The multi-mission F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" strike fighter is an
upgrade of the combat-proven night strike F/A-18C/D. The Super Hornet will
provide the battle group commander with a platform that has range,
endurance, and ordnance carriage capabilities comparable to the A-6 which
have been retired.
The F/A-18E/F aircraft are 4.2 feet longer than earlier Hornets, have
a 25% larger wing area, and carry 33% more internal fuel which will
effectively increase mission range by 41% and endurance by 50%. The Super
Hornet also incorporates two additional weapon stations. This allows for
increased payload flexibility by mixing and matching air-to-air and/or
air-to-ground ordnance. The aircraft can also carry the complete complement
of "smart" weapons, including the newest joint weapons such as JDAM and JSOW.
The Super Hornet can carry approximately 17,750 pounds (8,032 kg) of
external load on eleven stations. It has an all-weather air-to-air radar and
a control system for accurate delivery of conventional or guided weapons.
There are two wing tip stations, four inboard wing stations for fuel tanks
or air-to-ground weapons, two nacelle fuselage stations for Sparrows or
sensor pods, and one centerline station for fuel or air-to-ground weapons.
An internal 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon is mounted in the nose.
Carrier recovery payload is increased to 9,000 pounds, and its engine
thrust from 36,000 pounds to 44,000 pounds utilizing two General Electric
F414 turbo-fan engines. Although the more recent F/A-18C/D aircraft have
incorporated a modicum of low observables
technology, the F/A-18E/F was designed from the outset to optimize
this and other survivability enhancements.
The Hughes Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infra-Red (ATFLIR), the
baseline infrared system for the F/A-18 E/F, will also be deployed on
earlier model F/A-18s. The Hughes pod features both
navigation and infrared targeting systems, incorporating third
generation mid-wave infrared (MWIR) staring focal plane technology.
|
Click on Picture to enlarge |
 |
Although 41% interdiction mission range increase may be the most
notable F/A-18E/F improvement, the ability to recover aboard with optimal
reserve fuel and a load of precision strike weapons, is of equal importance
to the battle group commander. The growth potential of the F/A-18E/F is more
important to allow flexible employment strategies in future years. If an
electronically scanned array antenna or another installation-sensitive
sensor or weapon system becomes available, the F/A-18E/F has the space,
power and cooling to accommodate it. Although the more recent F/A-18C/D
aircraft have incorporated a modicum of low observables technology, the
F/A-18E/F was designed from the outset to optimize this and other
survivability enhancements. The all-F/A-18C/D/E/F air wing brings an
increase in capability to the carrier battle group while ensuring the
potential to take advantage of technological advances for years to come.
|
Features of the F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet": |
- 90% Common F/A-18C/D Avionics: Avionics and software have a 90
percent commonality with current F/A-18C/Ds. However, the F/A-18E/F
cockpit features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display; a larger,
liquid crystal multipurpose color display; and a new engine fuel
display.
- 34 in. Fuselage Extension: The fuselage is slightly longer - the
result of a 34-inch extension.
- Two Additional Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: Super Hornet has
two additional weapons stations, bringing the total to 11. For aircraft
carrier operations, about three times more payload can be brought back
to the ship.
- 25% Larger Wing: A full 25 percent bigger than its predecessor,
Super Hornet has nearly half as many parts.
- 35% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the
F414-GE-400, an advanced derivative of the Hornet's current F404 engine
family. The F414 produces 35 percent more thrust and improves overall
mission performance. Enlarged air inlets provide increased airflow to
the engines.
- 33% Additional Internal Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe
increase internal fuel capacity by 3,600 pounds, or about 33 percent.
This extends the Hornet's mission radius by up to 40 percent.
NASA's involvement with the F/A-18E/F began in the early stages of the
proposed aircraft development when the Office of the Secretary of Defense
became concerned with range estimates for the vehicle. A three-member
NASA/DOD/industry team conducted an independent review of fighter-escort
mission range estimates in April 1992. A NASA Langley engineer was a member
of this team. Favorable results from this review were critical to the
airplane program proceeding forward to the Defense Acquisition Board for
funding advocacy.
A series of tests in a Langley wind tunnel (8-Foot Transonic) the
following month indicated that a spoiler on the leading-edge extension,
designed to improve stability at high angles of attack* and reduce
aerodynamic buffeting of the vertical tails, caused unacceptable reductions
in maximum lift. As a result of these tests, a reassessment of the leading
edge extension design was begun.
Redesigning the leading edge extension was the job of a 15-member
national team of experts, which included three Langley engineers. This team
was active through the first six months of 1993. Initially the team explored
small modifications to the size and shape of the extension to regain the
required lift and improve stability. Subsequent wind tunnel tests showed
that this incremental approach would not be successful. Langley engineers
then proposed more radical design options that, based on prior research with
other configurations, would potentially satisfy these requirements.
Favorable wind tunnel results led to further refinement of one of the design
options and a configuration that met all design goals. This configuration is
the wing leading edge extension on the production F/A-18E/F.
Roll-out of the first Super Hornet occurred in September 1995, and it
flew for the first time in November 1995, ahead of schedule and nearly 1,000
pounds under specified weight. In January 1997, the Super Hornet
successfully conducted its initial sea trials on board the Navy's newest
aircraft carrier, USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74).
Congress approved initial production of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
beginning in 1995 to allow for extensive operational testing and evaluation.
Naval pilots tested the aircraft in a complex variety of tactical missions,
representing all possible operational arenas.
In March 1996, during flight tests at Patuxent River, an F/A-18E/F
experienced wing drop-an unacceptable, uncommanded abrupt lateral roll-off
that randomly occurred and involved rapid bank angle changes of up to 60 deg.
Although not a safety of flight issue, the roll-offs occur during high-speed,
high-g maneuvers and prevent the pilot from performing close-in tracking
maneuvers on potential adversaries. The problem was viewed as extremely
serious and posed a threat to operational tests and the overall development
schedule. During the first year of flight tests, the wing-drop phenomenon was
only seen at high altitudes because load restrictions prevented the aircraft
from reaching the relevant range of angle of attack at low altitudes. As the
loads test program opened the flight envelope to 7.5g at all altitudes, the
full extent of the wing-drop problem became evident. Objectionable wing-drop
events occurred through-out the flight envelope at Mach numbers between 0.5
and 0.9, and this deficiency became a significant threat to the technical and
political health of the F/A-18E/F Program.
Having identified wing drop as a problem in early 1996, the Boeing/Navy
team performed wind tunnel tests and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) studies
in an effort to identify the root cause. The joint Navy team concluded that
the wing drop was caused by a sudden, abrupt loss of lift on one of the outer
wing panels during maneuvering. Though the basic cause of the wing drop was
determined, how to moderate the airflow separation differences between the
left and right wings was not. A variety of solutions were explored.
During this period, Langley engineers suggested that the flight program
apply a NASA-developed technology -- passive porosity -- to a small section of
the upper surface of the wing at the point where the wing folds for aircraft
carrier operations. This solution, refined by the NASA and Boeing team,
resolved the wing drop problem and permitted the Department of Defense to
authorize continued production of the aircraft. To contrast the airflow
patterns between the F/A-18E/F and earlier F-18's, NASA Dryden flew an F-18B
to visualize in-flight wing surface flow field
data. The data verified that there are significant differences between
airflow characteristics of the two aircraft. NASA engineers also served on a
Department of Defense blue ribbon panel convened to review the approach taken
by Boeing to resolve the wing drop, and participated on various Boeing/Navy
"tiger teams" created to resolve issues related to the wing drop problem.
As a low impact "80-percent solution" to the F/A-18E/F wing-drop
problem, a revised deflection schedule for the leading-edge flaps was
evaluated in flight tests in early 1997, with very favorable results. Although
the leading-edge flap schedule modification significantly reduced the
magnitude of the problem, the aircraft still exhibited smaller wing drops at
many test conditions. The original wing-drop problem had been viewed as a
potential safety hazard and a roadblock to productive load tests. After the
modification, the problem was reduced to a flying qualities issue that allowed
other tests to continue.
In November 1997, a diagnostic flight test of an F/A-18E/F with the
wing-fold fairing removed was conducted and the results showed that wing drop
had been eliminated from most of the flight envelope. But the fairing-off
configuration was not a viable approach for production aircraft. NASA Langley
suggested that the flight program apply porosity, a passive technology
developed at NASA, to the wing in the fold area. Langley researchers had been
conducting experiments with passive porosity to control shock locations and
other characteristics for several years. During the initial concept evaluation
on the F/A-18E/F, the porous fairing was simply a standard wing-fold fairing
with areas cut out and a screen mesh substituted. Langley provided design
guidelines for the porosity and thickness of the mesh. This solution, refined
by the NASA, Navy, and Boeing team, resolved the wing-drop problem and
permitted continued production of the aircraft.
On 15 February 2000, the Navy determined the aircraft to be
"operationally effective and operationally suitable," and recommended the
aircraft's full introduction into the fleet. The Navy announced the results of
the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operational evaluation (OPEVAL). The OPEVAL report
awarded the best possible grade to the Super Hornet, calling it "operationally
effective and operationally suitable." In addition, the report recommended the
aircraft's introduction into the fleet.
Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jay Johnson, stated "The F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet is the cornerstone of the future of naval aviation. The superb
performance demonstrated throughout its comprehensive operational evaluation
was just what we expected and confirms why we can't wait to get it to the
fleet!" Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at China Lake, Calif.,
flew 1,233 hours in over 850 sorties and expended more than 400,000 pounds of
ordnance in the Super Hornet during nearly six months of flights. The
23-member aircrew tested the aircraft in a complex variety of tactical
missions representing the operational arena.
|
F/A-18E Spiral Development |
Spiral development is being invoked as the preferred current
method of procuring weapon systems. Some of its distinguishing
features, such as a cyclic approach for incrementally growing a
system's degree of definition and implementation, can be found in the
archives chronicling the Navy's development of the F/A-18 strike
fighter, with particular attention to this aircraft's most recently
enhanced variants-the singleseat F/A-18E and the dual-seat F/A-18F
Super Hornets.
The phased, spiral approach of the Super Hornet's electronic
warfare capability is designed to increase survivability in proportion
to the evolving threat. Other systems and subsystems of the
F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F will be of equal interest to future spiral
developers. The General Electric F400-GE-400 engine powered the
original F/A-18 aircraft. On later model F/A-18C/D aircraft it was
replaced by the F400-GE-402, the enhanced performance engine.
Profiting from lessons learned in designing an engine for the A-12
program, General Electric developed a larger and even more powerful
engine for the F/A-18E/F, the GE-414-400.
On 29 December 2003 the U.S. Navy awarded Boeing a multiyear
procurement contract valued at $8.6 billion for the production of an
additional 210 F/A-18 Super Hornets. Under the terms of the multiyear
contract, the Navy will purchase 42 aircraft in each of the fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. The agreement provides the Navy with the
flexibility to increase the quantity of aircraft on order by as many
as six aircraft per year. Deliveries for aircraft purchased in the
second multiyear begin in fiscal year 2007.
F/A-18 E/F aircraft through Lot 25 are all Block 1 aircraft. One
of the more interesting subsystems of the F/A-18E/F is its Integrated
Defensive Electronic Countermeasures suite. An outgrowth of the
countermeasure systems that evolved on the F/A-18A/B/C/D versions, it
in turn will continue its spiral through a phased approach. Its Block
1 includes a proven jammer, the ALQ-165 - an operationally successful
jammer incorporated in late model F/A-18C/D aircraft and now also
included in the F/A-18C/D aircraft flying with the air forces of
allied nations. Additional protection is provided by the ALE-50 towed
decoy.
The improved LOT 25 Super Hornet had its first flight in August
2002, ahead of schedule, and with a long list of upgraded or new
features. Thanks to the efforts of the Navy/Boeing Team the fleet has
the foundation for significant war fighting improvements. F/A-18E/F
aircrews will appreciate the new suite of state-of-the-art displays,
but the biggest benefit to the fleet is the increased software and
hardware capacity. These improvements will allow the Super
Hornet to easily incorporate future warfighting improvements like the
active electronically scanned array (AESA) and the advanced crew
station (ACS). Thanks to higher order language (HOL) operational
flight programs (OFPs) software upgrades can be incorporated with
ease.
The delivery of the LOT 25 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was two months
ahead of production schedule in spite of the challenges the team had
to overcome. Engineers had to coordinate five major computers, running
in real time, as well as integrate and test a completely new set of
pilot displays. The Advanced Mission Computers and Displays (AMC&D)
replaced the Digital Mission Computer. With AMC&D came the Digital
Expandable Color Display (DECD), which replaced the center display
Multi Purpose Color Display. Other features include the Signal
Data Computer (fuel system computer, an interface computer
between several analog aircraft systems and the digital mission
computer), the digital engine control computer, and the stores
management computer upgrade.
The team made major use of commercial-off-the-shelf components
and modules in the upgraded avionics. The hardware also includes a new
one gigabit-per-second state-of-the-art high-speed serial interface
between the mission
computers. The team rewrote over two million words of legacy
assembly language software code into the higher order C++ language and
added necessary new capabilities in support of the new avionics. This
required not only the normal testing for new systems but also a
complete regression test of functionality in the aircraft.
The team surmounted a wide range of issues typical of a very
large, integrated, real-time system - an incredible accomplishment to
complete early. (This may well be a software industry first for a
project of this size.) It took all members of the F/A-18 Team to
deliver this result. The team included leadership from PMA265, PMA209,
the Boeing production crew, Boeing suppliers, the China Lake/Boeing
software team, and the China Lake and Patuxent River flight test
teams.
Beginning with Lot 26 (FY03), production transitioned to Block 2
with a re-designed forward fuselage and provisions to incorporate
Block 2 equipment including Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
radar, Advanced Crew Station (ACS), 8x10 Display, Fiber Channel
Network Switch, and Digital Video Map
Computer. Advanced Mission Computers and Displays (AMC&D)
upgrades the mission computers from an assembly language based system
to an open architecture higher order language and were introduced
beginning with Lot 25. In Block 2, the ALQ-165 will be replaced by the
ALQ-214 radar frequency countermeasures system, a "techniques
generator" that determines an appropriate signal to counter an
attacking missile.
With AESA, the APG-79 radar, the Navy intends to enhance E/F
capabilities in all warfare areas: aircraft lethality, survivability,
and signature characteristics. Because of the potential significance
of AESA, DOT&E placed it on oversight for both OT&E and LFT&E. AESA
Milestone B occurred in February 2001. Milestone C is planned for
December 2003 with operational evaluation (OPEVAL) beginning in
February 2006 and an initial operating capability in FY07.
Advanced Targeting and Designation Forward-Looking Infrared
System (ATFLIR) represents the latest generation of technology in
infrared targeting capabilities, including
Navigation Forward-Looking Infrared (NAVFLIR), laser spot
tracker (LST), air-to-air laser ranging, electronic zoom,
geographic-point targeting, and Electro-optics. It will combine the
functions of three legacy pod systems (TFLIR, NAVFLIR, and LST) into
one pod. This next-generation technology is designed to provide three
fields of view, incorporate a larger detector array, and allow flight
operations up to 50,000 feet altitude.
In Block 3, the ALE-50 will be replaced by the ALE-55
fiber-optic towed decoy. With this combination, the ALQ-214 will
generate an optimal signal to counter the incoming threat, to be
transmitted by the ALE-55 towed decoy.
|
F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" Deployment |
The Navy is planning to procure a minimum of 460 Super Hornets. As part
of the Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) production of the Super Hornet was cut
from 1000 to 548 units. Production of the aircraft commenced in FY 1997, at
which time it was expected to attain initial operational capability (IOC) in
FY 2001. Twelve aircraft were funded in FY 1997; procurement numbers increase
to 20 in FY 1998, 30 in FY 1999, and reach a final maximum
rate of 48 per year in FY 2001. These numbers could vary depending on
the progress of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
As of mid-2002 the Navy had a contract for 222 F/A-18s, of which about
100 had been delivered under a $8.9 billion contract. The Marine Corps, which
also flies Hornets, decided not to buy the Super Hornet.
As of late March 2002 the Pentagon was reviewing a proposal to cut JSF
production by 400 aircraft and limit the Navy's F/A-18E/F acquisition to 460
aircraft versus 548. The JSF reductions would be split about equally between
the Marine Corps STOVL and the Navy's carrier versions.
In fiscal year 2002 the Department of the Navy announced a new Tactical
Aviation
Integration Plan, whereby the Navy and Marine Corps concluded that they
would be able to achieve their missions with fewer aircraft and units by
operating as a combined force. The Plan reduced the total number of aircraft
they plan to buy from 1,637 to 1,140 -- 88 fewer F/A-18E/F [from 548 to 460]
and 409 fewer Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
The Navy's first F/A-18E Super Hornet fleet squadron at Naval Air
Station (NAS) Lemoore, CA, received its "safe for flight" certification in
June 2001. This certification meant that Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 115,
the "Eagles," was ready to train as an operational squadron in preparation for
the Navy's first operational deployment of Super Hornets in the summer of 2002
with the USS Abraham Lincoln battle group and Carrier Air Wing 14. The
squadron successfully completed a comprehensive series of inspections and
reviews of its training, maintenance and safety programs. With an inventory of
six aircraft, a full compliment of pilots and a complete administrative
structure, VFA-115 was capable of operating autonomously. The first
operational cruise of Super Hornet, F/A-18 E, was with VFA-115 onboard the USS
Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) on July 24, 2002, and saw initial combat action on
Nov. 6, 2002, when they participated in a strike on hostile targets in the
"no-fly" zone in Iraq. In response to hostile acts against coalition aircraft
monitoring the southern no-fly zone, Operation Southern Watch aircraft,
including the Super Hornets from the Abraham Lincoln, used precision-guided
weapons to target two surface-to-air missile systems (SAM), and a command and
control
communications facility. VFA 115 embarked aboard Lincoln expended twice
the amount of bombs as other squadrons in their airwing (with 100 % accuracy)
and met and exceeded all readiness requirements while on deployment. The Super
Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less
labor hours per flight hour.
In August 2002, the Navy issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for public comment on the introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
strike-fighter to bases on the East Coast. The DEIS evaluated the
environmental consequences for the proposal to provide facilities and
functions to support the home basing and operation of 10 Super Hornet fleet
squadrons (130 aircraft) and one Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) (32
aircraft) on the East Coast of the United States.
The preferred alternatives for basing combinations were: 1) Either six
fleet squadrons and the Super Hornet FRS at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana,
and four squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, or 2)
Eight squadrons and the Super Hornet FRS at NAS Oceana, and two squadrons at
MCAS Cherry Point. Additionally, the Navy was proposing to build an outlying
landing field (OLF) either in Craven County or Washington County, NC.
In July 2003 Atlantic Fleet Commander, Adm. Robert J. Natter recommended
the Secretary of the Navy base eight Super Hornet squadrons (96 aircraft) and
one Fleet Replacement Squadron (24 aircraft) at Naval Air Station Oceana in
Virginia Beach, Va., and two squadrons (24 aircraft) at Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. The second preferred alternative
recommends basing six squadrons at NAS Oceana and four at MCAS Cherry Point.
Both alternatives recommend construction of an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) in
Washington County, NC, for use in practicing aircraft carrier landings.
Introduction of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft on the East Coast of the United
States was initially projected began in 2004 for completion by 2008. In fact,
the transition from the F-14 Tomcat to Super Hornet reached the halfway point
in 2004 and the process was completed in 2006. To minimize the impact on the
operational mission, older model F/A-18 and F-14 squadrons transitioned to an
F/A-18 E/F squadron upon return from deployment. Typically, aircraft squadrons
deployed to a carrier for approximately 6 months through the year. When the
squadrons are not deployed, they are stationed at their home airfield, and
perform a sequence of training exercises to prepare for carrier deployment.
Each aircraft squadron rotates through this training and deployment cycle,
which would allow for full introduction of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft over a
four-year period.
In 2005 CVW-5 added a second squadron of Super Hornets in Strike Fighter
Squadron (VFA) 27. The VFA-27 "Royal Maces" replaced their older C and D model
Hornets with the new one-seat Super Hornet E model this winter to increase the
air wing's complement of Super Hornets that were introduced last year by the
VFA-102 "Diamondbacks." VFA-102 flies the two-seat Super Hornet F model.
The Naval Air Sysytems Command (NAVAIR) F/A-18 Program signed a second
multi-year procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and a contract
for system design and development (SD&D) of the EA-18G airborne electronic
attack aircraft with the Boeing Company 29 December 2003. The multi-year
contract, valued at approximately $8.5 billion, includes a total of 210
aircraft over five years. Under the terms of the contract, the Navy will
purchase 42 aircraft in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Deliveries for
aircraft purchased will begin in fiscal year 2007. By signing a multi-year
contract, the Navy will save more than $1.1 billion, and deliver cost-wise
readiness and dominant maritime combat ability to the U.S. Naval Fleet.
By the end of 2010, 10 F/A-18E/F squadrons -- five F/A-18 E squadrons
and five F/A-18 F squadrons -- will operate on aircraft carriers in the
Atlantic Fleet area of responsibility. Each squadron will consist of 12 or 14
aircraft, depending on whether the squadron comprises the single-seat version
(F/A-18E) or the two-seat version (F/A-18F). In addition, the Navy will
introduce one Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS), which does not deploy but is
used to train replacement aircrew for the fleet squadrons. The F/A-18E/F FRS
squadron will consist of 32 aircraft. The net result of the transition will be
a decrease in the number of personnel and fighter aircraft assigned to the
Atlantic Fleet.
|
CARRIER AIR WING TRANSITION |
|
TRANSITION IN |
|
Aircraft Type |
Number of Aircraft |
| F/A-18 E |
60 |
| F/A-18 F |
70 |
| F/A-18 E/F FRS
|
34 |
|
TOTAL |
164 |
| |
|
TRANSITION OUT |
|
Aircraft Type |
Number of Aircraft |
| F/A-18 C |
24 |
| F-14 |
148 |
|
TOTAL |
172 |
|
EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack
Aircraft |
The E/A-18G is the Navy's replacement for the EA-6B Airborne Electronic
Attack aircraft and represents an entirely new way of looking at legacy
aircraft replacement. Leveraging existing production capabilities at Boeing
and Northrop Grumman, the Navy is using the F/A-18E/F MYC to buy an additional
quantity of 'F' Aircraft, and marrying those airframes with Northrop Grumman's
in-production Improved Capabilities (ICAP)- III Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)
system to produce the E/A- 18G to replace the aging EA-6B aircraft. This
allows us to deliver the next generation Airborne Electronic Attack capability
at reduced cost and in the shortest possible timeframe. The Marine Corps is
examining a range of possibilities that will provide the needed capability.
In late September 2006 the Boeing Company delivered the first EA-18G
Growler airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft to the US Navy test site at
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. The first EA-18G, known as aircraft
EA-1, made the two-hour flight from St. Louis to Maryland with U.S. Navy pilot
Lt. Matt Doyle and weapons system operator U.S. Navy Cmdr. Jamie Engdahl on
board. EA-1 is the first of two test aircraft built under a System Development
and Demonstration contract Boeing signed with the Navy on Dec. 29, 2003. In
addition to flight testing, EA-1 will undergo extensive ground testing in the
Patuxent River anechoic chamber to assess on-board radar, receiver and jammer
compatibility and performance. The second EA-18G will join the flight test
program at Patuxent River later this year.
The E/A-18G is the fourth major variant of the F/A-18 family of
aircraft. The EA-18G will serve as the Navy’s replacement for the EA-6B
providing a capability to detect, identify, locate, and suppress hostile
emitters. The EA-18G will have the capability to operate autonomously or as a
major node in a network-centric operation and will provide accurate emitter
targeting for employment of onboard suppression weapons such as the High-Speed
Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). Prime contractors are Boeing Aircraft
Corporation of St. Louis, MO for the airframe and General Electric Company,
Aircraft Engine Division of Lynn, MA for the engines. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, Bethpage, NY is a major subcontractor.
The EA-18 will perform full-spectrum electronic surveillance and
electronic attack of enemy threat radars and
communications nets. The EA-18 leverages the U.S. Navy's investment in
the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet platform. A derivative of the two-seat F/A-18F
Super Hornet - a platform which is in production today - the EA-18 is a highly
flexible design that enables the warfighter to perform a broad range of
tactical missions, operating from either the deck of an aircraft carrier or
land-based fields. The EA-18 is 99 percent common with the Super Hornet and
would be expected to significantly reduce support and training costs for the
US Navy.
The EA-18G’s electronic attack upgrades will meet EA-6B (ALQ-218,
ALQ-99, USQ-113) Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) capability to detect,
identify, locate and suppress hostile emitters; provide enhanced connectivity
to National, Theater and Strike assets; and provide organic precision emitter
targeting for employment of onboard suppression weapons High-speed
Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) to fulfill operational requirements. The man in
the loop operation and advanced information display system will allow real
time assessment of the tactical situation and the appropriate response
executed in accordance with the rules of engagement. The performance of the
aircraft is compatible with the primary strike/fighter aircraft projected to
be in the inventory in the 2010 time period, allowing it to be fully
integrated into specific strike packages. It will also have the capacity to
provide broad area coverage for extended periods of time to support numerous
strikes or other air operations in a federated context. The EA-18G is being
designed to perform a range of Electronic Warfare/Electronic Attack functions
either simultaneously or independently.
The F/A-18G had minor shortcomings relative to the EA-6B ICAP-III
baseline of the Advanced Electronic Attack (AEA) Analysis of Alternatives
study. By incorporating alterations, such as inclusion of a digital receiver
system, complete communications electronic attack system, and routable network
information system, this valid core can become a viable force for the future.
The mission radius and time on station figures with typical air defense
suppression loads are nearly identical. AEA system components designed for the
EA -6B ICAP-III were easily adaptable for use in the F/A-18G. An initial study
of the electro-magnetic interference susceptibility for the F/A-18G was
concluded with favorable results. Although the LR-700 can be adapted for use
in this airframe, a digital implementation revolutionizes electronic
surveillance with low probability of intercept radar and complex modulation
waveform detection, coherent jamming capability, active cancellation look
through, and specific emitter identification. An internet protocol routable
network approach is introduced as a possible means to seamless connectivity
and fully integrated
data picture. The multi-role capability of the F/A-18G will provide
synergistic strike and survivability advantages as well as training and
readiness challenges. A quantification of overall effectiveness demonstrates
the F/A-18G is a viable EA -6B follow-on and AEA platform.
The EA-18 was the only alternative to the EA-6B based on a derivative
from an in-production, aircraft carrier adept aircraft. It has the basic
tactical capabilities of the F/A-18F Super Hornet coupled with the enhanced
electronic attack capability of the ICAP III Prowler. The EA-18 will eliminate
the type model series airplane off the flight deck. The configuration of the
airplane in terms of capability will be equivalent to what is anticipated in
the EA-6B with ICAP III installed, and a concentration on the LR-700 receiver,
which will allow tracking of threats. Instead of pre-emptive jamming it will
provide selective reactive jamming.
The airplane, though dedicated to the electronic attack mission, can be
changed from an EA back to an 'F' with relative ease and vice versa. It allows
flexibility on the flight deck. You can use up a certain portion of the life
of the airplane flying it as an electronic attack airplane, and then shift
missions, and use another section as a fighter. There is certainly a big
difference in fighting Iraq with a strong intergraded jamming system compared
to fighting in Afghanistan.
The EA-18 will retain everything in it that the F/A-18F Super Hornet has
today with two exceptions. The wing tip stations will have receiving antennas.
The gun will be replaced with avionics boxes containing the LR-700 receiver
and satellite communications, which interface with the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming
System pods.
The EA-18 is based on the two-seat F/A-18F with the Block 2 avionics
upgrades, including active-array radar and advanced rear crew station, already
under development for the Super Hornet. Production cost on a unit flyaway
basis will be 15-18% more than a basic F/A-18F in then-year dollars. An EA-18
will cost $7-9 million more, based on the nominal Super Hornet unit price of
$50 million by the end of the current multi-year procurement contract.
Concurrent production of EA-18s and E/Fs would further reduce the Super
Hornet's price. The company estimated that, if 12 EA-18s are built each year
alongside 48 E/Fs, the cost of each E/F would be reduced by up to $3 million.
The US Navy would see operating and support savings, with the EA-18 expected
to cost $7,400/h to operate, compared with over S17,000/h for the EA-6B.
The EA-18G aircraft, chosen to augment electronic attack capabilities
across the services and replace the Navy's EA-6B, will be a missionized
F/A-18F airframe to provide capabilities to detect, identify, and locate
hostile radio frequency emitters in order to direct jamming against radar and
communications threats, and to fire suppression weapons such as High-speed
Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). The EA-18G incorporates a version of the
airborne electronic attack (AEA) suite developed for the Improved Capability (ICAP)
III EA-6B upgrade. The Navy plans to include a newly configured Communications
Countermeasure Set as a replacement for the USQ-113.
The EA-18 was selected to replace the EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare
aircraft to provide an Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA). The EA-6B will begin
retirement in the 2010 timeframe, after a career that exceeded 40 years of
deployments in support of USN, USMC, and USAF strike forces. As of early 2000,
Defense Department planning for replacing the EA-6B Prowler include a scheme
under which the Navy would buy an F/A-18G "Growler" -- an F/A-18E/F modified
for escort and close-in jamming. The Air Force would provide standoff jamming
with modified EB-52s or EB-1s, and close-in jamming with unmanned air vehicles
such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk or General Atomics Predator.
The DoD's only air-based EA jamming capability was provided by 123 EA-6B
Prowlers. It was projected that these 123 aircraft will no longer adequately
support required Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) missions beyond the year
2010 due to attrition and airframe life limits. In order to maintain the
tactical advantage over enemy air defenses, the DoD must augment and
ultimately replace its aging and diminishing fleet of EA-6B aircraft with an
equal or better AEA capability.
The EA-18 is the result of an engineering design, development and test
effort that began in late 1993. This effort has included avionics and aircraft
conceptual design, engineering analysis, high- and low-speed wind tunnel
testing, electromagnetic interference/compatibility laboratory testing,
antenna range testing and extensive crew-vehicle interface development.
In November 2001 Boeing successfully completed an initial flight
demonstration of its EA-18 Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) concept aircraft.
The test used an F/A-18F Super Hornet to carry three ALQ-99 jamming pods and
two fuel tanks while measuring noise and vibration data and assessing aircraft
flying qualities.
In April 2002 Boeing completed the third successful flight demonstration
of its EA-18 Airborne Electronic Attack concept aircraft. The test, conducted
April 5, used an F/A-18F Super Hornet to carry three ALQ-99 jamming pods and
two fuel tanks while measuring noise and vibration data and assessing aircraft
flying qualities. Boeing teammate, Northrop Grumman, instrumented the ALQ-99
jamming pods to gather the noise and vibration information. The combination of
a validated design, proven platform and proven electronics positioned the
EA-18 program to begin a system development and demonstration phase in 2003.
|
Advanced Electronic Attack (AEA)
Analysis Of Alternatives |
The EA-18 was one of the platforms under consideration in a Department
of Defense analysis of alternatives to replace the EA-6B Prowler electronic
warfare aircraft. The US Navy had an operational need to begin replacing the
Prowler by 2008. Prowlers will be serving the nation through 2015 and the
aircraft to follow it will fly for decades. They all will have Increased
Capability III [ICAP III] as their electronic attack weapon. ICAP III
capability forms the baseline for the Department of Defense's (DoD) follow-on
airborne electronic attack system of systems. Northrop Grumman is the ICAP III
prime contractor. Northrop Grumman's Improved Capability III radar receiver
system represents a significantly reduced risk approach over other unproven
platforms and systems.
In late 2000 the study for the follow-on to the EA-6B Prowler concluded,
and the Navy began to move from concept to development. At that point each of
the Naval Aviation communities was pursuing a "sundown" plan for legacy
aircraft: P-3 Orion to Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA); SH-60B/F/H
Seahawk to SH-60R and MH-60S; F-14, F/A-18A/B/C/D and S-3B Viking to F/A-18E/F
and, later, Joint Strike Fighter; and EA-6B to the Airborne Electronic Attack
aircraft.
The 22-month Joint Airborne Electronic Attack Analysis of Alternatives
was initiated following the Kosovo campaign. The AEA Analysis of Alternatives,
involving all the services, was begun in January 2000, but continued into
2002. The AEA AoA's purpose was to provide information on cost-effective
options to the Department of Defense (DoD) in support of its process of
examining potential new acquisition programs to initially augment and
eventually replace the EA-6B Prowler force beginning in 2010. The analysis
focused on Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) capability for the collective air
superiority needs of the Services in suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD)
during the 2010-2030 timeframe.
The US Navy led the joint team that conducted a concept exploration
phase Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate follow-on options to the
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) capabilities currently provided by the EA-6B
Prowler. Mission functions include radar jamming, communications jamming,
electronic surveillance measures (ESM), and electronic countermeasures (ECM).
Options to be evaluated to accomplish the AEA mission for all of the
Department of Defense, include manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft and new
technologies.
The AEA AoA study team operated under specific guidance provided by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and is governed by acquisition regulations
such as DoD Regulation 5000.2 and SECNAVINST 5000.2B. An Executive Steering
Group, composed of requirements and acquisition leaders from the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Air Force, Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, provides oversight of the study team. The study used extensive
modeling and simulation capabilities to provide an analytical tool for a
potential major defense acquisition program(s) Milestone I/II decisions) in
FY02.
The Government was interested in data from industry for use in the
analysis to include concept of operations, technology applications, and
realistic cost data which will result in a realistic assessment of
alternatives for future AEA capability. Industry is encouraged to include
innovative and cutting edge solutions for use in the analysis. Participation
in the study was strictly voluntary, no funding or reimbursement is offered or
implied. Furthermore, participation in this study should not be construed as
an obligation or commitment on the part of the Government no claim for current
or future contracts or funding for this requirement is authorized or implied.
Integrated Product Teams (IPT) conducted an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)
to define operational requirements that address the DoD's AEA needs. Unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) can be
utilized in the future for AEA. UAV Electronic Warfare (EW) payloads and smart
weapons could help in this area as well. While much has already been written
concerning UAVs, few resources exist that discuss the feasibility of UAV
programs in the realm of EW. Even fewer resources discuss how these unmanned
platforms must be linked in the future to conduct network-centric warfare.
The study considered six broad alternatives; each was generic, in that
several vehicle or system options could provide the defined capability. Total
ownership costs, however, were estimated for specific weapons systems, with
resulting costs of sub-options presented as a range for each alternative.
The study identified around a dozen different platforms that could play
host to the system, including existing fighters such as the Boeing F-15E,
F/A-18F and Lockheed Martin F- 16C/D, as well as new develop ments like the
Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Lockheed Martin/Boeing F- 22.
Each platform was examined not just in terms of the development or production
costs, but life costs over a 30 year period.
The classified 2,000-page AEA AOA was completed 15 December 2001, and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) reviewed its findings. It
identified 27 options to replace the EA-6B Prowler. Costs and solutions varied
greatly, from buying a fleet of business jets with a total ownership cost of
$26 billion to fielding a combination of jammer-equipped F/A-18 and F-22
fighters and B-52 bombers with a price tag of $82 billion. The cheapest
option, costing about $20 billion, would be based on the Global Hawk
high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle, used in conjunction with a smaller
system such as a loitering drone or missile that could directly attack enemy
radars and sensors. The study also concluded there might not be any
significant breakthroughs in electronic warfare before the Navy begins
replacing its fleet of Prowlers in 2010.
The Services had until June 2002 to determine which direction they will
go to meet electronic warfare requirements as they relate to replacing the
capability and function of the Prowler. The Department of Defense had planned
to announce the results of the analysis of alternatives for the AEA mission by
the end of 2001. The USMC would prefer to wait for an EW variant of the Joint
Strike Fighter, if that project survives, and the USAF does not require a
dedicated SEAD platform.
Unconvinced that a joint U.S. Navy and Air Force study on replacing EA
-6B electronic jamming planes considered enough options, Gen. John Jumper, the
Air Force chief of staff, sent it back to his staff for further review. In a
15 April 2002 interview, Jumper said he was not satisfied with the results of
the 22-month Airborne Electronic Attack Analysis of Alternatives (AEA AOA)
because it focused more on replacing airplanes than on how to perform the
mission. "Electronic warfare conjures up notions of pods that jam things and
bash electrons," Jumper said. "Is that a mission? What are we trying to do?
"What we are trying to do is penetrate warheads to targets - manned or
unmanned. That's the objective of electronic warfare," he said. Jumper
acknowledged that buying a new plane may be part of the solution, but he
questioned whether the study considered the entire spectrum of options. "I am
not satisfied that our analysis of alternatives on electronic Warfare has
given us the right answer," he said. Instead, Jumper suggests the study should
have pondered more ways to defeat threats like enemy surface-to-air missiles.
"Well, you could take down the [enemy air defense] network, defend yourself
with tow decoys [pulled behind an aircraft]. Certainly, jamming pods might be
a piece of that," he said. "But you could probably [find] four or five ways
that could come together to get this job done." The AEA AOA should have taken
an effects-based approach, Jumper said. For example, rather than confront a
threat head-on, it may be better to knock out something the threat depends on,
such as its power source or communications links. "In the past, the main way
was jamming," Jumper said. "There is a good part of the [electronic warfare]
community that is a little bit angry with me, because I am not willing to go
out and just give in to buying a bigger electron basher."
Jumper's stance on electronic warfare differed sharply from that of his
predecessor, Gen. Michael Ryan. In November 2000, Ryan, then chief of staff of
the Air Force, released a position statement on electronic warfare that took a
completely different stance, calling for an organic system to support the
service's Air Expeditionary Forces (AEFs).
The Navy had no procurement budget for Advanced Electronic Attack (AEA)
aircraft in the February 2002 budget plans, but the 22 August 2002 draft
budget for FY2004 showed four aircraft in FY '06, 12 in FY '07, 16 in FY '08
and 33 in FY '09. The Navy would like to replace the EA-6B with a variant of
the Super Hornet, but top Pentagon officials had not made a decision as of
August 2002. According to the AEA analysis of alternatives, an Electronic
Warfare plan focused on the EA-18, adding new-technology jammer pods, would
cost about $40 billion over the life of the program.
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a former Prowler crew member served as a Navy
intelligence officer aboard an EA-6B Prowler in Kosovo and Iraq. The
congressman believed that the EA-6BC, a new variant of the Prowler; the
F/A-18G, an electronic warfare version of the Super Hornet; or a jammer model
of the multirole Joint Strike Fighter would be the best solution to replace
the Prowler. An Electronic Warfare plan focused on restarting the EA-6 line
and building brand-new EA-6C aircraft with new-technology pods would cost
about $34 billion. An AEA version of the Joint Strike Fighter - with both
carrier capable and conventional takeoff versions - could be developed and
fielded for about $38 billion.
|
EA-18G System Design & Development (SDD) |
The EA-18G contract team received its first Pre-SD&D contract in
September 2002 to support preparation efforts for the SD&D phase. A contract
award for SD&D is now expected shortly. The 5-year SD&D program is expected to
run from FY04 until mid FY09 and encompasses all laboratory, ground test, and
flight tests from component level testing through full-up EA-18G weapons
system performance flight-testing.
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) received Milestone B approval to
proceed into System Development and Demonstration (SD&D) of the EA-18G
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Aircraft , December 18, 2003. Approval was
granted by Mr. Michael Wynne, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense,
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
On 29 December 2003 the US Navy awarded Boeing a $1 billion contract for
system design and development (SDD) of the EA-18G airborne electronic attack
aircraft. The 5-year SDD program for the EA-18G runs from FY04 until early
FY09 and encompasses all laboratory, ground test, and flight tests from
component level testing through full-up EA-18G weapons system performance
flight-testing.
Built on the same assembly line as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the
EA-18G retains a high degree of commonality with the Super Hornet. Boeing will
begin assembly of the second test program aircraft, EA-2, in the third quarter
of 2005. Initial Operational Capability for the EA-18G is scheduled for 2009.
A total of 56 EA-18Gs are included in a multi-year contract that was signed
with the Boeing Corporation in December 2003. The multi-year procurement
covers years from 2005-2009.
The EA-18G will provide the warfighter with abundant operational
flexibility. It can carry up to five ALQ-99 jamming pods and will typically
add two AIM-120 self-defense missiles and two AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation
(HARM) missiles. While developing the EA-18G concept and configuration, the
Boeing design team maintained as much of the inherent growth capacity in the
F/A-18F as possible. The result will be a platform designed to take advantage
of the latest airborne electronic attack and networking technologies, enabling
significant improvements in threat suppression.
Upon initial fleet introduction the EA-18G will be capable of
self-protection, freeing up dedicated escort aircraft for strike and other
missions. It will be capable of rapidly locating and destroying surface-to-air
missiles.
In addition to standoff and escort jamming missions, speed,
maneuverability and advanced systems will enable the EA-18G to perform time
critical strike mission targeting support. By combining two proven systems,
the Boeing F/A-18F and the Northrop Grumman ALQ-218(V)2 receiver, the U.S.
Navy will maximize the benefit of ongoing investments, while allowing for an
initial operational capability by 2009.
At a ceremony 22 October 2004 in the Boeing Company’s St. Louis, Mo.,
facility, Navy and industry leadership commemorated the start up of the
production line for the forward fuselage for EA-1, the first EA-18G test
aircraft being built under a system development and demonstration (SDD)
contract. Attendees watched as the first aluminum bulkhead was hoisted up and
installed into the forward fuselage of EA-1. The radar ring bulkhead is a
critical component of the forward fuselage, providing support for the Advanced
Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and the nose cone of the aircraft.
This is the first of many parts in the build cycle of the test aircraft,
scheduled to fly in September 2006.
The FY 2005 Budget request reflected $359 million for SDD leading to
Critical Design Review currently planned for April 2005. During FY 2004,
EA-18G efforts focused on risk reduction and development activities concerning
the integration of EA-6B Improved Capabilities (ICAP III) electronic attack
technologies into the F/A-18E/F air vehicle. The EA-18G was approved to enter
SDD on December 18, 2003, as an ACAT ID program. A total quantity of 30
systems will be procured in LRIP with a planned FY 2009 IOC and FY 2012 FOC.
The EA-18G will replace carrier- based Navy EA-6B aircraft by 2012.
The Navy’s next generation airborne electronic attack aircraft,
designated the EA-18G, officially received the popular name “Growler” in late
2005. The Navy sent a request to the Air Force to officially confirm the name
in October, 2003. Air Force Headquarters Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, sent a memorandum confirming the name 12 October 2005.
The EA-18G had been informally referred to as the Growler for some time. An
aircraft or vessel’s popular name aids in communication and media references,
according to joint service instructions. The official confirmation of a common
name for an aircraft follows a process governed by the Defense Department and
managed by Air Force Headquarters. Following a request from the F/A-18 and
EA-18G program office (PMA-265) at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md.,
fleet officers selected possible names. In this case the EA-6B Commodore
queried squadron officers who chose Growler as their first choice out of a
list of over thirty candidates. The name seems to be a composite of the
Growler’s electronic attack predecessor, the EA-6B popularly known as the
Prowler, and the “G” designation in EA-18G.
The EA-18G is the fifth time the Growler name has been put into service
for the Navy. Two wooden sloops serving during the War of 1812 were named
Growler. One served on Lake Champlain and the other on Lake Ontario. The first
submarine called Growler, SS-215, was commissioned March 20, 1942 and served
in the Pacific Ocean until its sinking during a battle with the Japanese Nov.
8, 1944. The Growler submarine earned eight battle stars during its service. A
fourth Growler, the submarine SSG-577, was commissioned August 30, 1958,
designed to carry Regulus nuclear missiles. She was stationed at Pearl Harbor
performing nuclear deterrent patrols in the Pacific. She was decommissioned
May 25, 1964 in favor of larger, modernized Polaris submarines. She is on
permanent display at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space-Museum in New York City.
The EA-18G Growler airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft flew the
first time on 15 August 2006, approximately one month ahead of schedule. The
first EA-18G, known as aircraft EA-1, successfully completed its maiden flight
from Lambert International Airport in St. Louis. Boeing F/A-18 chief test
pilot Ricardo Traven and chief weapons system operator Rick Junkin conducted
the first flight of the U.S. Navy’s newest AEA aircraft. EA-1 is the first of
two test aircraft built under a System Development and Demonstration (SDD)
contract.
| Specifications |
|
Contractor |
Boeing [McDonnell Douglas Aerospace] and
Northrop Grumman (Airframe),
General Electric (Engines), and
Hughes (Radar) |
| |
F/A-18C/D
Hornet |
F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet |
|
Power Plant |
Two F404-GE-402 afterburning engines, each in the
18,000 pound thrust class, which results in a combat thrust-to-weight
ratio greater than 1-to-1. Depending on the mission and loading, combat
radius is greater than 500 nautical miles. |
Twin F414-GE-400 engines, each in the 22,000 pound
thrust class. On an interdiction mission, the E/F will fly up to 40 %
further than the C/D. |
|
Accommodations |
The F/A-18C and F/A-18E are single seat aircraft.
The D and F models are flown by two crew members.
The aft seat in the D and F may be configured with a stick and
throttle for the training environment (or without when crewed with a
Weapons System Officer).
|
|
Performance |
F/A-18C maximum speed at level flight in altitudes of 36,089 ft.
Mach 1.7
|
F/A-18E maximum speed at level flight in altitudes of 36,089 ft.
Mach 1.6
|
|
Armament |
F/A-18C/D can carry up to 13,700 pounds of external ordnance.
Weapon stations include: two wingtip stations for Sidewinders;
two outboard wing stations for air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons; two
inboard wing stations for fuel tanks, air-to-air, or air-to-ground
weapons; two nacelle fuselage stations for AMRAAMs, Sparrows, or sensor
pods; and one centerline station for fuel or air-to-ground weapons.
M61 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon with 520 rounds of 20mm ammunition
is internally mounted in the nose
AIM-9 Sidewinder
AIM-7F Sparrow
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AGM-65E Maverick
AGM-84 Harpoon
AGM-88A HARM
MK82
10
CBU-87
10
CBU-89
GBU-12
GBU-24
JDAM
B-57 or B-61
Nuclear bomb
|
F/A-18E/F can carry up to 17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two
additional wing store stations have been added.
|
|
Mission and Capabilities |
The F/A-18 Hornet can perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground
missions.
Cockpit displays and mission avionics are thoroughly integrated
to enhance crew situational awareness and mission capability in high
threat, adverse weather/night environments.
Cockpits are night vision goggle compatible.
Multi-Sensor Integration and advanced
data link capabilities further enhance situational awareness.
|
The E/F model will be able to perform a strike tanker mission
while carrying a self-protection air-to-air missile loadout.
The E/F model will also have greater payload flexibility,
increased mission radius, survivability, payload bring back, and a
substantial avionics growth potential.
|
Unit cost $FY98
[Total Program] |
$39.5 million. |
$60 million |
|
Program Summary |
F/A-18A/B first entered operational service with the
USN and USMC in 1982.
Since 1982, more than 1,458 F/A-18s have been procured for the USN
and USMC and for the armed services in Canada, Australia, Spain, Kuwait,
Switzerland, Finland, and Malaysia.
In 1987, the upgraded C/D model (with enhanced mission avionics)
was introduced and upgraded with a night/adverse weather mission
capability, On Board Oxygen Generating System, APG-73 Radar Upgrade,
enhanced performance F404-GE-402 engines, and upgraded mission
computers. |
The first flight of the F/A-18E/F occurred in
December 1995; received its "safe for flight" certification in June
2001. |
External Dimensions
|
F/A-18C/D
|
F/A-18E/F
|
|
Wing span |
11.43 m |
|
Wing span over missiles |
12.31 m |
|
Wing chord (at root) |
4.04 m |
|
Wing chord (at tip) |
1.68 m |
|
Wing aspect ratio |
3.52 |
|
Width, wings folded |
8.38 m |
|
Length overall |
17.07 m |
|
Height overall |
4.66 m |
|
Tailplane span |
6.58 m |
|
Distance between fin tips |
3.60 m |
|
Wheel track |
3.11 m |
|
Wheelbase |
5.42 m |
|
|
Wing span over missiles |
13.62 meters |
|
Wing aspect ratio |
4.00 |
|
Width wings folded |
9.32 m |
|
Length overall |
18.31 m |
|
Height overall |
4.88 m |
|
|
|
Areas
|
F/A-18C/D
|
F/A-18E/F
|
|
Wings, gross |
37.16 m2 |
|
Ailerons (total) |
2.27 m2 |
|
Leading-edge flaps (total) |
4.50 m2 |
|
Trailing-edge flaps (total) |
5.75 m2 |
|
Fins (total) |
9.68 m2 |
|
Rudders (total) |
1.45 m2 |
|
Tailerons (total) |
8.18 m2 |
|
|
Wings, gross |
46.45 sq. meters |
|
|
|
Weights and Loadings
|
F/A-18C/D
|
F/A-18E/F
|
|
Weight empty |
10,810 kg |
|
Maximum fuel weight: |
Internal (JP5)
|
4,926 kg |
External: F/A-18 (JP5)
|
3,053 kg |
CF-18 (JP4)
|
4,245 kg |
|
Maximum external stores load |
7,031 kg |
|
Take off weight: |
Fighter mission
|
16,651 kg |
Attack mission
|
Approx 23,541 kg |
Maximum
|
Approx 25,401 kg |
|
Maximum wing loading (attack
mission) |
156,80 kg/kN |
|
|
Weight, empty |
|
Design target |
13.387 kg |
|
Specification limit |
13.865 kg |
|
Maximum fuel weight: |
Internal
|
6.531 kg |
External (JP5)
|
4.436 kg |
Maximum external stores load
(JP5)
|
8.051 kg |
|
T-O weight, attack mission |
29.937 kg |
|
Maximum wing loading |
620.0 kg/m2 |
|
Maximum power loading |
147.1 kg /kN |
|
|
|
|
Performance (At Maximum Takeoff Weight) |
F/A-18C/D
|
F/A-18E/F
|
|
Max level speed |
More than Mach 1.8 |
|
Max speed, intermediate power |
More than Mach 1.0 |
|
Approach speed |
134 knots |
|
Acceleration from 460 knots to
920 knots at 10,670 m |
under 2 min |
|
Combat ceiling |
approx 15,240 m |
|
T-O run |
Less than 427 m |
|
Minimum wind over deck: |
Launching
|
35 knots |
Recovery
|
19 knots |
|
Combat radius, interdiction,
hi-lo-lo-hi |
290 nm |
|
Combat endurance, CAP 150 nm from
aircraft carrier |
1 h 45 min |
|
Ferry range, unrefueled |
More than 1,800 nm |
|
|
Maximum level speed at altitude |
more than Mach 1.8 |
|
Combat ceiling |
13,865 m
|
|
Minimum wind over deck: |
- Launching
|
30 knots |
- Recovery
|
15 knots |
Combat radius specification:
Interdiction with four 1,000 lb
bombs, two Sidewinders,
and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external
tanks,
navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red
hi-lo-lo-hi
|
390 nm |
Fighter escort with two
Sidewinders and two AMRAAMs
|
410 nm |
Combat endurance: maritime air
superiority, six AAMs,
three 1,818 liter external tanks, 150 nm from aircraft carrier. |
2h 15 min |
|
