can't actually engage without lighting itself up like a christmas tree on radar

Of course. That's a problem with absolutely any radar-guided missiles. But when you first announce yourself on RWR, that's a hell of an advantage. Like you said, it's going to be all about turning and trying to outrun missiles. So when your RWR lights up, do you first check your radar, establish lock, fire back, then run, or do you start running right away?

Edited February 24, 2014 by K^2

[Raven.]

With respect, please do a wee bit more research on the subject.

In real life combat trials, Typhoon and F35 kill ratios are pretty much 50/50 when they are matched against each other

The CAPTOR radar on the Typhoon is one hell of a lot better the the US airforce would like to admit in public

Stealth is good, but once it's acquired a F35 is a sitting duck, it's not a true fighter aircraft, a Typhoon is

I tend to agree, the two fighters are even matched. The F35 is likely to show on radar the size of a beach ball, or other large bird. Until it opens its weapons bays. At which point a Typhoon can acquire a lock.

Also keep in mind, that while equipment is very important, it's not everything. A crappy pilot in a Typhoon will get shot down every time. An outstanding pilot in a typhoon will win the war for you.

[Seret]

In a real combat situation, F-35 is going to fly with passive radar and in full stealth. Now, with CAPTOR in active mode, it can, indeed pick up F-35 from a good range. Unfortunately, flying with active radar is like flying with a bull's eye.

It's pretty normal to operate things like a barrier in noisy mode. As I said, sometimes you don't want stealth, you want everybody to know you're staking a claim on a certain space, and aggressively use of active radar is a pretty intimidating way to do that. Even stealthy aircraft will think twice about diving into a wall of active radars, unless they know they've got them outclassed.

Of course. That's a problem with absolutely any radar-guided missiles. But when you first announce yourself on RWR, that's a hell of an advantage. Like you said, it's going to be all about turning and trying to outrun missiles. So when your RWR lights up, do you first check your radar, establish lock, fire back, then run, or do you start running right away?

It's not just RWR. Just opening the bay doors is likely to cause you to get tagged by the local AEW, they'll either hand over the target data to the fighters or they'll remotely launch the volley themselves. You're going to have missiles going in both directions and both sets of fighters hauling arse on full ABs within a few seconds. BVR engagements are like a dance, it's all coordinated by the fighter controllers in the AEWs or on the ground. It's not left to the individual pilots to coordinate maneuvers.

The first shot element of surprise would count for more the closer the F-35s snuck in (risking detection), and very little at long ranges. Stealth becomes decidedly less useful after you throw it away by engaging, in subsequent volleys having better weapons, tactics and/or better AEW will be more decisive. When facing a well-equipped enemy (ie: somebody with AEW and/or an integrated air defence system) a stealthy fighter really needs to be able to strike a knockout blow with that first shot, or they become pretty ordinary.

Given that very few pilots are even going to think about counterattack before doing evasives

With modern fire and forget weapons they'll always return fire before taking evasive action. Why would they not? It'd be mad, you'd just be allowing your enemy to continue closing the range and fire again at a higher percentage while you're preoccupied with not exploding. By returning fire you force them to turn and run.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Seret

[K^2]

It's pretty normal to operate things like a barrier in noisy mode. As I said, sometimes you don't want stealth, you want everybody to know you're staking a claim on a certain space, and aggressively use of active radar is a pretty intimidating way to do that. Even stealthy aircraft will think twice about diving into a wall of active radars, unless they know they've got them outclassed.

Where are you getting that from? This sort of thing works for AEWs and SAM sites, because they have the range and radar power to either get out of the way or shoot you down first. For an air-superiority fighter, active radar is just an invitation to be shot down. Most modern systems will let you lock onto enemy's active radar without turning your radar on at all. The active radar on the missile only kicks in when it has closed most of the range or if active radar goes silent. Flying with active radar is a way to get shot down with minimal warning. Hell, pilots started flying with active radar off before they even had passive radars to fall back on for this very reason.

It's not just RWR. Just opening the bay doors is likely to cause you to get tagged by the local AEW, they'll either hand over the target data to the fighters or they'll remotely launch the volley themselves. You're going to have missiles going in both directions and both sets of fighters hauling arse on full ABs within a few seconds. BVR engagements are like a dance, it's all coordinated by the fighter controllers in the AEWs or on the ground. It's not left to the individual pilots to coordinate maneuvers.

If they're going in for the kill, it's going to be seconds between bays opening and missile active lock coming alive. Seconds can be valuable too, but it doesn't make that much of a difference in this case. If a stealthy fighter snuck up to within passive radar range, it got its advantage, whether it gets detected opening bay doors or not. For starters, a weak signature on radar that you can't get an NCTR on is not much to go on. If you get Doppler off it, you might recognize it right away as a hostile fighter. Otherwise, you have to track its range for a while, which can take several seconds as well, if it's not heading straight towards radar. In the end, RWR will still be the first thing defending side is going to be reacting to. So you have offensive, you have first missiles in the air, and you are still flying a stealth aircraft with better ability to shake the missiles.

The first shot element of surprise would count for more the closer the F-35s snuck in (risking detection), and very little at long ranges. Stealth becomes decidedly less useful after you throw it away by engaging, in subsequent volleys having better weapons, tactics and/or better AEW will be more decisive. When facing a well-equipped enemy (ie: somebody with AEW and/or an integrated air defence system) a stealthy fighter really needs to be able to strike a knockout blow with that first shot, or they become pretty ordinary.

See, now we've gone on form one-on-one combat to AF-on-AF, with the full support. Which is good. That's the only way a real combat between F-35 and Typhoon can happen. But you are neglecting advantages of networked stealth aircraft. Yes, the moment F-35 fires, or perhaps even as soon as it opens doors, it reveals its position. Now it has to run and hide. Difference is that it's networked with any number of other F-35s which now have all the same targets as the first one did, but they aren't on enemy radar yet. While the Typhoons are reacting to one jet and one attack they can see, F-35s are adjusting their position based on that reaction for a second attack. And more importantly, they don't have to run, because they aren't being fired on. You can use this advantage to either try and trap the air superiority, or simply push it out of zone of interest long enough to hit whatever ground targets you need and pull out. That's the modern stealth advantage.

With modern fire and forget weapons they'll always return fire before taking evasive action. Why would they not? It'd be mad, you'd just be allowing your enemy to continue closing the range and fire again at a higher percentage while you're preoccupied with not exploding. By returning fire you force them to turn and run.

Fire-and-forget isn't a magic bullet. Granted, you can be facing completely the wrong way, fire the missiles, and they'll turn around and head where they need to go. But they don't exactly turn on the dime. It depletes the missile's range and gives enemy a solid head start on running away. Given that F-35 would have fired the missiles already, and already be turning about for a run, you are at a huge disadvantage. I mean, granted, if you are going to run right away, you might as well go ahead and fire. No reason not to. But again, we aren't talking about anything like 50-50 here. F-35 got you in sights from a passive range and lined up his shot. You might get lucky with fire-and-forget.

Switching to active radar, lining up your shot, and firing your missiles then will improve your odds of hitting that F-35 dramatically. But it also screws up your chances of escaping. Either way, huge advantage to stealthy aircraft once more.

[Seret]

Where are you getting that from?

Personal experience. I'm ex-military, I was an armourer on fast jet squadrons for several years. I've seen the tactics live during big exercises like Maple Flag, and on more active deployments like INTERFET. I've ridden along on DACM sorties, I've stood in a hole with FACs as we've brought strike packages onto the target through a mess of fighters. I wasn't a fighter pilot, but they were my colleagues. Happy days, but behind me now.

I'm actually a bit sceptical of this kind of armchair generalism anyway. Real-world engagements only partially come down to the technical details of the equipment each side is using. There are a million things that pop up in the real world that change the variables: local conditions, tactics, training, weather, RoE, strategic issues, and good old fashioned low cunning and subterfuge. Hell, even luck. Stupid things happen in real wars. Critical equipment breaks at the wrong time, orders get lost or misinterpreted, people get scared and bottle it, or they just balls up simple things. Even on exercises I've seen aircraft that on paper shouldn't stand a chance get loads of kills on superior forces. Violence is inherently chaotic. You can't really extrapolate from paper statistics and performance during exercises conducted under quite artificial conditions to real world performance. Neither the F-35 or the Typhoon has seen any action, they might both be **** for all we know. Plenty of aircraft that were thought great in peacetime have been found lacking in combat.

[SFJackBauer]

I tend to agree, the two fighters are even matched.

Not even close.

The F35 is likely to show on radar the size of a beach ball, or other large bird.

Correct.

Until it opens its weapons bays. At which point a Typhoon can acquire a lock.

But then it closes the weapons bays and goes back to a beach ball. Now even if the Typhoon has fired an active, it will not have midcourse updates, and when the missile switches on its radar, there would be no F-35 in the area to lock into. It would have flexed to way far from there.

Meanwhile the F-35 wingman, the one the Typhoon pilot never saw on the radar, but that was looking at him the whole time, datalinks midcourse updates to the missile the first one fired.

[Klingon Admiral]

A Eurofighter Typhoon belonging to a competent military would never fight against a F-35, a competent military would sink the carriers housing the F-35s long before the first F-35 would start. Always focus on the weakest part of the chain.

[jwenting]

I'm actually a bit sceptical of this kind of armchair generalism anyway. Real-world engagements only partially come down to the technical details of the equipment each side is using.

Yup. Just looking at spec sheets and determining "this is best" is useless. Even more useless is "I like this one better because it looks nicer" which is extremely common as well.

Real battles are won in the supply chain, not the pilot seat.

You can have the best tank or aircraft on paper, the best trained pilots or tankers, but if they don't have bullets, fuel, and coffee they're not going anywhere.

Or that fantastic looking piece of gear turns out to be a lemon. Like the German Panther tank, which was just extremely unreliable under combat conditions.

Or you can only build so few of them that they're swarmed by cheaper models of the enemy that on paper are far inferior (and in a one on one indeed are), like the Tiger. And that's what'll happen if the F-22 ever has to go into combat against the Su-33 (for example). They'll shoot down 4 of those each, be out of missiles, and the other 20 up there for every F-22 will probably blot them out of the sky like so many gnats.

Or conditions...

Remember a training exercise between the US Navy and the Dutch Air Force near Italy.

For 3 days the American F-14s and Hornets beat the living crap out of the Dutch F-16As (block 15s for the experts).

4th day the tables were turned. 3rd day had been 4th of July, the American pilots were let's say not quite in the shape they'd been in the first 3 flights

[DaveofDefeat]

I heard the f-35 wasn't even that stealthy.

Unfortunately the f-35 suffers from make one airframe do every single role a plane can have syndrome. A long range air superiority fighter that can also do VTOL? That also has to do close air support?

At any rate the military is going to need a plane that will fill in the gaps, you simply cant buy enough f-35s to provide a proper air force.