F-18

[zx]

http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/jet-fighter-explodes-aboard-uss-stennis

[BPCs]

Finalement la compétition du programme F-35 est plus au niveau de la mise a jour du réacteur du F-18 que dans le réacteur F-136 ou dans les capacités en technologie stealth existant chez Boeing :

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aadc73ae3-8cf4-49af-95d9-e057d1a5df97&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

What about stealth? There is some overlooked history here. A long time ago, after McDonnell Douglas had its wobbly bits handed to it by Lockheed and Northrop in the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition and was forced into a junior partnership with GD on the A-12, St Louis vowed that it would never happen again.

A robust stealth group was established and has been sustained ever since, working both on reducing signatures of conventional designs and on highly-LO designs such as X-36 and Bird of Prey. Back in 2007, then-Phantom Works chief George Muellner said that the LO group had made important advances in managing signatures with external stores -- and four years later, what emerges?

So the LO comparison between the new Hornet and the JSF might not be as cut-and-dried as one might think.

Finally, consider the US Navy. The performance comparison between the Boeing proposal and the heavier F-35C will lean toward Boeing. The chin-mounted infrared search and track system (not quite the same as the IRST function in the JSF's targeting system) meets a Navy need. And while Lockheed Martin has claimed that the F-35A will cost about as much as a Super Hornet, nobody makes that claim for the F-35C.

And by the way, an improved Super Hornet comes out of the box with all the weapons and functions developed (with a lot of time and money) for the current aircraft. The two-seater can be loaded with fuel tanks and flex into a forward air control mission. The conformals are a quick and useful range extension for the Growler (EPEs wouldn't hurt that aircraft either).

If I was Boeing, these are all things I would be telling the US Navy. Just not in public.

[BPCs]

[zx]

Nouveaux brouilleurs pour le EA 18.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/notes-on-next-generation-jamme.html

Next Generation Jammer

This is the US Navy's programme to replace the aging ALQ-99 jammer pod for the EA-6B and EA-18G. Building a new jammer is a tricky job. Just ask the US Air Force. After dropping the mission by retiring the EF-111 Ravens in 1997, the USAF attempted to catch up with the B-52 stand-off jammer system (SOJS) after 2002. That programme was cancelled in 2006 after estimated development costs spiralled from $1 billion to $7 billion. An attempt to revive a scaled-down, $1 billion version called the Core Component Jammer (CCJ) also was dropped two years ago. Now, the navy is working with several contractors to develop the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ). Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has to get its acquisition strategy right.

The key question at the moment is how many pods would be required to perform an expanded jamming mission spanning from radars to communications emitters, said Travis Slocumb, vice president of strategy and business development for Raytheon. It takes as many as nine different pods for the ALQ-99 to cover the entire spectrum of threats. Ideally, the NGJ could cover the same ground with a single pod.

That's attractive because a single pod covers only 120 degrees of the compass, so three pods would still be required for each jamming platform to provide 360 degree coverage. The alternative is to split the high-band jamming signals into a separate pod, but that means that the EA-18G would need to carry five pods on every mission, Slocumb said. The navy seems to prefer the single-pod solution, he added, but that means accepting more risk during the development phase. Risk is not a popular word in the Pentagon right now, which isn't making the navy's decision any easier.

Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI)

The US Air Force, meanwhile, is trying to figure out what to do with the GMTI mission currently performed by the E-8C Joint STARS and RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 40. Alternatives include upgrading the Joint STARS radar, buying a GMTI spin-off of the Boeing P-8A, or perhaps use a smaller aircraft like a business jet. Raytheon products are available for all three options, allowing the company a unique perspective into the ongoing debate.

According to Tim Carey, Raytheon's vice president for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, the key, non-budgetary issue in the air force's debate is a single metric called "minimum detectable velocity". How fast does the target have to be traveling to be detected by the radar? The physics are already known. One approach is to use a long array with a low-frequency signal, such as the E-8C or the P-8A. The other approach is to use a short array with a high-frequency signal, he said. The latter is the basis for the Raytheon airborne stand-off radar (ASTOR), which the UK operates as the Sentinel R1. The answer will determine whether the USAF decides to buy a larger or smaller aircraft, or simply upgrade the aircraft they have already.

But the other question is not answerable by Carey, presumably because the answer intrudes on classified details. That is, can existing GMTI radar technology detect something moving as slowly as a human on foot? If it can, can the radar also identify whether the moving object is a bipod or a quadruped. The issue is the difference between finding a team of insurgents advancing toward a special operations team -- or a herd of sheep.

[zx]

Pas mal, pas mal

http://info-aviation.com/?p=9698

L’US Navy est parvenu à faire apponter un F-18 sur un porte-avions de façon entièrement automatique grâce au système du drone de combat X-47.

[collectionneur]

Un autre clou dans le cerceuil du F-35 ?  :lol:

[BPCs]

Un autre clou dans le cerceuil du F-35 ?  :lol:

Non et oui :

Non car ce n'est que le démonstrateur d'appontage automatique du X-47B

Non car cela ne va pas modifier drastiquement les conditions d' appontage au point de permettre de fossoyer le F-35B : pour ce faire, il faudrait utiliser ce software pour augmenter l'AoA (puisqu'à ce moment la visibilité du pilote n'a plus d'importance) et obtenir un freinage plus conséquent qui permettrait d' obtenir une version ESTOL. Problème il manque une version du Superbug  avec tuyère vectorielle... Donc pas pour demain...

Oui, car cela signe l'avancement du programme X-47b apporte un élément de plus que le F-35, l'autonomie ! Or c'estcrucial dans les scénarii d'air Sea Battle du fait des ASBM chinois.

Je crois que Boeing verrait très bien un mix de  Silent Hornet êtes X-47B....

Ensuite avec les réductions budgétaires US n'y aura t il pas un choix a faire ?

Et avec

[pascal]

j'adore les traces de doigts sur l’écran tactile

Un pote qui a travaillé sur le Rafale M me disait que le train principal "à genou" du F 18 est un modèle du genre en matière de souplesse à l'appontage alors que celui du Rafale à jambe droite est bcp plus stressant pour la cellule à l'appontage

[g4lly]

Le système de F-18 agit comme une ressort pour absorber l'effort à l'appontage avant que ça arrive à la cellule, celui de Rafale est transmis et absorbé par la cellule.

JE vois pas trop en quel honneur une suspension a bras tiré serait plus "amortissante" qu'une suspension télescopique?!

[pascal]

@g4lly

je n'ai aucune compétence technique pour te répondre mais a priori le gars en question semblait assez sûr de son coup ...

[BPCs]

plus de détail sur le Super Super Hornet :

Encore plus de pods furtifs pour armement : jusqu'à 3 : 12 AMRAAM...

mais besoin de sous pour le développer ...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/11/04/02.xml&headline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Details%20Of%20International%20F-18

[DEFA550]

JE vois pas trop en quel honneur une suspension a bras tiré serait plus "amortissante" qu'une suspension télescopique?!

Le débattement et la progressivité, pour les mêmes raisons qu'on est passé au bras oscillant monoshock (en passant par le cantilever) sur les motos de cross il y a 30 ans.

[alexandreVBCI]

The Super Hornet as a Stealth Killer?

That new crop of foreign stealth fighters that’s emerging; don’t worry, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can handle ‘em. That’s the interesting pitch that Boeing’s man in Tokyo for fighters gave me earlier this month while discussing Japan’s F-X fighter contest. I suspect that’s Boeing’s main pitch for many of it’s potential fighter customers.

Basically, the Super Hornet’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar — and it’s ability to jam enemy radars and electronic countermeasures — combined with the jet’s infrared search and track (IRST) system will allow it to compete with low-observable jets, said Phil Mills, director of Boeing’s F-X program in an interview just days before Boeing lost that contest to Lockheed Martin’s stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

(IRST systems have been around for decades, they use an infrared sensor to allow a pilot to ID and lock onto a target’s heat signature rather than radar signature.)

Here’s his pitch as to why the newest versions of the Super Hornet will be a viable competitor to the latest stealth jets:

IRST expands our frequency spectrum of sensor coverage so that it gives us much better counter-stealth capability than we had with just AESA.

AESA’s much better [than older radars] as far as detecting small targets. But, AESA plus IRST gives you the capability of not worrying about targets with low radar cross sections, so you can see those targets and actually establish a weapons-quality track without the radar. You can also cue that AESA, that has two and-a-half to three-times the detection range of the old radar anyway, and it can see further than that if you cue it to look at a very small piece of the sky.

The Super Hornet is a proven design, with some stealthiness built in, that can be continuously upgraded to survive in 21st Century aerial combat, added Mills.

The F/A-18E/F is an example of “where Boeing has been really successful, not doing clean-sheet developments so much, but evolving proven designs and integrating new technology and putting in new capabilities on more an evolutionary basis as opposed to a revolutionary, let’s do a clean sheet, like F-35, and go through all the development pains of a new start,” said Mills.

Now, the IRST as a stealth killer could have been Mills’ be a last ditch argument to sell the Super Hornet to Japan. Modern stealth jets are designed to mask their heat signatures. After all, 21st Century stealth isn’t just about being invisible to radar. Truly stealthy designs limit the amount of heat, electronic signals and even noise emitted by the aircraft in an attempt to make them undetectable.

I’d like to see what happens when one of the new IRST-equipped Block II Super Hornets goes up against an F-22 Raptor or F-35. Remember, a Navy EA-18G Growler electronic attack jet did score a fake kill against a Raptor a couple of years ago.

http://defensetech.org/2011/12/30/the-super-hornet-as-a-stealth-killer/

[MH]

La Finlande equipera ses F/A-18 de missiles JASSM.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133219/finnish-cabinet-oks-jassm-missile-buy.html

[zx]

crash F/A 18  en Virginie sur des appartements, les pilotes se sont ejectés,  pas plus d'info

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/f18-jet-crash-virginia.html#

Two pilots safely ejected themselves from a Navy jet before it crashed into a Virginia Beach apartment building this afternoon. Rescue teams are on the scene, but the fates of any civilians in the area are not yet known. CBS has live video of the aftermath, while various photos from people nearby are turning up on social networks. One video taken moments after the crash shows raging flames and stunned bystanders.

The Associated Press reports that the pilots are being treated for injuries that are not life threatening. More updates as they come.

en direct sur cbsnews a cette heure

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2n

[zx]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/04/06/01003-20120406ARTFIG00669-un-f-18-de-l-armee-americaine-s-ecrase-sur-un-immeuble.php

[Tactac]

Les pilotes se sont éjectés. Que des blessés apparemment.

[zx]

http://info-aviation.com/?p=13531

Le 29 mars, l’Australie a annoncé vouloir investir 19 millions de dollars australiens pour reconvertir les chasseurs-bombardiers F/A-18F de la Royal Australian Air Force en avions d’attaque électronique EA-18G Growler.

[Darkjmfr]

Les pilotes se sont éjectés. Que des blessés apparemment.

Sacré coup de bol.

[BPCs]

Proposition d'environ 11 SH en plus de ce qui est prévu et une quinzaine de EA-18 :

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/05/house-defense-appropriations.html

   The Committee believes a strong tactical aircraft fleet is vital to the Nation’s security. The F/A–18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, which is nearing the end of its production run, is the Navy’s current strike fighter workhorse. The future of Navy tactical aviation will be the F–35C Lightning II aircraft, which will bring a fifth generation strike fighter to the decks of the Nation’s aircraft carriers. As a result of several variables, not the least of which has been the increased flight hours flown by the Navy’s tactical aircraft fleet in support of conflicts around the world, the Navy has been faced with a strike fighter shortfall. To partially offset the severity of this shortfall, the Navy has begun a service life extension program for 150 of the legacy F–18 Hornet aircraft. While still in its infancy, this effort is expected to gain approximately 1,400 flight hours per aircraft at a cost of approximately $25,000,000 per aircraft. The Committee notes that a new Super Hornet aircraft has a cost of approximately $55,000,000 and an expected service life of 9,000 flight hours. When comparing the two options, a new aircraft would provide six times the service life at just twice the cost. While it is not reasonable to close the entire strike fighter shortfall gap with new aircraft, a small quantity of new aircraft is an attractive alternative, especially considering the additional flight hours gained. Accordingly, the recommendation provides $605,000,000 for the procurement of an additional eleven Super Hornet aircraft above the request.

   EA–18G Electronic Attack Aircraft

   The Department of the Navy has accomplished the Nation’s airborne electronic attack (AEA) mission for the Department of Defense for several years. This mission has largely been performed with the EA–6B Prowler aircraft flown by the Navy and Marine Corps. The mission is currently transitioning to the EA–18G Growler aircraft (a variant of the F/A–18 aircraft) as the Prowler aircraft age and are retired. There are currently 19 airborne electronic attack squadrons in the Department of the Navy, however, only 15 Growler squadrons are planned. This is due to the fact that the Marine Corps will not fly the Growler aircraft but intends to move away from dedicated airborne electronic attack squadrons and shift to an organic capability using electronic warfare payloads such as Intrepid Tiger and the inherent capabilities within the F–35 aircraft. Although this approach is envisioned to satisfy the requirements of the Marine Corps, the Committee is concerned about the reduced AEA capability for the Nation at large. The Prowler aircraft (and the compatible AEA mission) has been a high demand, low density platform since the days of Desert Storm and is expected to continue as such. Accordingly, the recommendation provides $45,000,000 above the request for the advance procurement of materials for the construction of 15 additional EA–18G aircraft in fiscal year 2014 to preserve the option of increasing the quantity of this vital aircraft.

[alexandreVBCI]

Boeing propose tout un tas d'améliorations pour le F-18 :

Boeing wants to keep its successful F/A-18E and F Super Hornets rolling off the line for as long as possible, and the company is dreaming up all sorts of enhancements to entice interest from foreign buyers and, who knows, maybe the U.S. Navy.

Company officials told our colleague John Reed this week that they’re looking into ways a Super Hornet could launch its own unmanned aerial vehicle — the company’s ScanEagle — which a Super Hornet’s crew could then vector into an area of interest.

Plus there could be other changes in the works for Es and Fs, Boeing says; anything to press the opportunity for sales while rival Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II takes longer than promised to materialize.

Other potential upgrades to the Super Hornet could include the installation of a stealthy weapons pod; conformal fuel tanks along the upper fuselage that give the jet more than 3,500 gallons of additional fuel; enhanced General Electric engines that would provide increased fuel efficiency and up to 20 percent more thrust; and a bevy of avionics and sensor upgrades designed to improve the plane’s ability to collect and share data as well as jam enemy sensors. All the information gathered by these sensors would be displayed in the cockpit on a giant, color touch screen resembling a large iPad.

While Boeing has no official contracts to install these features on any of its Super Hornets, it is conducting research and development work to ensure that it can do so, should a customer request them.

“As international customers buy Super Hornets, they can tailor it to their needs” as they evolve by taking advantage of the new features that Boeing is researching, said Chris Chadwick, head of Boeing’s military aircraft division, during a June 7 meeting with reporters.

One key target is Brazil, as you’ve read here before. Boeing’s sales pitch seems to be that it could make a batch of Super Hornets that would be to Brazil what the company’s F-15SA Eagles are to Saudi Arabia — a cutting edge expression of an old design, one that it hopes overshadows newer-model competitors. (And, aircraft that, for what it’s worth, match or exceed those fielded by the U.S. military.)

Then there is the Super Hornet’s best-known devotee: The United States Navy.

It plans to keep operating its fleet for years, even alongside Lockheed Martin’s F-35C Lightning II. So each of Boeing’s new high-tech enhancements, from the canister-launched UAV to range and C4ISR improvements, would probably be of great interest. Moreover, the company’s pitch could grow to represent a fallback middle path between building more U.S. jets and building none. Its first choice would almost certainly be to continue building new airplanes. But if the company sold its UAV support, engine upgrades and other enhancements as bolt-on accessories, ones it could install on the Navy’s existing fleet, that would still mean work for its Super Hornet business. Years from now, the Navy might be flying F/A-18H and I-model Super Duper Hornets.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/08/boeings-high-hopes-for-the-super-hornet/

[2020]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=40755

et en image le super super hornet ! ;)

[Jarod]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=40755

et en image le super super hornet ! ;)

Toujours aussi moche  :lol:

[alpacks]

Toujours aussi moche  :lol:

Ah ben, c'est issu du design de l'époque ou c'était les F14 & F15 qui faisaient rêver les fanas de fighters de la génération 70-80, le F18 a un design qui en est largement issu ... Sauf que les besoins étaient que le zings devait être bien + petits

C'est grosso modo, les mêmes nez/corps de cockpit du F14 au F18 en passant par le F15

[Jarod]

Ah ben, c'est issu du design de l'époque ou c'était les F14 & F15 qui faisaient rêver les fanas de fighters de la génération 70-80, le F18 a un design qui en est largement issu ... Sauf que les besoins étaient que le zings devait être bien + petits

C'est grosso modo, les mêmes nez/corps de cockpit du F14 au F18 en passant par le F15

Je suis plus fin 80, pourtant c'est le F-14 qui me faisait et me fait encore rêver ;)

Rah comment peut on comparer le Tomcat au Hornet, sacrilège  O0