F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Ajay K
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Ajay K » 06 Dec 2007 00:52

Rahul Shukla Posted: 03 Dec 2007 10:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ajay K wrote:
Folks, what is the white hock in between the engines?

That's the 'arrestor hook' and it's used for emergency landings. The hook catches one of the cables at the end of the runway bringing the aircraft to a safe stop.

Mere presence of an arrestor hook does not mean that the aircraft is cleared for operations on Naval carriers. USAF F-15's have arrestor hooks too.

Explains why most of the Russian planes have drag chutes while western couter parts have hooks. LCA too has drag chutes.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4772
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 06 Dec 2007 05:22

those arrestor hooks are not meant for capture during every recovery exercise- every landing. they are only used when the F-15s have a good chance of overshooting the runway length due to brake failure or gear failure.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Dec 2007 05:45

AWST 11/19/2007

News Breaks

F-16 Refueling
Aviation Week & Space Technology
11/19/2007, page 22

Lockheed Martin is reviving work on fitting its F-16 strike fighter with a probe-and-drogue refueling system. Earlier designs included carrying a special pod for the mission. But now the aircraft maker is looking at a more integrated system. Why? It’s part of the company’s campaign to try and win the Indian Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) fighter competition. Lockheed Martin hopes to build its F-16 backlog to run into 2012. Even without India, the company believes there’s still a market for around another 100 aircraft.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Postby Vipul » 16 Jan 2008 23:26

F-16 gets super cruise capability.

As the deadline for India's biggest ever defence deal for purchase of 126 new fighter planes nears, US aviation giant Lockheed Martin today unveiled a new upgraded version of its F-16 fighter planes with 'super cruise' capability and Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radars.

So far, the 'super cruise' capability is only seen in 5th generation fighters F-22 Raptors and its just unrolling F-35 joint strike fighters.

This capability would impart the fighter with extended range, as it can zoom from take-off to breaking the sound barrier without the use of fuel guzzling after-burners.

The export version of the fighters, for the first time, has also been equipped with AESA radars, as reportedly specified in the Indian Air Force's USD 10-billion tender for the acquisition of 126 fighters.

Top company official Chuck Artymovich told a group of Indian newsmen that the AESA radar, which gives the capability to simultaneously track and destroy ground and air threats, has been cleared by the US government for installation in 80 F-16s ordered by the United Arab Emirates.

"We are confident that a similar green signal would be given for installation of such radars in the case of export to India also," he said.

Speaking while unveiling an India-specific Fighting Falcons (F-16 IN), the Lockheed Martin executive said that the proposed fighter planes would also be armed with infra-red search and track pods as well as, counter-electronic warfare pods.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 17 Jan 2008 02:56

What would be more important in india specific scenarios a TVC or a super cruise?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Postby srai » 17 Jan 2008 03:37

Cross posting:


The UAE's F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon Fleet

...
Even so, each advance costs money to develop, integrate, and test. The UAE invested almost $3 billion of its money into research and development for the Desert Falcon.

...

In the course of development, 2 key issues came up with respect to the F-16 Block 60. One was the familiar issue of source code control for key avionics and electronic warfare systems. The other was weapons carriage.

As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE "object codes" (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16's threat library on their own.

The other issue concerned the Black Shahine derivative of MBDA's Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry. Since the Black Shahine was deemed to have a range of over 300km, the US State Department refused to let Lockheed Martin change the data bus to permit the F-16E/Fs to carry the missile. It is believed that the Mirage 2000v9 upgrades the UAE has purchased from France will address this issue, giving the UAE a platform capable of handling their new acquisition.
...

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 17 Jan 2008 12:14

Katare wrote:What would be more important in india specific scenarios a TVC or a super cruise?


supercruise anyday .... especially wideband supercruise like raptor. Current missile seeker (off-boresignt tech) technology is advancing real fast and reducing the effectiveness of tvc in close combat.

supercruise increases combat radius, reduces infrared signatures and majorly improves engine life.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 17 Jan 2008 14:50

Drevin wrote:
Katare wrote: What would be more important in india specific scenarios a TVC or a super cruise?


supercruise anyday .... especially wideband supercruise like raptor. Current missile seeker (off-boresignt tech) technology is advancing real fast and reducing the effectiveness of tvc in close combat.

supercruise increases combat radius, reduces infrared signatures and majorly improves engine life.


It only increases combat radius at supersonic speed. Stay subsonic, & you'll go further. It's afterburner use that guzzles fuel, not subsonic cruising.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 17 Jan 2008 16:51

If the report is true and if LM is taking extra ordinary effort to make the F-16 in to a SuperCruise A/C for MMRCA ( which probably means a cranked delta wing ).

Then it also means that MMRCA requirement places supercruise as one of the critical factor.

From the current lot the only aircraft which supercruises or has the potential to do so are Typhoon , Rafale , Gripen-NG and if true F-16IN.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Jan 2008 20:53

Drevin wrote:
Katare wrote:What would be more important in india specific scenarios a TVC or a super cruise?


supercruise anyday .... especially wideband supercruise like raptor. Current missile seeker (off-boresignt tech) technology is advancing real fast and reducing the effectiveness of tvc in close combat.

supercruise increases combat radius, reduces infrared signatures and majorly improves engine life.


Well, I'd take claims like supercruising with a nice pinch of salt. TVC OTOH, offers a decided advantage in combat/flight performance, period. esp. WVR and to an extent in supersonic regimes as well.

While the F-16 supercruising is all fine and dandy, couple of thoughts come to mind:
With what load out does it do the same? Or is it just clean config or with a few AAMs (which is overall quite pointless)
Maintains supercruise at what speeds? Supercrusing @ Mach 1.1 is hardly of much benefit as non supercruisng a/c such as the flanker come close to Mach 1 speeds without engaging afterburners as well.
If supercruise is to be really useful, you want the a/c to be able to do it @ very high speeds or at least at speeds where it can launch AAMs @ decent range and with a decent loadout.
I don't think the IAF is going to fall for a gimmick like supercruise if it doesn't offer something more substantial.
JMT
Regards,
CM

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jan 2008 23:29

Gents,

Discussions in the other thread please.

Thx.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Postby JaiS » 18 Jan 2008 02:37

First Tranche 2 Eurofighter Typhoon Has Flown

HALLBERGMOOS, Germany, January 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The first Tranche 2 Eurofighter Typhoon has made its first flight at EADS Military Air Systems' site in Manching. Instrumented Production Aircraft Seven (IPA7) was piloted by EADS Test Pilot Chris Worning.

The aircraft, a German single seat variant, represents the full Tranche 2 build standard and its first prominent task will be to accomplish Type Acceptance for Block 8, the first capability standard of Tranche 2, in April 2008. This work will be carried out together with the BAE Systems-operated IPA6 based at Warton. IPA6 (BS031) is essentially a Tranche 1 standard aircraft but utilises the full Tranche 2 mission computer suite and avionics features. The first series of EJ200 engine flight testing for Tranche 2 was successfully concluded at the end of November with IPA2 in Italy.


The significant Tranche 2 capabilities focus mainly on the new mission computers which deliver the higher processing and memory capacity required for the integration of future weapons such as Meteor, Storm Shadow and Taurus. Differences in the build standard to Tranche 1 are related to changes in production technology or obsolescence.

Based on the Tranche 2 production contract, signed on 14 December 2004, and the original export contract with Austria, the Eurofighter consortium will deliver 251 Tranche 2 weapon systems: 91 to the United Kingdom, 79 to Germany (including 15 aircraft originally contracted by Austria), 47 to Italy and 34 to Spain. Deliveries of Tranche 2 Eurofighter Typhoons to all four Partner Nations will begin in Summer 2008 and are scheduled to run until 2013. 32 aircraft are already in final assembly at the partner companies Alenia Aeronautica, BAE Systems, EADS CASA and EADS Deutschland.

Eurofighter Typhoon is the world's most advanced new generation swing-role combat aircraft available on the market and has been ordered by six nations (Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Austria and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). With 707 aircraft under contract, it is Europe's largest military collaborative programme and delivers leading-edge technology, strengthening Europe's aerospace industry in the global competition. More than 100,000 jobs in 400 companies are secured by the programme. Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH manages the programme on behalf of its shareholders Alenia Finmeccanica, BAE Systems, EADS CASA and EADS Deutschland, Europe's foremost aerospace companies with a total turnover of EUR60.7 billion (2006).

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 18 Jan 2008 13:19

PaulJI wrote:
Drevin wrote:
Katare wrote: What would be more important in india specific scenarios a TVC or a super cruise?


supercruise anyday .... especially wideband supercruise like raptor. Current missile seeker (off-boresignt tech) technology is advancing real fast and reducing the effectiveness of tvc in close combat.

supercruise increases combat radius, reduces infrared signatures and majorly improves engine life.


It only increases combat radius at supersonic speed. Stay subsonic, & you'll go further. It's afterburner use that guzzles fuel, not subsonic cruising.


scenario 1: How useful is a mach 1.1 SC versus no SC?
scenario 2: How useful is a mach 1.8 SC versus a mach 1.1 SC?

Gurus plz enlighten us with the dynamics of transonic to supersonic flight without afterburner.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jan 2008 15:26

Drevin,

Please continue the discussion in "Indian Military Aviation".

This thread was meant only for technical posts, not discussions.

Thx.

Adux
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 20:44

Postby Adux » 31 Jan 2008 11:19

:-o


Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet
Jan 30, 2008
David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The idea is that customers could buy 4.5 generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75 generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars.

"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."

Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."

It's part of Boeing's counterattack on Lockheed Martin's claim that the decreasing price of the F-22, which is now at $140 million each, will make it so attractive that Australia may reconsider its buy -- already being paid for -- of 24 two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Until Australia's recent change in government, a number of U.S. officials said the government was considering a second lot of 24 Super Hornets and a six-plane squadron of EA-18G Growlers.

Boeing makes the argument that a sliding in-service date for the JSF is worrying both the Australians and the U.S. military.

"The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF," Gower says. "It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned."

For Boeing, the real discriminators are going to be extended range (1,000-1,500 miles), a small radar signature against low-frequency radars, expanded awareness through connections with the network, and the ability to carry a number of bombs internally.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 31 Jan 2008 11:22

it does'nt describe what is better or 6th gen feature.. any links?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2008 06:01

Feb 17, 2008 :: Boeing 'authorized' to offer AESA radar with F/A-18 fighter

New Delhi, Feb 17 (IANS) The US government has 'authorized' Boeing to offer a state-of-the-art radar with the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter that is vying for an Indian Air Force (IAF) order for 126 multi-role combat aircraft, the company said Sunday.

However, whether or not the technology for the radar would also be transferred 'is an issue for the US government to decide', a Boeing official said.

He was clarifying remarks attributed earlier Sunday to Chris Chadwick, president of Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems of Boeing Integrated Defence Systems, that the technology for the AESA (Advanced Electronically Scanned Array) radar would also be transferred with that of the aircraft for licensed manufacture in India in case Boeing wins the IAF order.

The AESA radar enables the F-18 seamlessly shift into an AWACS (airborne warning and control system) mode while flying on a combat mission.

'I can confirm that we will be complying with all the requirements of the request for proposal (RFP) we have received from the Indian Air Force,' Chadwick told reporters earlier Sunday on the sidelines of the ongoing DEFEXPO-2008 international defence exposition here.

Transfer of technology and licensed manufacture in the country is mandated under India's Defence Procurement Procedure enunciated in 2006. This procedure is now being fine-tuned in relation to the offsets clause under which 30 percent of all defence deals worth over Rs.3 billion have to be re-invested in India.

In the case of the IAF order, however, the offsets obligation has been raised to 50 percent.

'We have readied a fully compliant proposal (on the IAF tender) and will submit this three days early (against the March 3 deadline),' Chadwick said.

'We are very well positioned to establish a long-term relationship with the Indian Air Force and the ministry of defence,' he added.

Should Boeing win the IAF order, the aircraft would be supplied in four phases.

'In phase 0, we will supply 18 aircraft in fully assembled condition. In Phase 1, we will supply the aircraft in semi-knocked down condition with 1,800 parts and 300 tools,' said Mike Rietz, F-18 programme manager for India.

'In phase 2, the aircraft will come in completely knocked down condition with 17,000 parts and 1,000-plus tools. In phase 3, the aircraft and its entire range of 30,000 parts will be indigenously manufactured in India,' he added.

'In this way, we will gradually raise the level of technology that HAL (Hindustan Aircraft Ltd which will build the aircraft in India) will have to absorb,' Rietz explained.

The delivery schedule means that 108 of the 126 aircraft will be assembled in India, roughly half of them with Boeing-supplied parts while the balance would be totally built in this country.

'The RFP lays down that the first aircraft is supplied within 36 months of the contract being signed and the 18th within 48 months. The 19th aircraft, the first to be assembled in India, will come within 54 months.

'Thereafter, there will be an incremental increase with the last aircraft to be delivered by 2020,' Rietz said.



NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 29 Mar 2008 01:07

AWST, March 24, 2008, article titled "Growler Attraction :: Australia confirms F-111s are out, Super Hornets are in and E-18s desirable", (page 29):

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon now endorses the SH as "an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region"....

Yet Fitzgibbon has spent months criticizing the hasty process in which the former administration decided to buy the Super Hornet last year, implying that the Boeing fighter was a bad choice to fill the gap left by the F-111 retirement.

A private education on the power of the Super Hornet's Raytheon APG-79 radar almost certainly explains his sudden enthusiasm for the aircraft.



.............with its active electronically scanned array, could find, deceive and perhaps disable radar-guided air-to-air, surface-to-air and cruise missiles, and could do so at a range greater than that of forthcoming U.S. missiles.


On the SH being slower than the "Su-27" family ACs and also having the inferior ranged AIM-120 AA missile:

..... then an obvious fix would be to buy the longer-range AIM-120D or to integrate the BMDA Meteor ramjet missile on the Super Hornet. One Australian military official says Boeing has expressed interest in the Meteor.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 29 Mar 2008 04:09

A sanitised version of the above article:
Australia Eyes E/A-18Gs, Confirms F/A-18Fs

[quote]
Australia will consider buying Boeing E/A-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft following confirmation of its order for 24 of the standard two-seat version of the Super Hornet, the F/A-18F.

In a review of air combat requirements, the Labor government now endorses the Super Hornet as “an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region,â€

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 29 Mar 2008 15:44

its nothing new, been there on MiG-29s for long......

Airborne active flight safety system

system for detecting crew’s loss of control

AAFSS is designed for increase of flight safety and effectiveness of airborne complex by continuous monitoring of the operational status of the airborne systems and operational condition of the crew, as well as their intellectual support in critical situations.

AAFSS is developed by Russian System Corporation in cooperation with State Scientific Research Testing Institute of Military Medicine and other cooperating organizations.

AAFSS passed bench-tests, ergonomic and physiologic tests in State Scientific Research Testing Institute of Military Medicine. The system designed for MIG-29 type aircrafts successfully passed federal joint flight tests on MIG-29UB aircraft.

The system can be installed on modern high-maneuvering aircrafts such as MIG-29, MIG-31, Su-27, Su-30 and others as well as on the aircrafts being modernized; it also can be utilized in commercial aircrafts.

AAFSS is designed as an autonomous modular system with embedded processing unit, which allows for real-time data processing.


AAFSS allows for

.. Continuous automatic control of flight parameters, condition of life support systems, operations conditions of the crew and correctness of their defense actions in extreme conditions of high altitude, high maneuvering and long flight;
.. Detection of life support system failures or crew malfunctioning as well as forecasting their critical conditions based on indirect indicators;
.. Output voice information regarding occurrence of critical situation to the crew;
.. Evaluation of correctness and timeliness of the crew actions for its obviation;
.. Making decision on transferring control to the aircraft automatic systems, which implement various programs for putting aircraft in the safe flight mode in cases when crew reactions on warnings are non-adequate;
.. Sending command to the executing mechanism of supplying the crew with 100% oxygen for their rapid recovery from abnormal condition;
.. Making decision on crew operability recovery;
.. Registration on object control systems of the data regarding operations conditions of the life support systems and the crew during extraordinary flight situations;
.. Automatic transmitting on the air information regarding dangerous conditions of the crew and their recovery for flight operation control group.

AAFSS consists of the analysis and control unit (ACU), electro-physical interface unit (EPIU) and a set of non-contact sensors. AAFSS units communicate through synchronous sequential channel of data exchange.


AAFSS sensors include

.. Vertical position of pilot’s head sensor, which includes
- Video sensor (video camera);
- Video processing unit;
.. Sensor of pilot’s keeping his hand on the aircraft control handle;
.. Sensor controlling pressure on the pedals.

Sensors implemented in AAFSS allow for non-contact gathering of the information and do not influence pilot’s actions.


Analysis and control unit (ACU)

Analysis and control unit is designed for:
.. Input, conversion to digital form, and processing of the signals coming to the unit;
.. Solving tasks for detection of critical state of the crew;
.. Generating and outputting voice commands to the crew;
.. Generating and outputting signals to be input to the EPIU;
.. Data exchange with other airborne systems through multiplexing channels;
.. Recording and long-time storage of a priori and current flight information in FLASH memory.


Electro-physical interface unit (EPIU)

Electro-physical interface unit is designed for input and output of signals and commands.

Main technical characteristics of ACU

Characteristic ----- Description
Input signals ----- 12
Output signals ----- 4
Power supply ----- 18...36 V
Power consumption ----- less than 0.5 Amp
Data exchange channels
----- .. Sequential synchronous with galvanic decoupling (speed 100 Kb/s);
----- .. Multiplexing channel GOST 26765.52-87 (speed 1 Mb/s);
----- .. Serial port RS232 (speed 19.6 Kb/s);
Dimensions ----- 210 × 140 × 46.5 mm
Weight ----- less than 1.2 kg


Main technical characteristics of EPIU

Characteristic ----- Description
Input signals ----- 18 (Rinp > 47 kO)
Output signals ----- 35
Sampling time (program controllable) ----- 5 ms
Power supply ----- 18...36 V
Power consumption ----- less than 0.5 Amp
Data exchange channels
----- .. Sequential synchronous with galvanic decoupling (speed 100 Kb/s)
----- .. Serial port RS232;
----- .. Sequential channel GOST 18977-79 and RTM 1495-75
Dimensions ----- 210 × 140 × 61.5 mm
Weight ----- 1.1 kg


AAFSS allows for operative upgrades of its working program, increase of number of sensors and input/output signals. AAFSS has embedded voice synthesizer, which allows for its rapid adaptation to various types of aircrafts.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby JaiS » 12 Aug 2008 19:43

Fibre Channel going strong in storage applications

Fibre Channel databus products are having a resurgence, says Jack Staub, chief executive officer of Critical I/O in Irvine, Calif.

Staub told me this during a conversation we had on high-speed I/O trends for the Technology Focus feature in the upcoming September edition of Military & Aerospace Electronics.

Staub says the resurgence "so to speak" is in storage applications for aircraft and ground bases, where large amounts of data are being acquired. "It's resurgent because in the past Fibre Channel was typically used more in network type applications," he adds.

"Fibre Channel has been broadly adopted throughout the F-18 platform," he says. It is used to connect into the data network for the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, he adds.

On the F-22 platform Lockheed Martin officials have made Fibre Channel a standard product, he continues.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 15 Aug 2008 14:57

Source: Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/ther ... e=fullpage

There is nothing super about this Hornet
Peter Criss
March 15, 2007

The recent announcement by the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, that Australia will spend $6 billion to buy 24 Block II Super Hornets to fill a perceived, or self-generated, capability gap raises more questions than it answers.

How was such a decision reached when the Department of Defence is adamant that it did not ask for, or recommend, the aircraft? If the department did not provide the critical operational and engineering evaluations to underpin and justify such a significant impulsive buy, who did? Moreover, will the Super Hornet be capable of filling the role of the aircraft it replaces? And the final question is: at what cost, in human resources and national engineering capability terms, does this "interim, gap-filling" aircraft come?

While some of those questions can be answered fully only by the minister and his closest civilian advisers, others can be answered using unclassified information. One need go no further than a statement made by Philip Coyle, the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, when giving evidence before a subcommittee of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 22, 2000.
The report is damning of the Super Hornet in areas critical to Australia's operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original Hornet - something not high on our list of essential criteria.

Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: "The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29."

Forget about the new Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family of Russian fighters proliferating across the region: all Hornet variants are acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older MiG-29s. Space precludes quoting the report's comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.

There is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps "Super Bug" is a better descriptor. Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight - dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.

As for its gap-filling ability, the first question is whether there is a gap at all. The high-speed, low-level catastrophic failure that Nelson predicts the F-111 is going to suffer in the near future is laudable only if true.

Perhaps the minister or one of his minders can explain why the F-111 wing being tested at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has passed 30,000 hours of fatigue testing without failure. The F-111 fleet averages about 6500 hours after some 33 years in service. Is this "justification spin" more about being "worried about what it is that we do not know", as a parliamentary committee was told recently by a senior air force officer, rather than sound reasoning based on professional engineering advice from experienced structural specialists?

My fear is the former. Certainly, with the Super Hornet carrying half of some of the weapons, half the distance, at half the speed of the aircraft it is replacing, one has to hope and pray that the minister has not been misled. Worse still, we must wonder whether he has gone off prematurely without ensuring the rigorous engineering and operational evaluation process that is so essential to justifying spending $6 billion has been scrupulously followed and all options carefully and fairly evaluated.

The old saying that a person who shoots from the hip is bound to blow off some toes rings in my ears. Presumably ministerial staff have procured a wheelchair as a part of their contingency planning - purely for "gap-filling" reasons, of course.

Peter Criss is a retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia's most experienced fighter/strike pilots.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby rkhanna » 15 Aug 2008 15:28

Peter Criss is a retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia's most experienced fighter/strike pilots.


Peter Criss is also a close friend of Dr. Carls Kappo..take that with a pinch of salt :)

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 15 Aug 2008 16:01

rkhanna wrote:Peter Criss is also a close friend of Dr. Carls Kappo..take that with a pinch of salt

Would you also take Philip Coyle of Pentagon cited in article with a pinch of salt ?

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby rkhanna » 17 Aug 2008 22:21

^^^ Special Interest Lobbying is as old as Civilization itself. However the fact still remains that baring the F-22 the F-18 SuperHornet II is the most Advanced and Complete warfighting system in the world today. The Rafale comes a close second. You can nitpick on the RCS , Aerodynamics,etc but the fact remains that as of Today the SuperBug with its AESA and assorted Avionics and Weapons is one hell of a beast.


And with respect to Coyle his expertise actually lies in the fields of Nuclear Research and EMPs, Lasers and Missle Systems.

However you will also find enough people who are in the Superbugs corner.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 18 Aug 2008 03:05

rkhanna wrote:^^^ Special Interest Lobbying is as old as Civilization itself. However the fact still remains that baring the F-22 the F-18 SuperHornet II is the most Advanced and Complete warfighting system in the world today. The Rafale comes a close second. You can nitpick on the RCS , Aerodynamics,etc but the fact remains that as of Today the SuperBug with its AESA and assorted Avionics and Weapons is one hell of a beast.


And with respect to Coyle his expertise actually lies in the fields of Nuclear Research and EMPs, Lasers and Missle Systems.

However you will also find enough people who are in the Superbugs corner.


Thank you for enlightening me. My knowledge is much limited than yours. But it came as a surprise to me that even Rafale was placed behind SH. Besides India would still get an "Export" version of SH if it opts for one so how many of latest systems we are able to get for ourselves would depend on our bargaining power and permissions of their governments. But that applies to other aircrafts too.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby rkhanna » 18 Aug 2008 04:10

Thank you for enlightening me. My knowledge is much limited than yours. But it came as a surprise to me that even Rafale was placed behind SH. Besides India would still get an "Export" version of SH if it opts for one so how many of latest systems we are able to get for ourselves would depend on our bargaining power and permissions of their governments. But that applies to other aircrafts too.


Well my knowledge in aviation Matters is near ZERO I dont presume to know anything. Its just that having lived in Japan for a quiet number of years i have had the oppurtunity to interact with a wide spectrum of American Forces stationed there. The only thing i have learned is that your weapons are always made by the lowest bidder and that in America the Arms lobby is as ruthless as the Columbian drugcartels :)

As for the Rafale. The Rafale is a great piece of tech when and if the Phase III finally gets off the ground. The RBE-2 in its current state is average. The Americans can match (or exceed) any EW/ECM avionic suit on it. The F-18 Superbug as it stands today is the most complete Fighter system there is. Ofcourse this is from the standpoint of the USN. In Camparision to the SH the EF and Rafale are still halfway there.

And what would the "export" version of the SH for india Entail? India doesnt have the tech Infrastructure to make use of the SH's datafusion,etc capability. They will give us a downgraded AESA? It will in most probability be superior to that being fielded by the Europeans and Russians anyway (not to mention the Chinese/Pakistans). Downgraded EW systems? Replace them with Israeli. India wants to be able to customize the planes anyways (MKI) from what i remember reading.

Sanctions/Political Strings aside how much of a liabiity can a "Downgraded" Block II/III SH be to us. Ofcourse the flipside is that if we buy european those planes have a way longer development cycle ahead of them. However its tech that we will have to wait and most likely recieve last.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4772
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Kartik » 18 Aug 2008 10:59

good video of the Rafale vs the SH..there is some good footage from the Rafale's cockpit where its got the SH in its sights..

link

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby viveks » 18 Aug 2008 11:52

I still think for the MMRCA...the rafale is a smart buy and a good machine. Introducing uncle sam's equipment will be something like venturing into a new territory. For an order like that....I think its better to prefer 'experience' than 'new guys'.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 15:27

viveks/others, please take your comments to the MRCA thread which has been created for all those 16/18/EF/Raf/35/39 fans ! :wink:
this thread is named "F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only".
thank you.

SGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 16:46

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby SGupta » 26 Aug 2008 12:16

Apologies if this has been posted before:

From the Defense Industry Daily (05-Jul-2007)
F-18 Super Hornets to Get IRST

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-1 ... rst-03429/

Found this bit interesting....

"Instead of modifying the airframe’s structure or wiring, the partners will be taking an unusual route: modifying a 480 gallon centerline fuel tank to carry 330 gallons of fuel + the IRST system. This approach would also allow refits to existing Super Hornets, and indeed to all “teen series” fighters in the US arsenal, once software integration is performed for each aircraft type. The drawback to this approach is that a centerline tank with IRST needs to stay on the airplane in combat, compromising aerodynamic performance somewhat. First production deliveries of F/A-18 E/F IRST systems are expected in 2012, with initial operational capability anticipated in 2013."

saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby saptarishi » 28 Aug 2008 22:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifkBKX5f5NI

excellent video showing F-16 BLOCK 60 or F-16IN APG-80 radar and INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC WARFARE SUITE :wink:

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby rkhanna » 02 Sep 2008 03:38

Why the EF may be a bad idea for India. (The Author is overly Critical of the EF but still makes valid points. Mainly involving costs. Also keep in mind that MoD is thinking about ditching the Tranche 3 altogether.



[url]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/01 ... _what_joy/[/url]

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby andy B » 02 Sep 2008 04:51

Arya Sumantra wrote:
rkhanna wrote:^^^ Special Interest Lobbying is as old as Civilization itself. However the fact still remains that baring the F-22 the F-18 SuperHornet II is the most Advanced and Complete warfighting system in the world today. The Rafale comes a close second. You can nitpick on the RCS , Aerodynamics,etc but the fact remains that as of Today the SuperBug with its AESA and assorted Avionics and Weapons is one hell of a beast.


And with respect to Coyle his expertise actually lies in the fields of Nuclear Research and EMPs, Lasers and Missle Systems.

However you will also find enough people who are in the Superbugs corner.


Thank you for enlightening me. My knowledge is much limited than yours. But it came as a surprise to me that even Rafale was placed behind SH. Besides India would still get an "Export" version of SH if it opts for one so how many of latest systems we are able to get for ourselves would depend on our bargaining power and permissions of their governments. But that applies to other aircrafts too.


Before I suffer the wrath of the "Adminullahs" qucik question is anyone going to be attending the Avalon Airshow near Melbourne-Aus in March???

I was thinking we could have BRF meet if there are enough people.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby NRao » 02 Sep 2008 18:33

AB,

No one is going to bite you IF you post in the right thread.

This thread being ONLY for tech resources, please delete your post and repost the pertinent question in the right thread.

Thx.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby NRao » 02 Sep 2008 18:36

India set for offset bounty

Signin required.

Air Transport
SubscribeYou are in: Home › Air Transport › News Article
DATE:27/08/08
SOURCE:Flight International

By Siva Govindasamy

Indian companies are reaping rich rewards from the country's military modernisation programme, with the private sector increasingly competing with established players like Hindustan Aeronautics for highly lucrative contracts in the coming years.

Foreign companies must reinvest 30-50% of the value of the contracts in India, and air force deals alone could result in an estimated $15-20 billion in offsets over the next decade.

"The government is keen to acquire the latest technology and benefit the local economy through these contracts," says an Indian observer.

BIGGEST PRIZE

The biggest deal is a $10-12 billion multirole combat aircraft competition, in which the successful bidder faces a 50% offset requirement.

The Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16, the RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen are all in the fray for the 126-aircraft deal.

New Delhi is also keen to buy 197 military light utility helicopters for $750 million and 22 attack helicopters for $500 million, has ordered six Lockheed C-130J transports, and will imminently confirm deals for the Boeing P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and 80 new Mil Mi-17-IV multirole helicopters.

HAL, which has had more success with licence-production than the development of its own aircraft, will continue to benefit, say observers. It will manufacture 108 of the fighters that India orders under the MRCA competition, making it a key partner for the bidders. Last year, it also signed a deal with Boeing that could see the US company outsource around $1 billion worth of manufacturing work over 10 years.

Its orderbooks are heavy with the licence-production of the BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainer and Sukhoi Su-30 fighter, and it will work with Russia on a medium transport aircraft and fifth-generation fighter. "HAL is the only company in India with dedicated aircraft manufacturing facilities, and so it is the logical partner for most aerospace companies," says the New Delhi-based source.

PRIVATE CHALLENGERS

HAL faces a challenge from private companies, after India issued licences to companies such as Tata Group and Larsen & Toubro to produce defence items. Software houses such as Infotech and Wipro are also keen to build their defence business.

After being limited to supplying raw materials, components or design technology for many years, these companies are looking for a bigger share of the pie.

Tata, with its experience in manufacturing and engineering, is the likeliest challenger to HAL as a lead systems integrator. In May, it signed a deal with Israel Aerospace Industries to develop and produce a range of military products. It has also signed agreements with Boeing and EADS.

"It will not be surprising if Tata outbids some of the established government-owned companies on its way to securing some big-ticket contracts from the MoD," says Laxman Kumar Behera, an associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

L&T will also partner foreign companies in the MRCA competition, and has been working with the Defence Research and Development Organisation for several years on new defence products. The opening up of the defence sector will primarily benefit its heavy engineering division, which has "good prospects in the short to medium term", adds the company. It has constructed a new strategic systems complex to integrate and test weapon systems, sensors and engineering systems, and is setting up a precision manufacturing facility for defence products.

Given the emergence of India's IT industry, it is no surprise that Wipro, India's third largest software company, looks to get in on the act. It is setting up units for electronic warfare systems, radars, flight-control systems, flight simulators and engine systems for companies like BAE Systems, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman.

"Revenues from defence are small, but the big revenues will start flowing from the middle to the end of 2009," says Sudip Nandy, chief executive of telecom and product engineering services at Wipro.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby NRao » 02 Sep 2008 18:55

Aug 4, 2008 :: AWST :: India Reviews Offsets For Fighter Program

Signin required:


By Neelam Mathews/New Delhi mathews.neelam@gmail.com

Prospective vendors submitted their offsets package Aug. 4 for India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program.

The proposal was submitted in response to the MMRCA request for proposals (RFPs), which asked all competitors to provide an "industrial participation" (IP) plan as part of their offering.

The RFP for the 126-aircraft MMRCA program went out to Boeing, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lockheed Martin, MiG and Rafale, and the companies submitted their bids in April.

Lockheed said its offer included a wide range of projects including investment, manufacturing, export creation and joint development.

"Lockheed Martin is committed to working with our industrial partners and Indian defense industry to develop long-term, high-value projects that bring technology and sustainable business to India," said Orville Prins, a Lockheed vice president for business development.

The giant contractor, based outside Washington, D.C., is touting its history of having established four F-16 production lines outside of the United States as one of its selling points. It says it has achieved over $37 billion in offset program credits in 40 countries - "all without default or penalty. A proven cornerstone of these programs is the ability to provide transfer of technology to program partners."

Boeing claims it has a formidable industrial lineup that includes a supplier team of 16 leading aerospace and defense companies with combined revenues of over $454 billion, as well as 37 public- and private-sector Indian companies.

Earlier this year, Boeing reached agreement to form a joint venture with Tata Industries Ltd. Last year, it reached another deal with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which is adopting Boeing's "Lean" and best-management practices. Boeing has also signed an agreement with international engineering firm Larsen & Toubro for joint exploration of business opportunities in the Indian defense market.

"We are already establishing the groundwork that will lead us to success in this large undertaking through early engagement of Indian industry, both public and private," said Vivek Lall, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems vice president and India country head.

Not to be left behind, EADS said it understands the importance of industrial co-operation associated with defense acquisition programs. "This is particulary true...where the industrial collaboration can decisively contribute to further shaping the future of the Indian defense industry", said Bernhard Gerwert, chief executive of military air systems.

EADS and its Eurofighter partners have signed over 20 memorandums of understanding with key Indian defense companies.

"Earlier this year we invited India to become a member of the successful Eurofighter family. Today I want to repeat this message: India is our partner of choice and we are interested in long-lasting and mutually beneficial political, industrial and military relations, based on...true partnership," said Gerwert in a statement.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 06 Sep 2008 23:27

India’s MMRCA Fighter Competition
06-Aug-2008 12:35 EDT

Article is long so just putting the link below.

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 07 Sep 2008 08:09

100 page PDF on
A comprehensive guide to the Hornet Strike Fighter

Source: http://sinimuna.com/docs/bz10a.pdf

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: F-16, F-18, Grip, MiG-35 and Rafale Technical Resource Only

Postby Arya Sumantra » 10 Sep 2008 12:27

Cracks in F18 are due to "Vortex Bursting" according to the article below. The figures somehow don't show up in the post below so use source link to see them.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0176.shtml

F-18 Leading Edge Extension Fences


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was wondering what the small vertical fins on the leading-edge extensions of the F/A-18 are. They are just aft of the cockpit on both sides of the plane. I have noticed that there are photos of NASA Hornets that do not have them.
- question from Steve Van Eerden
The devices you speak of are called fences, and they can be seen on most examples of the F-18 Hornet from the A/B models through the C/D. These surfaces are basically flat plates mounted on the upper surface of the leading edge extension (LEX) near the junction with the main wing. Examples of the LEX fences are illustrated below.


Fence located on the leading edge extension of the F-18


Closeup of a LEX fence on the F-18
However, you are also correct that some older models of the F-18 are not equipped with such a device. A photo of the very first F-18 is shown below, and you can see that this aircraft does not have a fence.



Early F-18 without any LEX fences
To better understand the purpose of this fence and the leading edge extension, we first need to take a step back and discuss an aerodynamic device called the vortex generator. As described in our earlier article, a vortex is an energetic, swirling mass of air. All aircraft create a type of vortex called a trailing vortex off each wingtip when the plane is in motion. These trailing vortices can be thought of as small tornados that grow larger as they extend behind the plane. A vortex generator is really nothing more than a miniature wing-like device designed specifically to create a vortex. Even though a vortex creates drag, it can also provide advantages that outweigh its negative impact. One such advantage is the ability of a vortex to speed up the flow of air over a wing and allow a plane to reach a higher angle of attack than it would be able to otherwise.

A leading edge extension is designed for the same purpose--to create a strong vortex that increases the stall angle of a wing. The LEX achieves this behavior in the same way trailing vortices are created on a wing, as illustrated below.



Creation of trailing vortices due to a difference in pressure above and below a lifting surface
The high pressure air from the lower surface of the LEX rolls around the edge to the lower pressure region on the upper surface of the LEX. This motion induces a rotation on the air flow causing it to roll up into a strong vortex. The strength of the vortex grows as angle of attack increases, and the high-speed vortex helps keep the air flow attached to the surface of the wing beyond the normal stall angle. The effect can be calculated and visualized using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software as exemplified in the following images.



CFD visualization of vortices created by leading edge extensions on the F-18


CFD visualization of vortices created by leading edge extensions on the F-18
If conditions are right, the effect can even be seen on a plane in flight. The factors that determine whether the vortices created by an aircraft can become visible are the same as those that determine whether an aircraft produces contrails. Although contrails are typically thought of as being created purely by a plane's engines, the same relationships between temperature and pressure also dictate the formation of "aerodynamic contrails." The following picture illustrates a case in which conditions made the vortices on an F-18 visible. Note the similarities between the vortex structure compared to the CFD illustrations provided above.



Vortices visible on the leading edge extensions of an F-18
The benefits of these vortices can be appreciated when one realizes that nearly all current military aircraft designs incorporate leading edge extensions and/or canards that perform much the same function. A few examples include the F-16, AV-8B Harrier II, MiG-29, and Su-27.

Unfortunately, these vortices can also create problems, particularly on planes with twin vertical tails like the F-18. Shortly after the F-18 entered service, it was discovered that the vertical tails were suffering from cracks and fatigue. This structural damage limited the first batch of planes to a few hundred flight hours, as opposed to the several thousand flight hours the Navy required for the service life of its aircraft. The cause of the structural cracks was eventually traced back to the LEX vortices impacting on the vertical tails and creating loads the tails weren't designed to handle.

In particular, the problem was due to a phenomenon called vortex bursting. As a vortex travels downstream, it enlarges and becomes weaker. If the rotational velocity of the vortex drops low enough, the increasing pressure within the vortex causes it to lose its tornado-like structure and break apart. This bursting behavior was found to occur just ahead of the F-18 vertical tails. The resulting air flow impinged directly on the tails causing severe buffeting and structural damage. Further worsening the situation was the fact that the frequency of loads induced by vortex bursting just happened to coincide with the first natural frequency of bending in the vertical tail.

NASA conducted extensive investigation of the phenomenon using its F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV). During testing, smoke was injected into the LEX vortex making it possible to observe its behavior during flight. The following picture shows the results of one such test. Observe the significant increase in the diameter of the vortex near the vertical tail indicating that the vortex has burst.



Vortex bursting observed during smoke flow visualization tests on NASA's F-18 HARV
In any event, the fatigue and buffet problem was so significant that the Navy grounded its F-18 fleet and refused to take delivery of new production planes until a solution was found. Fearing that the entire F-18 program might be cancelled as a result of this deficiency, McDonnell Douglas quickly formed a "tiger team" of engineering experts under the leadership of John Capellupo. The solution they ultimately implemented was the LEX fence described earlier. This fence is essentially another vortex generator itself. The fence creates a second unsteady vortex that interacts with the vortex created by the leading edge extension. This interaction strengthens the rotation of the main vortex so that vortex bursting is eliminated in the vicinity of the vertical tail. The repair was so effective that it not only solved the tail buffet problem but the fence also allows the F-18 to reach even higher angles of attack.

The impact of the LEX fence on the tail buffet problem is illustrated in the following graphs. The upper graph compares the buffet frequencies on the original aircraft without fences observed during wind tunnel tests (WT), flight testing, and using CFD. These five data points appear to form a linear relationship indicating that the buffeting increases as the plane's speed increases.



Effect of LEX fence on tail buffet
However, the addition of the fence significantly reduces the frequency of the buffet, as indicated by the "fence on" CFD calculation. Furthermore, the second graph plots the bending moment on the tail both with and without the fence. Although the amplitude of the moment is slightly increased by the fence, the frequency is significantly reduced.

In addition to the LEX fence, a second modification was also made to the F-18 to increase the fatigue life of the airframe. Three small L brackets were added to the base of each vertical tail to provide increased structural strength. These brackets can be seen below.



Structural brackets added to the F-18 vertical tail
These modifications were made to all subsequent F-18A/B/C/D production aircraft and retrofitted to most planes already in service. This solution was far simpler and less expensive than the alternative of completely redesigning the LEX and/or vertical tails. You may also notice that the latest F-18E/F Super Hornet models do not make use of LEX fences. Since the E/F was a totally redesigned variant, McDonnell Douglas engineers could afford to investigate alternative solutions to further improve the plane's performance. Instead of fences, the F-18E/F makes use of vents located near the junction of the LEX and main wing. These vents automatically open at high angle of attack allowing air to flow over the inner wing. This additional air flow interacts with the LEX vortex to delay vortex bursting in much the same manner as the fence did.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 16 May 2004


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests