Boeing’s high hopes for the Super Hornet

Boeing’s high hopes for the Super Hornet

Big B 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.


Wrote Reed:

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.

Join the Conversation

I think the Navy has done the right thing buying the Super Hornet and the Growler to cover the fighter gap while they wiat for the F-35. Addionally it would not suprise me if the Navy backed out all together. The Navy does not like single engine blue water ops and stealth coatings take a beating at sea. Currently the F-35C has a problems trapping and the redesign is going to require major work. With low time Super Hornets and a new EA platform it would seem a no brainer to cancel the F-35C

Picture of the next generation cockpit for the Super Hornets :

http://​www​.freerepublic​.com/​f​o​c​u​s​/​f​-​n​e​w​s​/​2​7​4​7​2​6​2​/​p​o​sts

Its seeming more and more like the navy should crop the F-35 and go with the SH and growlers.

Start looking into a good dedicated Air-air fighter and a good solid strike aircraft like the A-6 was. Slow rugged long ranged and with a ton of firepower under its wings.

Dont worry about stealth. To much has been sacreficed at the stealth alter . It just drives the price up to much.

“Its seeming more and more like the navy should crop the F-35 and go with the SH and growlers.”

Yeah, to those who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

Hey ELP, jump in here and tell us how you’re going to fly Super Hornets off gators. LOL!

Wouldn’t surprise me if some or even all of these make it into the fleet. F-35 seems more like a legacy Hornet/A-7 replacement, at least as far as the Navy goes; whatever the F/A-XX program creates will be the next fleet air defense/air dominance bird, and that is still a pretty long ways off. Super Hornets are going to be with us a long time.

sferrin

The USMC is going to use F-35Bs off the gators. The comments made so far have been about the Navy F-35C. Not sure I understand you SH gator comment

an extra 3.500 gal of gas would be a tremendous upgrade

Interesting.… observing un-named internet-trolls and their model-airplane-glue inspired and/or religious/faith-based hope in the Just $o Failed.

20% more thrust and a lot more gas (i.e. range, loiter, etc.) hey we might just be getting a fleet defense fighter again a la F-14

Really? Try me.

Please explain.

The USN is not backing out of the F-35C. In fact the F-35C is the USN’s #1 priority! MORE single engined aircraft have served the USN than twin engined aircraft… The F-35’s stealth coating have been DESIGNED to “take a beating at sea” WITHOUT compromisingits stealth. The redesigned hook & damper took comparatively little work & NONE to the airframe. And just wait until you hear the official news (when it is released) as to how well the new hook & damper is working… You would have to have no brain to cancel the F-35C.

Yes really. It has been explained countless times, but you obviously don’t care to listen.

The USN has shown little to no interest in any/all of Boeing’s ultra-super-duper Hornet enhancements.

The F-35C IS a F/A-18C/D replacement. The F/A-XX is the F/A-18E/F replacement.

The USN is backing out of the F-35C. But in fact the F-35C is Lockheeds #1 priority! MORE propeller engined aircraft have served the USN than twin engined aircraft… The F-35’s stealth coating can be redesigned yet again to “take a beating at sea” maybe. And we know what The yet again redesigned hook & damper didnt require the whole aircraftt to be redesigned. And just wait until you hear the official news (iwhe it is leaked) as to all the problems with the new hook & damper… Anyone with a brain would cancel the F-35C.

there fixed it for you

The super bug always was a very mediocre aircraft. But compared to the F-35 it shines like gold. If we have to buy second rate aircraft (because thats all that we can produce) then it at least makes sense not to pay premium prices for it like the laughably priced F-35.

Boeing’s sales pitch for the F-18 sounds alot like what we used to do when we sold upgraded second line equipment to 3rd world allies. Only these days the third world isnt interested in buying junk anymore.

Being able to fly one two ship mission a day from a gator has no military significance.

But the amateurs are always impressed.

I agree with most the F-14 was a all together better fighter. Overall as a multirole attack plane for export the Hornet is good and alot cheaper than the Rafael or EF-2000 are. I think they have a future in marketing them to world powers.

Okay, you have now outdone yourself. That is the biggest lie I have heard from you yet.

The F-14 was produced back when quality products were still produced in America. Now all the parts we install into our aircraft were probably made in china.

The F-35 is completely outclassed by Russia’s PAK FA. By the time we get 100 F-35s in service, Russia will have 500 PAK FAs, India will have 500 and China will have something better as well. But we won’t ever get 100 in service because the country is broke and the economy is going to tank.

The EA-18G is the only version of that aircraft that will be worth while producing in 10 years. The EA-18G does not need stealth to operate in a hostile environment just the occasional electronic upgrade.

The F-35C is important to the Navy because it gives them a survivable first strike capability and the ability to carry more ordinance. The F-35C is not going to be a good air superiority fighter because it was not designed to be. The F-35C is not capable of pulling as many G’s (about 7) as the F-35A (9G)

The Navy should have cancelled the F-35C a long time ago. The other services are putting immense pressure on the Navy to go through with the buy because they know their own versions of the F-35 will increase in price if the Navy decides not to go through with it. For every one F-35C the Navy buys it could also buy 3.5 Super Hornets. The upgrades Boeing made for the Super Hornet also give it about 90% of the capability of an F-35 at a small fraction of the cost. Here is my (slightly revised) comprehensive analysis on why the USN and USMC shouldn’t buy the F-35:
http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​8​8​9​4​6​6​6​0​/​W​h​y​-​t​h​e​-​U​S​N​-an

With the newer radars isn’t stealth dead. If so what is the performance over an upgraded Super Hornet? F35B’s maybe for the gators. How many F35B’s will operate from each gator? Six planes could provide good ground support but little if any air cover. Are we after quality or quantity? rather have 300–400 Super F18’s than maybe 100 F35C’s. Pf course there would be no supplemental retirement plan for certain O5plus. Just the overall operating costs/$ per hour for operation would make the F35C’s, unproven, a poor buy.

I think the US Navy should have either canceled it or scale it back in the R&D stage before committing it to full production. In the mean time, Buy all the upgrades for the F/A-18 E/F super hornets and keep the EA-18G going as well.

It’s a smart decision to keep buying F/A-18’s/EA-18’s right now and for the not to distant future. Why take a gamble when you can have the for sure thing? Not to mention when the F-35 does start its real testing/training it will take some time for the Navy to get a respectable number; that is if the F-35C even happens in five years.

I don’t see the Super Hornet production line going away for at least another decade if these upgrades happen. Boeing’s plan is to keep it open as long as possible until they can ‘count’ on an F/A-XX bid.

I just noticed this, but I think there is a mistake in this article. The conformal fuel tanks give the Super Hornet 3,500 more pounds (NOT gallons) of fuel.

Oh you mean the “fact” that the JSF is better because it has longer range (when carrying tanks externaly which means stealth is now over-and when its internal gun mount is removed so it can have the extra fuel). Well conformal fuel tanks would help with that. What would really help is a long range strike aircraft like the A-6 was which performed great as a aerial refuler/bomber/missile/etc

. –BTW its great when people scoff at the A-6 as a “Bomber” and complain its not multimission.…..what has the US navy done basicly for the last 10+ years besides bomb?? Thats mostly it. Very few air-air battles which doesnt mean we dont need fighters it just means the most logical and efficent thing to do is build a fighter for escort/cap/interception/etc and a bomber for strike missions and even EW.

Oh yea lets not forget stealth. The stealth that is very poor and which can be found by a simple radar system which we know EVERYONE is working on. This assumes of course that the aircraft dont have external munitions or fuel…which is a HUGE radar spot. The stealth coatings are terrible at sea. And add even more maintanence problems.

Of course all of this ignores the simple fact, COST. The F-35A the cheapest is around 130-140mil in reality after everything gets done. The F-35B is already over 200mil. The C model after the get done rebuilding it is probably going to cost even more.

So when i can buy 2 Superhornets for the price of 1 C model F-35 and have enough money left over to maybe even buy a modern A-6 like bomber i think it speaks for itself.

What, Russia has 4 prototype PAK FA’s right ? The US has delivered it’s 12th aircraft to Eglin AFB, and the US DoD just added two F-35’s to the lot 5 order. The lot 5 now includes :
22 F-35A’s
3 F-35B’s
7 F-35C’s
I agree The PAK FA might outclass the F-35 but we do have 187 F-22’s, and a much faster growing fleet of F-35’s.

Hard to argue, Belesari. I’m not liking the age of the 6’s, as far as design goes. It’s a 60’s era aircraft. Keeping in mind I’m just getting quick glances at Wikipedia for intel, so take what I’ve got with a grain of salt.

I like the 18’s… They’re not old, yet. The 35B has the gator capability going for it, though. But then again that’s not really relevant as it’s not much of a game changer with so few. The 35 has the stealth edge but would it be needed? Most countries have flimsy radar at best. By the time an aircraft is spotted it’s usually a bit too late to react due to the astounding speed we’re pushing these days.

And if I’m not mistaken the ships tend to handle the radar and airfields with missiles before the aircraft get into motion. I never really thought stealth fit into our naval doctrines too well.

Anyways… The 35B is sexy as hell. Stealthy. Fast. Long-ish range. I’d like to see it replace the A-6, definately. But only if it can take on the roles and missions of the A6, of course. But replacing the 18? No thanks. Not unless the 35 can double the range and speed. I can handle a smaller payload.

The price kills me. Especially when I can’t find much to complain about with the F18. I’m all for stealth and speed and technology… But that pricetag is killer for something that I can’t really stick a role to. Best thing I can think of is to retire the A6 and give that EW/light bomber mission to the F35… Assuming it can handle it, which I’m thinking it can’t. Not enough room.

Or maybe the 35 is going to take on an interceptor/fighter capability. I can see it excelling beyond the F18 in that aspect.

Maybe I’m just babbling as I haven’t had my first drop tank of coffee yet. But there’s my go at the subject. I definately want to get rid of that ancient A6. It’s 2012. We can do better than 60’s tech. We can definately do better than 9-digit pricetags.

+1

When it comes to stealth design today, the radars they are design to defeat are high-frequency — and as long as the design isn’t compromised (with weapons hanging off the wings, fuel tanks, etc.) the aircraft will be harder to detect.

But when low-frequecy radar is used, while it is considerably less accurate, it can detect stealth aircraft just fine (you’ll know the attack is coming).

I would think the best way to handle the problem, would be stealthy cruise missiles to take out the expensive/high-value assets, but then use stealthier designed aircraft to finish the job (take the high-maintenance exotic materials out, etc.).

Thats the problem the F-18SH is a gas hog. Has terrible range all multimission aircraft do.

The thing about the A-6 is it did its job subsonicly but extremely efficently. There was a new design and upgrade which actually used the same engines as the Hornet but it got canceled for the last budget eating horror called the A-12 dorrito.….oh sorry Avenger„or something…it looked like a dorrito.

I’m not saying USE the A-6 i’m saying a aircraft with the same mission and design idea’s. Efficent, long range, large payload, rugged simple.

Long range bomber/logistics/EW maybe. Pared with a Long range fighter escort would beat a group of F-35’s any day.

Oh and no one thinks the SH could replace the B model JSF. The problem is that STOVL is very demanding on plane design. And vice versa. So the B should have just been a purpose built aircraft entirely seperated from the F-35.

Ok here’s what the Navy Brass should do to ‘fix’ our airwings

–keep the F35B because our Marine brothers in arms need it badly, The Harrier fleet won’t last forever and they can’t build any more
–cancel the F35C-the cost benefit ratio is simply not there, anyone with a slight amount of business sense and clearly see that
–buy the latest and greatest upgrades for the F-18 fleet (especially the conformal fuel tanks) and upgrade the entire fleet, that should give us 10 years until we,
–start the F/A-XX program, two seat version, it needs to be in the fleet in numbers by 2017.
–bring back the S-3 or something equivalent for long range surveillance, EW, and ASW/ASuW work
–get the Greyhound replacement program moving
–we need a dedicate tanker, not a buddy store a la F-18, perhaps a Greyhound type could be adapted?
–go whole hog on the X-47B program, we need 2 squadrons of these in each wing. Give it not only the capability for attack but also AA. We’ll from packages with these. Each F-18F will go in with 2 one loaded for attack and one as a ‘wingman.’ The WSO with control these from the F-18F
–we’ll need more than Growlers on the carrier, we should have at least ten on board (more than the typical 4–6 we have now). The Growlers will be worth their weight in gold in future conflicts

F/A-XX in the fleet by 2017? Son, you’re smoking the crack, the opium and the mary jane.

I got to agree about the Growler. The EA-18 is the only platform that we should upgrade though to the fullest (improved engines and conformal fuel tanks). The EA-18 does not depend on stealth while the other platforms should.

Yep! Only the good stuff ;-D

But seriously, we need a Kelly Johnson type again in charge, he’d “get ‘er done”

We can no longer afford to do ‘business as usual,’ with 20 year development cycles and $382 million per aircraft and climbing.

Heck for $382 million I could have hundreds of Tomahawk cruse missiles that would be enough to wipe out any adversary’s ability to fight

The USN will not get the F-35C by the pure fact that it makes no sense to have a single engine fighter over the Ocean. Even if some are actually delivered (and this is after the years of flight testing that still need to happen), there won’t be many.

Upgraded Super Hornets and Growlers are the way to go until a new platform is available.

Fix the wings and pylons then you can add the +1

pfcem why are you not banned yet? You are nothing but an obvious troll. I hope your not on the F-35 payroll because it won’t be clearing checks much longer.

I think it’s far too early to say what the PAK FA can and can’t do Tom. Be realistic here mate, it’s still a prototype and is a long way from production let alone actual service.
Now I’m not F35 advocate at all, I think the whole program has been a disaster start to finish, but I think it’d probably fair to say that the PAK FA has likely had it’s fair share of issues along the way too, and probably still does. The only difference is that a regime as oppressive as Putin’s / Medvedev’s Russia, bad news on a military program isn’t very likely to leak out to the public, same goes for China and the J20. Keep it in perspective.

Do you really think you can “start the F/A-XX program, two seat version, it needs to be in the fleet in numbers by 2017″ and meet that goal? 5 years to go from starting design to deployed in numbers in 5 years? When was the last time that happened? You’ll have to fix the government procurement system first.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention the X-47B. It’s interesting that that aircraft gets very little attention on this site.

We need it but will it happen? Who has the authority to make the change? The government, the same guys who created the current system. We need Congress to change their ways to but that would require Congress to force themselves to change.

ELP
Thanks for the comments; I can see why sferrin wanted you to jump in
Stevo

Interesting indeed.

Here’s why the Navy isn’t going to back out… who wants to be the service that single handedly kills a cooperative multi-national effort? If they kill it, it will only be after some other purchaser gives the go ahead by backing out themselves.

So much of the US’s clout with allies has been used to get them to join this effort. The failure or collapse of the F35 program would weigh heavily not just on the ability to conduct opertion jointly with allies but also on their willingness to even consider it.

Yes, they should retire the A6s ASAP.… Oh yeah, they did that over 15 years ago.
None have flown this century!

well, the most awesome aircraft ever, the SR-17/A-12 family and was designed and built within 5 years (if I have my dates correct).

Even if we find another Kelly Johnson type to run things, I think that even he would be hampered by today’s procurement/cluster f**k we have today

If we can field the X-48B in numbers in the next 5 years, and work out tactics and such, then we’ll be ok until the F/A-XX comes on line in about 8–10 years.

good point

wholesale house cleaning is needed but not very likely :-

especially so when they find out difficult it is to get back to the ship when the single engine fails

ok, ok, now everyone jump in and say what about the single engine fighters that have gone before? Well, my reply to you is that those legacy fighters didn’t cost $482 million a piece!!!

Just some humor to go along with what you said: http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​9​6​5​4​8​8​8​5​/​T​h​e​-​N​a​t​u​r​e​-of–

I think the pilots will be playing wingman with a UAS controlled by their own WSO’s. Gotta laugh at that thought.

Boeing has done a fantastic job with the F/A-18 program from the beginning (YF-17A Cobra to F/A-18A/B/C/E/F/G Hornet/Growler). The US Navy is happy with the F/A-18 E/F/G with future growth potential for the Navy and foreign buyers. The F-35 program is in trouble from all design airframes. The US Navy should keep the F/A-18E/F/G programs going because the first squadron of the F-35 might not be ready for deployment until 2020 or maybe later? The US Navy and Marine Corps should purchase a limited number of F-35 but use them in a support roll in conjunction to the F/A-18 T/M/S series aircraft. It will be nice to have a stealthy aircraft for those certain types of missions that require first strike and stealthy approach. In addition to the weapons capability of the F/A-18E/F program. The US navy should consider adding the famous AIM-54 Phoenix long-range missile for CAP missions, etc. Two missiles on each aircraft (with 4 AAMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders) will provide long-range protection against bombers, cruise missiles, and possible suicide missions using large aircraft and other types of fighter platforms.

With the future introduction of the X-47B UCAV into the carrier battle groups the US Navy should consider a R & D program for additional capabilities. These additional capabilities should also include deep stealthy strike, photo recon (and ELINT), extended long range Carrier Air Patrol (CAP) with Air to Air missiles, and Anti-submarine warfare. The X-47B should also be capable to be air-to-air refueled for long range and extended range missions 50 hours or more?).

An Carrier battle group should comprise of the following T/M/S aircraft:

24 F/A-18E Super Hornets
12 F/A-18F Super Hornets
24 F-35C Lightning II
12 X-47B UCAV
8 EF/A-18G Growlers
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
4 C-2 Grayhounds
8 HH-60H & SH-60S Seahawks

The compliment of 96 aircraft will give the air wing strike commander a very capable arsenal of weapons to handle most if not all threats in today’s dynamic environment.

The F-18 is a good fighter for it’s time, but can be matched or exceeded by the latest rivals.
The F-35 is behind schedule and over budget with only one engine. The US Navy isn’t going
to get money to develope a new fighter like they did for the F-14 to replace the ill fated F-111B.
The best the US Navy can hope for now is to get the F-35C to catch the wire or go with UCAV
only squadrons as the F-18C/D are retired. Sounds like NAVAIR is between a rock and a hard place. The F-18E/F can only buy them a little more time before they have to make a concerned decision about
the F-35C or develope a new fighter, no matter the costs.

Wonder if it is possible and practical to do something similar to the F-15SE? Also outfit this with F-119 or F120 engines.

Please USA remember the “Special Relationship” and do us a favour — kill the F35 before our future enemies do it for us. Sure it’s going to be embarrassing not having any aircraft to fly off our aircraft carrier (or two if we win the lottery) but hey, we’ll have the biggest helicopter carrier/s in the history of the world! Seriously though USA, how did it come to this? F4, F14, F15, F16, F18 all great aircraft — what’s happened to “Good ol’ US know how?” You build a great aircraft even you can’t afford (F22) plus a dog’s dinner of an aircraft which you also can’t afford unless LM can con enough of your friends and allies into buying it as well to lower the unit cost (F35).

Cancel F35 and reopen the production line for F22 but without all the fancy (and pointless) “stealth coatings” which cost the earth to make and maintain. Or buy Typhoons!

Can someone tell me the long range patrol distance of a Super Hornet for service in arctice and Northern Canada with out refueling? More simply, how far can the Hornet on patrol between refueling. From the very sparse information on the web and for the F-35, it is hard to make a stronger case for the Super Hornet for Canadian neeeds as opposed to say Nato needs.

The Super Hornet Block II, which is the one the U.S. Navy currently uses has as combat radius of 390nm. However, if it’s mounted with fuel tanks that range increases significantly. Also the version of the Super Hornet that Boeing is making is called the international road map. With the conformal tanks it has roughly just as much fuel as the F-35 and the fuel tanks allow it to hold more ordinance with less drag. The upgraded Super Hornet also comes with the option of EDE (Enhanced Endurance Engines) that provide the same amount of thrust with less fuel consumption. The range of the upgraded Super Hornet will be marginally less than that of the F-35 and should serve Canada’s need extremely well considering that it can be kept ready for battle in the field twice as often at a fraction of the cost. The Super Hornet only costs 1/3 of that of an F-35 and it is nearly just as advanced in technology.

You are right, there is very little about the f-35 on the web and for a good reason, it’s not finished yet. What is really alarming is that according to the fifth estate (on CBC), the government of Canada have not done his homework, so whatever they claim have to be considered baseless and to assume all of its superiority against other fighter came from the f-35 pr department, since Canada have not required any classified information from any other manufacturer.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012–2013/2012/09/runaway

There is the full video of the fifth estate on their website, they managed to interview very competent people but what is more amazing is the list of the people whom refused to be interviewed. Beware of some pro-canadian add running at loud volume…

Considering that the hornet have the required range to get the mission done for more than 30 years, do you think that the f/a-18 with its enhanced engine will be an issue? A competition has to be made.

This is my plan.

Scrap the 3 versions of the F-35.

Buy 2500 Growlers for the 3 services that could be used for electronic attack, and air to air, air to ground, antiradiation, and later on for close air support, antiship missions, reccon. anti UFO attack ect. ect.

This is the real 6th gen F/A/E Airplane,

I forgot to mention that thos Super Growlers should have the conformal fuel tanks and also carry the stealthy central weapons pods to carry 4 ammraams inside plus the two below the engines.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.