Debate F/A-18 Super Hornet vs F-35 Lightning II

[Evildeadmeat 153]

   Boeing is developing a new SH variant (international roadmap). It'll bring new features like IRST (not sure about that), CFTs, new cockpit (F-35 style), and a stealth pod to carry weapons. Is this really useful? SH, even if new variant will have lower RCS (not sure about that, too) is definitely not a stealth aircraft. So, why would you load a stealth external weapon bay to hide loadout if the aircraft you fly isn't that stealth? Is the Navy going to buy this new variant? With the F-35 entering service in USN, new SH variant may be pointless.

[Toryu 156]

 

So, why would you load a stealth external weapon bay to hide loadout if the aircraft you fly isn't that stealth?

Because the aircraft already benefits from low-observability technology, which is increased by hanging "unstealthy" stuff onto the aircraft in a way that increases stealthyness.

 

CFT => no gas-bags needed anymore for a similar mission // more range *with* external gas-bags+CFTs

weapons-pod => less external "unstealthy" stuff dangling from the pylons

 

=>> Lower R/C achieved with relatively minor investment. Also, the aircraft is aimed mostly at export-customers. It's a gamble on Boeing's side. Should the F-35C not be procured in larger quantities, the pimped SH might be an interesting option to congress.

Why? Because it shares lots of parts with the older SH, and the older SHs might be retrofitted to newer standards.

[MAKO69 186]

   Boeing is developing a new SH variant (international roadmap). It'll bring new features like IRST (not sure about that), CFTs, new cockpit (F-35 style), and a stealth pod to carry weapons. Is this really useful? SH, even if new variant will have lower RCS (not sure about that, too) is definitely not a stealth aircraft. So, why would you load a stealth external weapon bay to hide loadout if the aircraft you fly isn't that stealth? Is the Navy going to buy this new variant? With the F-35 entering service in USN, new SH variant may be pointless.

Your wrong, the Superhornet by itself is stealthy, not as stealthy as an F-22 or the F-35, but still harder to detect and find than a legacy hornet It's not only the shape of the plane but what is used to build, coat the aircraft, and how the pilot flies the plane that adds to the stealth. Like Toryu said, you hang missiles,  bombs, fuel tanks, with not so stealthy lines and materials, well you know what that means. However add a weapons pod that has stealth designed into it then you have a stealth strike fighter, once again maybe not as stealthy as the F-35, but still stealthy and harder to find.

 

 

http://ninjapundit.blogspot.com/2013/09/ash-super-duper-hornet-external-weapon.html

[Evildeadmeat 153]

Ok, I think I get it. What about sidewinders on the wingtips? With loadout carried in stealth pod, is the SH able to keep Sidewinders on wingtips station or does he need to leave them in order to save low RCS profile?

[MigBuster 2,884]

Examples:

 

 

[MAKO69 186]

Ok, I think I get it. What about sidewinders on the wingtips? With loadout carried in stealth pod, is the SH able to keep Sidewinders on wingtips station or does he need to leave them in order to save low RCS profile?

If the plane is going to be stealthed out to do a stealthy mission, I would think the plane would be cleaned up pretty slick with no external hung/mounted stores, hence the stealthy weapons pod. Think out of the box and quit being a devils advocate. Well what if you hang weapons on an F-35, doesn't make sense does it. So why put that out there.

[Toryu 156]

I wonder if that weapons-pod could also be fitted to the inner wing-pylons. Probably a couple of modifications would be necessary, in order to optimize the gross R/C.

[MAKO69 186]

I wonder if that weapons-pod could also be fitted to the inner wing-pylons. Probably a couple of modifications would be necessary, in order to optimize the gross R/C.

Only time will tell, I was thinking the same thing. The only draw back would be the more stuff you hang the more parasitic drag the airframe would encounter with a loss of range.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Already in consideration - if it ever happens

 

 

 

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Can't imagine there'd be too much trouble mounting the pods on the wings, from a drag point of view they cant be much worse than a Storm Shaddow. Also worth bearing in mind that if you're mounting these pods you wont be mounting anything else, so I'd imagine it would still be slicker than a standard external stores configuration.

 

Craig

[MAKO69 186]

Can't imagine there'd be too much trouble mounting the pods on the wings, from a drag point of view they cant be much worse than a Storm Shaddow. Also worth bearing in mind that if you're mounting these pods you wont be mounting anything else, so I'd imagine it would still be slicker than a standard external stores configuration.

 

Craig

 I don't know that weapon pod looks real big compared to other stores, twice as big as a fuel tank.

[JediMaster 451]

The pod is mounted conformally underneath the fuselage, but you can't do that on a wing. It would have to be pylon mounted, and that could create extra drag at a minimum and also non-stealthy interfaces.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Looks an awful lot like a pylon to me:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aYCbsSRXY1E/Uh69o5T2LEI/AAAAAAAARXU/8rI4lv4uPno/s1600/F-18F+Super+Hornet+with+enclosed+weapons+pod.jpg

 

Craig

[MAKO69 186]

The pod is mounted conformally underneath the fuselage, but you can't do that on a wing. It would have to be pylon mounted, and that could create extra drag at a minimum and also non-stealthy interfaces.

I'm sure for the right price it could become mounted on the wings, but its massive isn't it.

[Toryu 156]

 

The pod is mounted conformally underneath the fuselage, but you can't do that on a wing. It would have to be pylon mounted, and that could create extra drag at a minimum and also non-stealthy interfaces.

As fallenphoenix pointed out, it's on a pylon. Thinking twice, a conformal pod on the lower fuselage might create integration-problems with the landing-gear kinematic/ doors.

 

The pod looks about similar in size as a 600gal tank. 

[JediMaster 451]

That's so small it's effectively not a pylon. Transpose that to underneath the wing and look at how much clearance it would have. That pylon is shorter than his forearm!

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

It still isn't conformal. There is no reason at all these could not be mounted under the wings, that it hasn't been done mearly indicates that noone has felt the need to. If you take a look at a Hornet carrying a tank on the centre line you'll noice the pylon is about the same size as that holding the pod, far smaller than that which mounts the wing tanks reason being gear compression on landing, ie bugger all to do with RCS reduction.

[MAKO69 186]

It still isn't conformal. There is no reason at all these could not be mounted under the wings, that it hasn't been done mearly indicates that noone has felt the need to. If you take a look at a Hornet carrying a tank on the centre line you'll noice the pylon is about the same size as that holding the pod, far smaller than that which mounts the wing tanks reason being gear compression on landing, ie bugger all to do with RCS reduction.

Don't forget people, wing mounted stores on the Super Hornet have to be toed out 4 degrees due to weapons having a conflict (wanting to smack the plane) with airflow during weapon separation from the aircraft. I think the one conformal weapons bay would suffice. If one is going to be doing a stealth mission most likely they are not going to be destroying a whole neighborhood, more like a single to a few strategic targets. If fighter escort is part of the picture then a battle buddy Super Hornet could be outfitted with the weapons bay set up for air to air. Fighter cover could be provided with F-22s and or Super Hornets that are not to far away loaded conventionally for CAP/BARCAP.

[JediMaster 451]

It still isn't conformal. There is no reason at all these could not be mounted under the wings, that it hasn't been done mearly indicates that noone has felt the need to. If you take a look at a Hornet carrying a tank on the centre line you'll noice the pylon is about the same size as that holding the pod, far smaller than that which mounts the wing tanks reason being gear compression on landing, ie bugger all to do with RCS reduction.

 

That's not the point. The point is that once you hang it on a regular-sized pylon you lose most of the stealth advantage of just having stores on pylons under the wing in the first place. So it becomes pointless. The only place you can practically do a stealthy external stores pod on a fighter-sized aircraft is on the fuselage, either underneath as this example or on the sides like the Silent Eagle proposal.

 

Under the wings you either mess up your aero or the stealth.

[MAKO69 186]

That's not the point. The point is that once you hang it on a regular-sized pylon you lose most of the stealth advantage of just having stores on pylons under the wing in the first place. So it becomes pointless. The only place you can practically do a stealthy external stores pod on a fighter-sized aircraft is on the fuselage, either underneath as this example or on the sides like the Silent Eagle proposal.

 

Under the wings you either mess up your aero or the stealth.

Why not develop a stealthy weapons pylon for said stealthy pod? Anyways I think that one pod is enough as I posted in an earlier statement.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

That's not the point. The point is that once you hang it on a regular-sized pylon you lose most of the stealth advantage of just having stores on pylons under the wing in the first place. So it becomes pointless.

 

Size is near irrelevant, its the shape and materials that count.

As MAKO has already pointed out theres nothing to stop you designing a stealthy pylon to go with the pod, With regard to interference drag affecting the balistics of stores release on a Hornet, given that the weapon is now being deployed from a pod the equation has changed so a 4* cant may not nesissarily be required... working that out is going to take more time and effort than I can be bothered with though. As an aside Dassault have developed a "pod" for tip mounted IRM's...

 

Craig

[+ST0RM 145]

Having not read but the current page and why the pod isnt mounted on the wing, vs the centerline station. I'd like to toss out that, in addition to the loss of the lower RCS, you also reduce your G-limits when you mount large stores on the wings. And since this probably is meant not to be jettisoned, the centerline is the safest place.

 

-S

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Granted there will be a reduction in G lmits, however thats already been hamppered by the CFT's, a Bug in either configuration isn't exactly going to be a hot-rod.

 

Craig

[+ST0RM 145]

Well, if its anythig like the F-16 and it's limits with CFTs, there is only a loss of 1. Current documentation lists the F/A-18E/F at 7.5 G (clean). I couldnt not find anything that spells out an exact number with stores. Again, back to the F-16, I knew that with a pair of full 370gal Wing tanks, the limit was 6.5. Thats a 2.5G penalty for a heavy wing store. Probably safe to assume the same for the SH.

 

Until Boeing finalizes it's testing with the CFT and EWP, we wont know for certain. But given the mission for this configuration, is a lower-cost Day 1-2 striker that needs a low RCS with range. Hanging stuff on the wings does not allow this. Period. You would have to develop all new weapons, tanks, everything in order to reduce the RCS. New pylons are only one part of the problem and not worth the cost with all of the extras that go with it.

 

-Jeff

[MAKO69 186]

Well, if its anythig like the F-16 and it's limits with CFTs, there is only a loss of 1. Current documentation lists the F/A-18E/F at 7.5 G (clean). I couldnt not find anything that spells out an exact number with stores. Again, back to the F-16, I knew that with a pair of full 370gal Wing tanks, the limit was 6.5. Thats a 2.5G penalty for a heavy wing store. Probably safe to assume the same for the SH.

 

Until Boeing finalizes it's testing with the CFT and EWP, we wont know for certain. But given the mission for this configuration, is a lower-cost Day 1-2 striker that needs a low RCS with range. Hanging stuff on the wings does not allow this. Period. You would have to develop all new weapons, tanks, everything in order to reduce the RCS. New pylons are only one part of the problem and not worth the cost with all of the extras that go with it.

 

-Jeff

What's the point of stealth if your going to be flashing wings and control surfaces pulling Gs at a possible enemy radar if air or ground based. The F-16 isn't stealthy like the Super Hornet. Your guess of the penalty for the G limit is probably right on along with costs of a wing pod, but if the US Govt. wants them they will  pay for them with our money. The point of stealth is to go in at low or no light, poor weather slide in and out super slick drop your load and slide out. With standoff weapons like G.P.S. and laser guided bombs and missiles there should be no need for a plane to whip the ponies in and out of the target area. An F/A-18 E/F, F-22, or an F-35 JSF pulling ACMs will give itself away eventually by flashing control surfaces and creating radar signatures that are not as docile looking on a radar operators screen as a stealth based plane flying straight and level. Stealth makes them harder to find not invisible.