An F/A-18F Super Hornet from U.S. Navy Strike Test VX-23 in flight with four Boeing built Harpoon anti-ship missiles under its wings.
Picture: Boeing
Posted on 11/10/2013 6:41:14 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
On runway 24 of U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland, a part of Boeing Harpoon missile history was recently witnessed when four of the proven Harpoon Block IC cruise missiles were uploaded onto a Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet to undergo a rigorous flight test over the Atlantic Ocean. The test verified flight characteristics with the quad load-out; a Harpoon first.
The test was performed jointly by members of the U.S. Navy’s VX-23 Strike Test squadron, PMA-201 Precision Strike Weapons team, Boeing Test & Evaluation and Weapons & Missile Systems businesses.
“There’s probably nothing that has to be more perfect than weapons integration and performance,” said James Dodd, vice president of Boeing Global Strike Weapons & Missile Systems. “It puts everyone at a high sense of perfection as to how they do their job on the Boeing side and the customer side.”
The Harpoon Block IC missile is an autonomous, all weather anti-ship and land strike weapon that can be launched from aircraft, ships, submarines or by mobile coastal defense vehicles. It’s used by more than 30 international allies.
U.S. Navy CDR. Kevin Quarderer, NAVAIR’s Precision Strike Weapons program office deputy program manager for the Harpoon and SLAM ER programs, said the Boeing and U.S. Navy teams work incredibly close to achieve the levels of perfection dictated by working around ordnance and weapons.
“It’s absolutely serious business,” said CDR. Quarderer. “The only answer that’s acceptable is that every single weapon has got to find its target.”
The flight test with the four Boeing built Harpoon Block IC missiles underneath the wings of the F/A-18 Super Hornet was a success. More integration work proving the capabilities of the missile configuration and fighter attack jet is continuing.
An F/A-18F Super Hornet from U.S. Navy Strike Test VX-23 in flight with four Boeing built Harpoon anti-ship missiles under its wings.
Picture: Boeing
That is one BIG FAT Missle!!!
Thanks for posting. BTTT!
Super Bug ping!
(Yeah, I know there’s no such “ping” but I don’t care.)
Are the missiles mounted angled outwards from the center axis of the plane? I’m comparing them to the protrusions on the wing tips. Does the air flow around the plane match this? Or is this just an optical.
Video of the flight.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/10/bds_harpoon_10_14_13.page
My guess is that the compressed air stream along the fuselage creates a suction force that needs to be balanced with a slight outward angle of attack of the missile upon release from the carriage
“Are the missiles mounted angled outwards from the center axis of the plane? I’m comparing them to the protrusions on the wing tips. Does the air flow around the plane match this? Or is this just an optical.”
The ejector racks carrying AGM-84s on this F-18 are angled differently from its wingtip rails; the inner racks do appear to diverge in azimuth (left/right) from the aircraft centerline, but also (as can be seen more easily in the next image) droop, angling downward in pitch (up/down). The latter accentuates the out-angling appearance when the aircraft is seen from below.
Almost no airplane exists, where the wings, tail surfaces, engines or nose sections are built perfectly in line with the aircraft centerline, nor exactly 90 degrees to it. This has been the case since well before the Second World War, and shapes/orientations have been growing more “offbeat” ever since supersonic flight began in the 1940s.
This is especially true of combat aircraft, on which much greater performance demands are typically placed. Today, it is rare that wing shape and airframe mounting angle remain constant for the full span of the wing. Cutting-edge aeronautic research has for years focused on wing structure designs that can change shape during flight, to improve performance in various portions of the flight envelope. Somewhat more advanced than the flaps and slats which have been in use since the 1930s.
It would be quite unusual for the underwing ejector racks to have their own stores-mounting line coincide with the wingtip rails: they operate differently, they secure entirely different stores/munitions to the airframe, and the launch parameters dictate entirely different flight regimes.
The wingtip rails mount AIM-9 missiles, which ignite on rail and fly off forward under their own power.
AGM-84s do not fire up their engine (small turbojet, no rocket) until they leave the launch platform and their wings deploy.
Can’t say for certain on these, but nearly all underwing ejector racks and internal stores mountings now contain pistons, powered by hot gas generators (think very large shotgun shell); when the aircrew commands a launch, the pistons impart sufficient momentum to the munition (upwards of 100 ft/sec in some designs) to shove it clear of airflow around the airframe.
The days of air-launched weapons simply being released to “fall free” are long gone; it was discovered that without a healthy “kick,” some came back up and actually hit the aircraft.
So CrazyIvan’s surmise is correct, about different airflow at different points around the airframe.
This is to certify that no TWA aircraft were harmed in the filming of this test.
That is a load isn’t it?
More than 40 yeats ago I tested the first electro mechanical control actuators used on first flight test.
So with the Super Hornet in service since 1995, all other carrier based attack aircraft have been retired, and they’re just now getting around to testing an anti-surface loadout?
“So with the Super Hornet in service since 1995, all other carrier based attack aircraft have been retired, and they’re just now getting around to testing an anti-surface loadout?”
AGM-84 has been certified for launch from many other platforms, airborne and seaborne, including USAF B-52s.
Haven’t followed testing in any detail since leaving active duty, but some considerations might pertain here:
1. New configurations/upgrades. Physical ones, and software ones. We cannot tell much from the (admittedly striking) photographs; internal parts of the test airframe and the munition might look exactly like earlier ones, but do totally different things and behave in completely different ways, all of which must undergo test.
2. Resource/time constraints. Tests are planned, but only executed as resources become available and range schedules permit. Extensive as DoD test facilities are, “demand” for range time and operational resources always outstrips supply. And projects compete for priority; those of higher priority frequently bump events of low priority, which sometimes wait for years.
3. Tactics development/evaluation. To beat the enemy, new ways to employ systems and mesh their employment with other systems are being dreamed up every day. They are evaluated in a great variety of ways, but sometimes flight tests are necessary to validate the concept - even if already-tested systems are involved.
4. Previously undiscovered system limitations. Sometimes these are discovered during routine training or maintenance; sometimes in operational use. Failure in battle can be just one of these. Manufacturing flaws may come to light only after a long interval. And system performance can never be assumed to be static; physical objects (indeed weapon systems are such) age, and over the course of an ever-lengthening service life (decades in some cases), performance levels have to be re-verified by testing.
What is being tested now is carrying four Harpoons. The certification to date has probably been for only two.
“I am 100% positive that the SuperHornet was already cleared to carry and launch the AGM-84.
What is being tested now is carrying four Harpoons. The certification to date has probably been for only two.”
We should all be grateful that USN appears to proceeding prudently. I will not venture to call the differences between two underwing AGM-84s and four “minor”.
Whatever the case, the photo in the original post can’t tell viewers the first thing about what software versions were being checked.
With the 1990s retirement of the Intruder, the over 15 year wait to integrate four Harpoons onto the SuperHornet can be called a lot worse than “proceeding prudently.”
Most likely driven by the focus away from the Middle East and towards the Pacific, it's more of an “oh crap, we never got around to it” moment for the strategizers.
And neither would I venture to call the differences between carrying two and four Harpoons as “minor.” Nor would I consider the software updates required to track and designate four targets as minor either. For all I know, there may even be additional wiring necessary to make four hard points compatible with the Harpoon.
I'm just still surprised it took this long to perform.
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.