Posted on 03/20/2013 5:05:33 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
US Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet
The US Navy is considering adding conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) onto its fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters, sources say. The twin dorsally mounted tanks are expected to be tested this summer.
The USN does not deny that it is interested in the conformal tanks, but says that it cannot comment on the project at this time. "As of right now this information is proprietarily owned between Boeing and Northrop [Grumman] and PMA-265 cannot talk to it," the Naval Air Systems Command says. PMA-265 is the US Navy programme office responsible for managing the F/A-18 and EA-18G fleets.
Boeing officials did not respond to queries prior to publication.
The CFTs, which Boeing has pitched to potential buyers as part of its Super Hornet international roadmap, would allow the F/A-18E/F to carry more than 13,249l (3,500gal) of additional fuel. "Adding these tanks would make a great deal of sense," says Mark Gunzinger, an airpower analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "The navy really needs to extend the reach of its carrier air wings. Increased range will be needed for potential operations in the Pacific region and elsewhere."
The USN's efforts to add CFTs might be part of the service's plan to hedge its bets in case of further delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35C, or if budgetary pressures force the navy to abandon that variant. "At this point, the F-35C is easily the most troubled variant," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group. The USN has always been lukewarm toward the stealthy single-engined fighter even if senior service leaders always publicly profess that the service "needs" the F-35C.
But there are questions as to whether the Super Hornet can support the added weight and drag of the CFTs without seriously impairing its aerodynamic performance. "One problem with CFTs on the F/A-18 is that I'm not really sure it has the power," Aboulafia says. "If they put CFTs on the [Boeing] F-15 and [Lockheed] F-16, they're fast jets. But the Super Hornet is already pretty much slowest in class."
Boeing officials have previously said that the addition of the CFTs does not add any cruise drag, but they admit that the appliqué fuel tanks would have a negative impact on the aircraft's transonic acceleration because of the increased waved drag. Transonic acceleration has always been a weak spot for the Super Hornet, and many pilots say the aircraft is seriously underpowered compared to other fourth-generation fighters. "You're talking about something that impairs its performance for an aircraft that already has some performance issues," Aboulafia says. "But it might be worth it, given the issue of finding an alternative to the F-35C. It's certainly worth experimenting with."
If the USN were to add CFTs to the F/A-18E/F, it might also have to upgrade the aircraft's twin General Electric (GE) F414-GE-400 afterburning turbofans which produce 22,000lbs (98 kN) thrust each, Aboulafia says. GE has previously touted an enhanced performance engine (EPE) variant of the F414, which could produce 26,400lbs (120 kN) thrust. It would, however, require a redesigned fan and a new high pressure core. But Aboulafia questions if GE can deliver on those promises. "I'm not sure how much more thrust you can get out of that series," he says. "Maybe there is a bit more they can go that would give them the power."
But given the US government's current financial situation, the USN may not be able to pay for a programme to add CFTs to the Super Hornet. "It will be difficult to start a new programme for this anytime soon," Gunzinger says. Aboulafia says that is true, but money could potentially be siphoned from the USN's F-35 accounts. "For a few people at least, especially the navy, the F-35 is as much a potential bill-payer as it is an acquisitions programme." Funding for the tri-service stealth fighter has been a bone of contention between the US Marine Corps and the blue-water navy for quite some time, Aboulafia says.
What’s that triangular thing with the circles painted on it behind the pilot?
interesting article. first time i heard pilots ever complain it’s underpowered.
That's their OnStar antenna in case they need directions :-)
The Hornet design had a serious flaw from the start going back to the A-D and carrying over into the plus upped E-F design.
Compared to the aircraft they replaced (A-6, A7, F-14) they didn’t have nearly the same range/endurance.
They cut all kinds of weight to get great performance, but then lived with the fact that they would never fly without fuel tanks, meaning at least four pylons for air to ground missions. Yes, tanks can be jettisoned, but those pylons are still there, adding weight and drag.
The conformal tanks will essentially fess up to the compromise that they lied to themselves about to begin with. Attack aircraft need range, range, and more range.
That where R2D2 sits.
Onstar.
They want to know right now if anyone plans to defect. /s.
Tanker Junkies...
God help us. We have the F-35 moonpig, and our stopgap is the short legged, slow “super” hornet moonpig,,about to be slowed down even more.
The simple fact is that our USN carrier wing is far below 1991 standards. The wing of today can’t deliver the loads of A6E Intruders (we retired numerous examples that were almost brand new so the vaunted A-12 could be built), and the wing is hopelessly outclassed by F-14s. The F-14 variant at the end could also do better strike work, could take care of anything it found air to air, and had longer legs.
But the navy is obcessed with a single “do it all airframe” concept. So we have one thats “ok” at everything. One hornet will be the tanker, one will be the fighter, one will be the bomber, one will be the electronic warfare variant, etc etc. I’m waiting for the COD pod to be mounted.
But the important thing is that it’s great for Officer careers to have a good procurement program.
The truth about the super hornet and F-35 can be found in the nations lining up NOT to buy them.
That is the proposed 360 degree missile warning system.
“interesting article. first time i heard pilots ever complain it’s underpowered.”
As it was in final testing, the Admiral running the program testified to congress that it was a superior fighter in every aspect except for acceleration, top speed, and sustained turning radius. He said that in all seriousness, and was proud of it.
During testing, original Hornet chase planes with tanks could easily keep up with clean super hornets. They outran them, out flew them, and ran them out of gas. With F-14s it got ridiculous.
There was a long and very detailed comparison written by an admiral involved in the testing in “Flying” magazine about 6 years ago. It explained how the F-14D was used in the initial phases of afghanistan, and how it did things impossible for super hornets as far as range, loiter time, etc without moving the fleet closer and wildly increasing tanker support.
And this boys and girls is why the F-15E was sent to Afghanistan as the ground support airframe of choice in the high country. Range, loiter time, crew work load, weapons capacity, weapons versatility.
Just a crying shame that what we had is better than what we have in so many respects.
The A-6 and F-14D were horses.
Yep, in exercises the F14 would stay out of range until the F18s were almost out of fuel and then swoop in for the kill. The F18 never did have the power and range it really needed. And now they want to replace the A6, A7, F14, AND the EA6B with the FA18. As if there were such a thing as the aircraft that could do it all.
just toooo damn funny...
Would it be too much to ask that you post links to English-language references on this site, kumquat? The only thing I found at all comprehensible was the ‘sidewinder’ reference, other than the tanker - jet obvious ones.
It was the upgraded A6F design was cancelled by that Dick Cheney before building so the A-12 could be built. The A-12 was cancelled well before the rewinged A-6Es were scrapped in the Clinton era to justify building the F/A-18E/F.
Me I would have gone ahead with the A-6F contract in the expectation of converting them into tankers when a more advanced strike aircraft (A-12 or whatever) entered serice
F-15e is a beast. And the USAF is thinking like the USN. They could buy the F-15 Silent Eagle strike variant and rule the skies as far as anyone can see. But we will be saddled with marvelous F-35.
It’s a national embarrassment.
Finally, someone who agrees with me about the F-15SE!
Compared to the F-35:
Bigger payload
Better range
Crew advantage
TWO engines
Just about the same radar signature
Can be equipped with the VERY SAME spherical view capabilities
An outright bargain for the price
And just as you say.. A BEAST.
The F-35 is a POS in my view by any comparison. It is a political mess that put the F-22 on the shelf because Lockheed was set to make more money on the F-35 but could not do it if F-22 lived to deliver the planned numbers of aircraft.
The F-22 coordinated with the F-15SE would have been a formidable package one could put up against anybody and win. Numbers and capability would be a combination to be reckoned with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.