Air war: F18s vs. PLAAF

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I've been wondering about one thing - has USN been screwed over or has it screwed itself with sticking to the F18s and F18 design for so long, going for the E/F variants instead of going for more modern systems? Yes, eventually JSF will come but until then - what would happen in an air war between the carrier based USN planes going head to head with best of chinese fighters?

Why do i think this showdown is important? Because in a possible conflict, F18s will be a mainstay of US power in any kind of early action and even in a well planned combined maximum force strike by USAAF and USN i believe they'd comprise around 50% of the fighters in the theater. By mid 2002 there were around 100 E/F models in service. Since then the production rate has been sustained at 48 planes a year. So right now over half of fighter planes on an average US carrier are C/D models.

But how would those planes fare against PLAAF? They're not stealthy, E/Fs do have some LO features but it's also a bigger plane. They're comparatively slower and less agile and less manouverable than su 27/30, j10. E/F are actually a slightyl worse performers in dogfights / top speed than C/D models are. Even the C/D models APG-73 radar is pretty mighty though, in my opinion on par with anything china can throw at it right now and E/F's APG-79 is more or less world's best there is.

So, with US's reliance on electronic warfare, it's evident USN would prefer BVR engagements. But since there's no real stealth to speak of, even the superior radar and whole avionics suite could be facing a problem if chinese missiles have a longer reach than USN's. There is also the issue of numbers. Can USN match the number of planes china would send at them? How many CBGs concentrated in one area would it need to make sure chinese numbers wouldn't overwhelm the defenders?

I am not necesarrily talking bout china going for US carriers, what if US wants to aid taiwan and intercept a wave of chinese planes on a mission to taiwan? One CBG could launch, what, 30-50 combat ready F18s in such a mission? What if they successfuly destroyed a wave of older fighters only to be met on their way back by a flight of 100 sukhois? Yes, i'm aware that's precisely why US woulnd't risk such a mission anyway in a real war situation. But still, i think i illustrated my point. F18s are the weakest link of US fighter collection, right now, in my opinion weaker even than f16s. If their AAMs can save them from afar, destroying their enemies before enemies launch their AAMs at them - great. But what if chinese manage to get to a closer range? Then even older planes like J-7Gs could pose a serious threat, in dogfight.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


F-18 super hornet armed with AN/APG 79 AESA radar + Amraam + Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and Raytheon AIM-9X next generation Sidewinder air-to-air missile can more than hold its own against the PLAAF.

You have to understand the stringent requirements of carrier borne aircraft. One of the main issues is the "bringback capability". For safety reasons, an aircraft can only bring a certain number of its armed payload back to the carrier when it lands. For example, the F14 can carry up to 6 Phoenix but it is not allowed to land on the carrier with those missiles on its payload. Why, because of weight and safety issues. So those extra missiles needs to be jetissoned for the plane to get back. That can get very expensive.

The F-18 E/F is also only about 25% larger than the C/D models but boast a much lower radar cross section. It is also highly upgradable. Currently, block 2 upgrades are being retrofitted to the fleet.

Here is another great article about it.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Super Hornet is substantially a new aircraft, which shares only limited structural commonality with the F/A-18A-D family of fighters. While the F/A-18E/F forward fuselage is derived from the F/A-18C design, the wing, centre and aft fuselage, tail surfaces and powerplants are entirely new. The baseline avionic system is however largely derived from the F/A-18C, with planned growth through further evolved derivatives of the radar, EW and core avionic systems, and entirely new systems where appropriate.

The designation F/A-18E/F reflects the fact that the aircraft is derived from the F/A-18A-D, even if it is a significantly larger airframe design - the program was implemented as an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to avoid a costly demonstration program and fly-off, as has occurred with the F-22/YF-23 and JSF. A side effect of this idiosyncrasy in nomenclature is that the F/A-18E/F is frequently dismissed as `just another Hornet', yet the aircraft is different in many respects.

From a design perspective, the most notable change in the Super Hornet is its size, designed around an internal fuel (JP5) capacity of 14,700 lb, or 36% more than the F/A-18C/E. This most closely compares to the F-15C, which has around 10% less internal fuel than the Super Hornet.

Sizing around a 36% greater internal fuel load, with the aim of retaining the established agility performance of the F/A-18C, resulted in a larger wing of 500 sqft area, against the 400 sqft area of the F/A-18C, a 20% increase. The consequent sizing changes result in a 30,885 lb empty weight (31,500 lb basic weight) aircraft, a 30% increase against the F/A-18C. Not surprisingly, the aircraft's empty weight is 8% greater than the F-15C, reflecting the structural realities of catapult launches and tailhook recoveries.

The larger F414 engine, a refanned and evolved F404 variant, delivers 20,700 lb static SL thrust in afterburner, which is around 8% less than the F100-PW-220 in the F-15C.

The simplest metric of the F/A-18E/F is that it is an F-15A-D sized F/A-18C derivative, optimised for the naval environment. The similarity in size between the F/A-18E/F and F-15A-D is no coincidence - as the original VFAX studies in the 1960s and 1970s showed, this is the optimal fighter size for the given combat radius. In effect, the F/A-18E/F is what the F/A-18A Hornet should have been from the outset, had it not been hobbled at birth by a budget driven bureaucracy.

Size is where the similarity between the Super Hornet and Eagle end, since the Super Hornet is optimised aerodynamically around the F/A-18A-D configuration, with a focus on transonic manoeuvre and load carrying performance, and carrier recovery characteristics. In terms of raw performance, the Super Hornet is very similar to the F/A-18C, but provides significantly better CAP endurance and operating radius by virtue of its larger wing and internal fuel load.

With three 480 USG drop tanks, full internal fuel, combat and reserve fuel allowances, 8 x AIM-120 AMRAAMs and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinders, the aircraft has a point intercept radius in excess of 650 NMI, with some assumptions made about expended missiles. This is radius performance in the class of the F-15C.

Like the F/A-18A-D, the F/A-18E/F was designed from the outset for a dual role fighter bomber mission environment. The enlarged wings have three hardpoints each, typically loaded with a pair of 480 USG tanks inboard and weapons on the pair of outboard stations. The wingtip Sidewinder rail is retained.

A notable aerodynamic feature is a significantly enlarged strake design over the baseline Hornet, intended to improve vortex lifting characteristics in high AoA manoeuvre, and reduce the static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics - Boeing cite pitch rates in excess of 40 degrees per second.

Structurally the Super Hornet is built largely from aluminium alloys, with extensive use of carbon fibre composite skins in the wings, and titanium in several critical areas. The design load factor limit of 7.5G is identical to the F/A-18A-D.

The most notable visual difference between the F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E/F, to the casual observer, are the engine inlets. These are are fixed in geometry, but using a rectangular geometry more akin to the F-15 design.

The inlets represent a key design optimisation intended to reduce the aircraft's forward sector radar cross section. The edge alignment of the inlet leading edges is designed to scatter radiation to the sides, and fixed `fanlike' reflecting structure in the inlet tunnel performs a role analogous to the mesh on the inlets of the F-117A, keeping microwave illumination off the rotating fan blades.

The F/A-18E aircraft makes considerable use of panel join serration and edge alignment. Close inspection of the aircraft shows considerable attention 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 centimetric band opaque perforated panels. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter travelling waves away from the aircraft boresight.

It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters. Since every deciBel of RCS reduction counts until you get into the range of weapon payload RCS, the F/A-18E/F represents the reasonable limit of what is worth doing on a fighter carrying external stores. None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.

The Super Hornet employs a further evolved derivative of the F/A-18C avionic package. While the AN/APG-73 radar, common to the RAAF HUG, is retained, provisions will be made in production blocks for the AN/APG-79 (formerly AN/APG-73 RUG III phased array) Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA) retrofit. The new ATFLIR targeting pod will also be used, employing a new `midwave' 4-5 micron band Focal Plane Array high resolution imager.

APG-73 patch

The APG-73 provides very respectable air-ground modes, including synthetic aperture modes (depicted). With the capability to interleave MTI modes with surface mapping modes, the radar provides a potent capability against battlefield and maritime targets . The APG-79 active phased array radar (formerly APG-73 RUG III) is a planned growth feature for the F/A-18E/F family of fighters. It is derived from the baseline APG-73 by the replacement of the planar array antenna with a solid state Active Electronically Steered Antenna array. This will provide the radar with the ability to timeshare operating modes concurrently, as well as improving jam resistance and reducing detectibility through much reduced sidelobes .

The core avionic computing package is based upon militarised COTS VMEbus PowerPC processors (common to desktop Apple PowerMacs and recently built F-15Es), which are of the order of a hundred times more powerful than the 16-bit generation AN/AYK-14 processors in the F/A-18C. This is a significant advancement in long term supportability, and provides a very robust platform for evolution of the onboard software OFPs. The cockpit software is highly integrated by the standards of Mil-Std-1553B bussed architectures, and provides facilities for display fusion of MIDS datalink, RWR threat information and digital moving map displays.

While the preproduction aircraft employ a mix of cockpit CRT and AMLCD displays, the intent is to employ high resolution NVG compatible AMLCD panels in production block aircraft. A strike optimised `missionised' aft cockpit with a large 10 x 8 inch AMLCD display is in development. The JHMCS Helmet Mounted Display will be employed to cue the new thrust vectoring AIM-9X missile, with growth to cue air to surface weapons.

The EWSP package is build around a late model ALR-67 warning receiver, the now revived ALQ-165 ASPJ defensive jammer, supplemented by the ALE-50 towed decoy and ALE-47 dispenser. Current growth plans include the ALQ-214 RF countermeasures package and ALE-55 fibre optic towed decoy from the IDECM suite. The latter is particularly effective against newer monopulse threat systems, since it can provide for long baseline crosseye jamming.

The current configuration of the F/A-18E/F avionic package is the most advanced of any production aircraft based upon a Mil-Std-1553B bussed federated architecture, and is surpassed only by the much newer F-22A and JSF architectures. It is very likely that growth variants of the F/A-18E/F will see the progressive incorporation of avionics technology used in the JSF.

In terms of broad comparisons, the F/A-18E/F most closely compares to the late model F-15 variants. While it does not have the supersonic optimised wing and top end BVR combat and supersonic agility performance of APG-63(V)2 phased array fitted F-15C models, it has a more recent avionic package, radar cross section reduction measures absent on the F-15 and a very modern defensive EW package. In most key respects, the Super Hornet is a substantial improvement over the established F/A-18A-D models, especially in combat radius performance. While the aircraft is frequently criticised for not offering a dazzling supersonic agility and thrust/weight performance increase over the baseline F/A-18C, this was not a primary design objective. Rather, the aim was to provide a low risk near term growth aircraft exploiting the established technology investment in the F/A-18C, and utilising newer technologies such as RCS reduction, integrated MIDS datalink and advanced countermeasures to improve the aircraft's survivability and lethality without the cost penalties of a clean sheet new design.

At this time Boeing and the USN have planned growth paths for the basic aircraft in avionics and weapons, and a new engine derived from the F-22/JSF technology base is seen to be an attractive addition, but as yet is unfunded. Considerable development has also been committed to an electronic combat derivative of the F/A-18F, colloquially termed the `F/A-18G'. This aircraft would replace the EA-6B Prowler, which is often considered too slow to keep up with strike packages, with a fully combat capable escort jammer and HARM shooter. The `Airborne Electronic Attack Variant' F/A-18F derivative would employ wing tip pods with receiver equipment, a mission avionics package in the M-61 gun bay, and a mixed payload of AN/ALQ-99 derivative high power support jamming pods and AGM-88 HARM or derivative anti-radiation missiles. This aircraft would in concept most closely resemble a fusion of the F-4G Weasel and EF-111A/EA-6B models into a single type, which would retain most of the multirole capabilities of the basic F/A-18F aircraft.

The use of a buddy refuelling pod in conjunction with four 480 USG wing tanks is envisaged as a standard role for the F/A-18E/F, to provide a tactical tanking lost with the KA-6D. As the last KS-3 Viking tankers will soon be out of life, the F/A-18E/F is likely to become the sole tanker asset available to carrier airwings. Unlike the KA-6D and KS-3, it is not going to be an easy kill for an opposing fighter force, and since it is substantially faster it will be much more effective in reactive or emergency refuelling situations.

In terms of meeting the USN's aim for a low risk F-14/A-6 and F/A-18A-D replacement, in a timescale and budget compatible with current circumstances, and prior to the production of the high risk high payoff full stealth JSF, the F/A-18E/F clearly meets this objective.


Here is page 2
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Totoro said:
I've been wondering about one thing - has USN been screwed over or has it screwed itself with sticking to the F18s and F18 design for so long, going for the E/F variants instead of going for more modern systems? Yes, eventually JSF will come but until then - what would happen in an air war between the carrier based USN planes going head to head with best of chinese fighters?

I wouldn't say screwed over, you get what you paid for. The F/A-18's unit cost is $60 million, a LOT cheaper than the $165 million A-12 Avenger II. As a replacement platform for F-14, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, & older F-18's, the F-18 E/F/G will reduce aircraft types on the carrier and make maintenance/spares much easier.

As a personal preference, I'd rather have fewer aircraft types and upgrade them for multi-role duties. The F/A-18 is considered inferior in a dogfight vs. Su-35 (not in production), but that can be compensated with reduced RCS and upgraded radar/munitions. In air combat the AN/APG-79 radar is probably much better than what the PLAAF has on the Su-27SK/J-11's.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Yes do do get what you pay for. The USN has decided to include the E/A-18 Growler, a Hornet variant, to repace it's aging fleet of E/A-6 Prowlers. I know that the first ones will be delivered to the USN in 2008 but I can't find a link. This link will have to do...good old globalsecurity.org..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

EternalVigil

Banned Idiot
F-18 e/f super hornets are much better than the regular hornets and much better than the f-16. JSF will be in production later this decade and the carriers will probably have a mixture of the 2 aircraft. Personally I think they would tear the PLAAF up, but Im biased.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The improvement from C/D to E/F is quite dramatic. The reduced RCS is definitely the biggest improvement in my mind.

As for super hornets vs J-10/flankers, it's hard to say really. J-10 and flankers should both have superior manuverability to super hornets, but I guess that would mean as much in BVR situations. Once E/F model gets apg-79 sometimes next year, it will be quite a huge upgrade to 73. However, I don't think APG-79 is really optimized for A2A attacks. That could give Chinese fighters a chance with dedicated A2A radar. I haven't read the specs on either APG-79 or the future Chinese radars, so it's harder to give an edge here.
 

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Without getting into comparisons. Here is a couple of links for APG-79. You can draw your own conclusions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The APG-79 will provide superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability while increasing aircraft's situational awareness. In the air-to-air role the APG-79 will provide longer range engagements and reduced pilot workload.

The new AESA radar system will contribute to the US Navy Network Centric Warfare vision providing the target information which will be distributed to multiple users that, eventually, may engage the target.

and this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The agile beam enables the radar’s air-to-air and air-to-ground modes to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously, an unprecedented technological leap.
 

Skycom Type 2

New Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



the article is mostly about problems of the US navy but it has a section about the F-18

quote

The F-14 is now fading into the pages of history, and it is being replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While certainly much newer than the F-14, some say the Super (expensive) Hornet is no improvement over the existing F/A-18C/D, or the F-14 itself, in fact in many parameters, it is actually less capable than its predecessors. Critics have roasted the new aircraft for its compromised “do-it-all-with-one-platform†philosophy, and in 1999, the US Marine Corps even stated that it would flat out refuse to buy the aircraft. Even compared to the stylish but overpraised F-14, the ill-regarded and oversold Super Hornet falls short in key areas. Consider payload and range, for example. Said Bob Kress and Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist, US Navy (Retired) in 2002, “Though it's a whizzy little airshow performer with a nice, modern cockpit, it has only 36 percent of the F-14's payload/range capability. The F/A-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. This naturally means that the carrier radius of influence drops to 50 percent of what it would have been with the same number of F-14s. As a result, the area of influence (not radius) drops to 23 percent!â€
“The Super Hornet program is still not the performance champion among combat aircraft,†echoed another critic, Bill Sweetman, in 2004. “The F-15 and Rafale will carry more weapons and fly farther, and the Rafale, F-16, and Typhoon will out-accelerate and outmaneuver the F/A-18E/F at high speeds.†Stan Crock pontificated that a great many naval aviators appear to be quite unimpressed with the new airplane, and consider it a step backward, not forward: “‘If the Joint Strike Fighter dies,’†frets one airman, “‘we're stuck with the Super Hornet.’â€

end quote

The original f-18 was the loser (dead last at that, until politics came into it) of the light weight fighter program that spawned the f-16. So if the US navy is going through all the trouble of rebuilding the plane from scratch, why not pour that money into the JSF which is clearly superior and currently in money trouble last I heard?
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
adeptitus said:
I wouldn't say screwed over, you get what you paid for. The F/A-18's unit cost is $60 million, a LOT cheaper than the $165 million A-12 Avenger II. As a replacement platform for F-14, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, & older F-18's, the F-18 E/F/G will reduce aircraft types on the carrier and make maintenance/spares much easier.

As a personal preference, I'd rather have fewer aircraft types and upgrade them for multi-role duties. The F/A-18 is considered inferior in a dogfight vs. Su-35 (not in production), but that can be compensated with reduced RCS and upgraded radar/munitions. In air combat the AN/APG-79 radar is probably much better than what the PLAAF has on the Su-27SK/J-11's.

what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.
 

BrotherofSnake

Junior Member
MIGleader said:
what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.
You forget that the Superbug will have the APG-79 radar which enables the pilot to take full advantage of the AMRAAM's capabilities.
 
Top