2015 F-35 DOT&E report: More of the same... With some fudging.

Mmmm...  Fudge.

The Pentagon's Director Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E) report was released this week allowing us to take a peek at how well the JSF's testing has been going over the last year.

This has been an interesting year for the JSF, to say the least.  While it has been the brunt of much criticism (including mine), the program has seen quite a bit of progress over the last year.  The biggest sigh of relief must have been when two F-35Cs successfully completed carrier landing trials, putting that nasty tailhook problem to bed.

Of course, the elephant in the JSF's room for 2014 was the ill-timed engine fire that put a halt to the F-35's international debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) and the Farnborough Air Show after that.  A fix has been devised for engine issue, but flight restrictions were put in place, keeping F-35 test pilots from testing the aircraft's limits.

None of this is any surprise to those who have been following the program.

The real stand out in the 2015 DOT&E report is not so much in what is being reported, but how things are being reported.  It would seem as if some numbers were being fudged to make for a more positive image.  This was done three ways:

1. Reclassifying something as an "induced" failure (i.e. caused by wear-and-tear), rather than an "inherent" failure (i.e. design flaw).
2. Counting flight hours of all 100 aircraft, but only counting failures of the 30 aircraft with the most up-to-date parts.  (Thereby dramatically increasing the failure-free flight hour rate).
3. Fixes that require multiple attempts to find a solution are recorded as a single repair.  (Previously each attempt was recorded).

The report also brings to light an issue with the F-35's stealth coverings.  Repairs currently require a 48 hour "cure" time.  New materials may reduce this to as little as 12 hours, but require refrigeration, something that might be difficult to provide while operating from austere conditions.

Defense-aerospace.com is hosting a PDF of the report here:  http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf

Here are some highlights:

• In spite of the focused effort, the program was not able to accomplish its goal of completing Block 2B flight testing by the end of October. 
• Based on test point accomplishment rates experienced since October 2013, the program will complete Block 2B development in February 2015. 
• As a result of the engine failure that occurred in an F-35A in late June, the program imposed aircraft operating limitations (AOL) on all variants of F-35 aircraft at the flight test centers and operational/training bases. These AOLs were:

          -  Maximum speed of 1.6 Mach (0.9 Mach for production aircraft at operational/training bases), 

          -  Maximum g-load of 3.2 g for test aircraft and 3.0 for production aircraft, 

          -  Maneuvers limited to half-stick roll rate and 18 degrees angle of attack 

          -  No rudder input, unless required for safe flight (production aircraft restriction only)

• Due to the AOL, numerous test points needed for the Block 2B fleet release and Marine Corps IOC were blocked and cannot be attempted until the restrictions are lifted. 
• Progress in weapons integration, in particular the completion of planned Block 2B weapon delivery accuracy (WDA) events, has been less in 2014 compared to that planned by the program. The program planned to complete all 15 Block 2B WDA events by the end of October, but completed only 7.
• Overall suitability continues to be less than desired by the Services, and relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds, but has shown some improvement in CY14. 
• Inspections of the engines on all variants led to discoveries on nine production and test aircraft requiring engine replacement. 
• Restrictions imposed on the fleet from the June engine failure coupled with the focus on Block 2B mission systems testing hampered progress in F-35A flight sciences testing. 
• Progress in weapons integration, in particular the completion of planned weapon delivery accuracy (WDA) events, has been very limited in 2014 compared to that planned by the program. Multiple deficiencies in mission systems, aircraft grounding, and subsequent flight restrictions caused by the June engine failure all contributed to the limited progress.
• Overall suitability continues to be less than desired by the Services, and relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds, but has shown some improvement in CY14.

-  Aircraft availability was flat over most of the past year, maintaining an average for the fleet of 37 percent for the 12-month rolling period ending in September – consistent with the availability reported in the FY13 DOT&Ereport of 37 percent for the 12-month period ending in October 2013. However, the program reported an improved availability in October 2014, reaching an average rate of 51 percent for the fleet of 90 aircraft and breaking 50 percent for the first time, but still short of the program objective of 60 percent set for the end of CY14. The
bump in availability in October brought the bump in availability in October brought the fleet 12-month average to 39 percent.-  Measures of reliability and maintainability that have ORD requirements have improved since last year, but all nine reliability measures (three for each variant) are still below program target values for the current stage of development. The reliability metric that has seen the most improvement since May 2013 is not an ORD requirement, but a contract specification metric, mean flight hour between failure scored as “design controllable” (which are equipment failures due to design flaws). For this metric, the F-35B and F-35C are currently above program target values,and F-35A is slightly below the target value, but has been above the target value for several months over the last year. 

•  Low availability rates, in part due to poor reliability, are preventing the fleet of fielded operational F-35 aircraft (all variants) from achieving planned, Service-funded flying hour goals. Original Service bed-down plans were based on F-35 squadrons ramping up to a steady state, fixed number of flight hours per tail per month, allowing for the projection of total fleet flight hours. 
• The most recent 90-day rolling averages for MFHBF_DC show more growth in this metric than for any other reliability metric for the period from May 2013 through August 2014. The following contributed to the reported growth in MFHBF_DC.

0. • -  In June 2013, the program re-categorized nut plate failures, one of the most common failures in the aircraft, as induced failures rather than inherent failures, removing them from the calculation of MFHBF_DC. Nut plates are bonded
     to an aircraft structure and receive bolt-type fasteners to hold removable surface panels in place. One way nut plates can fail, for example, is when torquing a bolt down while replacing a removed panel, the nut plate dis-bonds from the aircraft structure, preventing securing the surface panel.
     
   • -  Distinguishing between inherent design failures and induced failures can be subjective in certain cases. For example, if a maintainer working on the aircraft bumps a good component with a tool and breaks it while working on a different part nearby, it is a judgment call whether that is an inherent design failure because the component could not withstand “normal” wear and tear in operational service, or if it’s an induced failure because the maintainer was “too rough.”

• For example, as of September 2014, an improved horizontal tail actuator component had been introduced and installed on roughly 30 aircraft out of a fleet of nearly 100. Failures of the older component were not being counted in the metrics at all anymore, but flight hours from all 100 aircraft were counted. This calculation could result in the reported reliability of that component being increased by up to a factor of three compared to reliability if all of the horizontal tail actuator failures were counted. There are hundreds of components on the aircraft, so a single component’s increased estimate of reliability may have little influence on overall observed aircraft reliability. However, since multiple components are being upgraded simultaneously due to the unprecedented and highly concurrent nature of the F-35 program, the cumulative effect on the overall observed aircraft reliability of the increased estimate of reliability from all of these components may be significant. 

Maintenance as a whole remains to be a challenge for the F-35, with the report stating that "The amount of time spent on maintenance for all variants exceeds that required for mature aircraft".  Much of this time seems to be spent dealing with the finicky Automated Logistic Information System (ALIS). 

 "The program develops and fields ALIS in increments similar to the mission systems capability in the air vehicle. Overall, ALIS is behind schedule, has several capabilities delayed or deferred to later builds, and has been fielded with deficiencies. The program does not have a dedicated end-to-end developmental testing venue for ALIS and has relied on feedback from the field locations for identifying deficiencies. Though some of the early deficiencies have been addressed, ALIS continues to be cumbersome to use and inefficient, and requires the use of workarounds for deficiencies awaiting correction"

Despite all this, the USMC is still insisting that the F-35B will meet its initial operating capability (IOC) by July of this year.  This has skewed testing towards the STOVL version of the JSF while testing on the other two versions has lagged behind.

It should be noted here the "initial operating capability" is not the same as "full operating capability". All that is required for IOC is a handful of aircraft with a limited weapon capability.  It will not be ready to "go to war".  At best, it will be useful for training purposes and further testing.

Since the F-35B is capable of supersonic flight and BVR combat, it can be seen as a serious upgrade from the USMC's soon-to-be-retired fleet of AV-8B Harriers.  With its limited Block 2B software, the JSF does not yet meet the capability of the USMC's fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornets (not-Super).  That is probably why the USMC will keep its legacy Hornets until 2029.

While Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon often brag about the F-35's progress, one thing is very much certain:  The Joint Strike Fighter still has a way to go.

Published: By: Unknown - 12:42 PM

Blast from the past...

From the Flightglobal archive:

Click to enlarge.

This news clipping from 1979 says a lot about why the F/A-18 was selected over the F-16.  Quite simply, the Hornet came with more attractive offsets and the AIM-7 BVR missile.  Very much a "big deal" back then.

Back in those days the F-16 was still very much a short-range, fair-weather day fighter.  It would not become the multirole fighter we know of today until the F-16CD variants were introduced in the mid-eighties.  The F-16s production numbers would not become stratospheric until the Reagan administration relaxed sales restrictions on military hardware, increasing demand for the Viper internationally.


Published: By: Unknown - 6:04 AM

Mythbuster: Single engine safety

Is one of these a deathtrap?

There was a decent crown at the air show today.  It was a beautiful August Saturday, with just the slightest wisps of clouds high up.  

"Time to start the show." Captain Buster said to himself as he throttled his trusty CF-18 Hornet demonstrator up and off the tarmac.  Buster had a privilege of following The Snowbirds that day, so he knew he had his work cut out for him.  "No problem." he thought, those 50-year-old CT-114s may have their precision, but the ol' Hornet had raw power on its side. 

Captain Buster imagined he could hear the crowd's "Ooohhs!" and "Aahhhs!" over the roar of this after burning GE404 turbofans.  Even after 30 years of service, the Hornet was still an impressive plane.  Its high thrust and high angle-of-attack performance allowed it to perform maneuvers that seemed to contradict the laws of physics.  "Not bad for an old girl..." thought Buster with a smile.  "Even that duck seems impressed.  Looks like its trying to get a closer look..."

That smile quickly turned clenched teeth when Captain Buster heard a "THUNK" quickly followed by alarm klaxons going off and lights flickering all over his cockpit.  His controls violently started to shake as his CF-18 shuddered and then started losing altitude in a lazy roll.  A quick scan of the gauges confirmed Buster's suspicions:  That duck just wrecked one of his engines.

"MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!  MAYDAY!"

Thinking fast, Captain Buster immediately throttled up his one remaining engine while applying a slight amour of opposite rudder to compensate.  With white knuckles and sweaty palms he managed to get his aircraft straight and level again.  Gingerly, he slowed the aircraft down, extended his landing gear, and approached the runway.  Landing a CF-18 on a single engine was not easy, and the pressure was made worse by the fact that a large crowd was uncomfortable close.

Sweating enough to saturate his flight suit, Captain Buster managed to put his wheels down on the tarmac and slowly bring his wounded fighter to a stop.  His CF-18's jet roar was replaced with the sounds of approaching sirens as a fire crew raced to his smoking aircraft and started dousing it with foam.  

Looking at the crowd, Captain Buster noticed that every single one of them was clapping their hands.  Captain Buster shook his head and waved.  "Good thing I still had that second engine." he thought.  "This could have gone a whole lot worse for me AND them."

CF-104 aka:  "The Widowmaker"

Two engines are safer than one.  Better to have a backup.  That extra engine could make the difference between life or death, especially over Canada's unforgiving wilderness.  Better to limp home on one engine, allowing both the aircraft and pilot to fly another day, than to have a pilot ditch their aircraft hundreds of miles away from civilization.

Many believe that the lack of a second engine should automatically disqualify fighters like the F-35 and Gripen as Canada's CF-18 replacement.   It simply is not worth the risk.

History would seem to back up this statement.  Canada's last foray into the world of single-engined fighters, the CF-104 Starfighter, had a bit of a reputation.  During its 25 year stint in the RCAF, the CF-104 had 110 major mishaps, resulting in 37 pilot fatalities.  Clearly, it would seem that single engine aircraft are dangerous.

That is...  Until one takes a closer look at both the numbers and the context surrounding the CF-104's dismal safety record.

The CF-104 Starfighter was used by the RCAF as a low-level strike and reconnaissance aircraft.  This was completely at odds with the F-104's intended role as a high altitude interceptor.  Its distinctive razor thin wings and needle-like shape made it an impressive performer in this role.  These same features made it extremely unforgiving in other aspects, however.  The F-104 became unflyable at high-angles of attack and it had a rather high stall speed.

Despite this, it was decided that RCAF CF-104s would be stripped of any air-to-air missiles, and even their 20mm cannon in earlier models.  Instead, Canadian Starfighters would carry bombs, rockets, and even American supplied nuclear weapons.  In hindsight, this decision to take a high-altitude interceptor, load it with heavy bombs, then force it fly at treetop level seems...  Regrettable.

Believe it or not, the CF-104 actually had a superior safety record to its predecessor, the CF-86 Sabre (also a single-engine fighter).  This despite the fact that the Sabre was flown at altitude.

Of the 110 major mishaps that occurred with the CF-104 Starfighter, only 14 were caused due to engine failures.  The rest were caused by foreign object damage (FOD), pilot error, and the like.

F-105 Thunderchief 

The USAF had an aircraft that fulfilled a near identical role to the CF-104:  The single-engined F-105 Thunderchief.  Like the CF-104, it was armed with heavy bombs and flown at low level.   Yet it had a much better safety record thanks to its more robust design an benign handling characteristics.  Unfortunately, most F-105 losses were due to combat losses over Vietnam.

Guess which fighter has the better safety record...

When Canada selected its CF-104 replacement, it selected the F/A-18 Hornet over the cheaper F-16 Fighting Falcon.  Prevailing wisdom would suggest this was because the F/A-18 had two smaller GE F404 engines instead of the F-16's single, but larger P&W F100.

This is not the case however.

At the time, the F-16A was still considered a day fighter, tasked only with the air-superiority role.  Earlier models lacked sufficient strike capability or even BVR weapons weapons like the AIM-7 Sparrow.  It would not become the multirole fighter we know of today until the introduction of the F-16C in 1984.

The F/A-18 had all of these features from the start.  Not only that, but it came with a more substantial offset package.  General Dynamics (the F-16's manufacturer at the time) was already committed to the F-16's European partners.

Over the years, both aircraft have undertaken similar roles.  Both aircraft have near-identical safety records as well.  The F-16 actually has a lower accident rate than the F/A-18 when you consider that the Viper outnumbers the Hornet more than three to one.  Early F-16 controversy was centered more on "wire chafing" causing its fly-by-wire controls to short out.  Current F-16 problems tend to be more related to aging airframes and overworked maintenance personnel, rather than any engine defect.

It is reasonable to assume that the F/A-18 would have a spottier safety record than the F-16, regardless of engines.  After all, the majority of F/A-18s operate from USN supercarriers, not pristine airfields.  They also use different engines.  Comparing their safety records to each other may not be fair.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to compare two similar aircraft, using identical engines, used for similar missions, by the same air force.  Conveniently, there is an example of just that.

F-100 Super Sabre

F-101 Voodoo

The F-100 Super Sabre and the F-100 Voodoo (A and C variants) were powered by the Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojet engine.  Both aircraft were used as fighter bombers in the USAF, flying similar missions.

F-102 Delta Dart

Similarly, the F-101 Delta Dart interceptor was also powered by a single P&W J57 turbojet.  I performed a similar mission to the interceptor version of the Voodoo, the F-101B.

What is telling is that the incident rate of both single-engine aircraft, the F-100 and the F-102, were near identical to the twin-engine F-101 when flown on similar missions.  Keep in mind that these are all 50s era aircraft using technology far more primitive than that of today's jet engines.

While modern jet engines do look nearly identical to their older counterparts, they are in a different league when it comes to refinement, efficiency, and durability.  Advances to metallurgy allows for more durable components.  Computer aided design and manufacturing (CADCAM) allows for tighter tolerances and less manufacturing defects.  Improved diagnostic systems allow the pilots and ground crew to locate issues before they become problems and, in many cases, before the aircraft even leaves the ground.  

Modern aircraft engines are thoroughly tested to ensure continued operation throughout the harshest conditions.  This includes water ingestion, hail, ice, and the occasional large bird.  As you can see from the videos above, some damage may occur, but not enough to result in catastrophic failure.  

So why do so many fighter aircraft have two engines?  

Packaging and power.

You will notice that most two engine fighters are larger, multi-mission types that need to carry heavier loads yet still need lots of performance.  The F-15C and F-14 need two large engines in order to carry copious amounts of internal fuel for an intercept mission.  The F-111 and A-6 need two engines to carry copious amount of bombs.  Even the F-18 needs its two engines because it is a heavier fighter (1.5 tonnes more) than the F-16, yet requires a slower stall speed.  

The C-2 Greyhound can deliver Super Hornet engines.  F-35 engines?  Notsomuch.

 If you need a single engine to make more power, you simply need to make it bigger.  Currently, the most powerful turbofan engine placed in a fighter is the F-35's P&W F135.  At 43,000lbs of thrust (with afterburner), the F-35 makes more power than the both CF-18 engines put together.  It is just slightly less than that of the Super Hornet's twin GE-F414s.  While a single engine design does maker for less maintenance issues and such, it can cause a new set of issues.  For example, the F-35C's engine is simply too big to fit inside the USN's C-2 Greyhound transport aircraft.  This makes aircraft carrier deliveries a bit tricky.  Luckily, the Super Hornet's smaller engine fits just fine.

Redundancy?  Or just ridiculous?

Twin-engine aircraft are built as twin-engined aircraft.  Both turbines work together to propel the aircraft as a single propulsion system.  One engine does not work as a "spare" to the other.  A catastrophic failure in one would result in a near-instantaneous sudden loss of power and an extremely ill-handling airplane.  The malfunctioning engine would act as "dead weight", contributing to extra drag while adding power to the opposite engine to compensate would result in the aircraft rotating on its yaw axis.  

On top of all this, there is the underlying cause of the engine malfunction to worry about.  A fire or structural failure could easily spread to the remaining engine.  As could a loss in fuel pressure.  In some cases, the loss of one engine is simply a precursor to the second engine following suit.  

Thankfully, the pilot managed to eject.
(Photo credit to William Gilson for this one-in-a-million shot!)

My little fictional story at the start of this post was very loosely based on real life events.  While practicing for an air show in Lethbridge, Alberta, Captain Brian Bews' CF-18 demonstrator suffered from a starboard engine failure due to a stuck fuel piston.  This kept the right engine from throttling up alongside the port (left) side engine when maximum afterburner was selected.

“The large thrust imbalance between the left and the right engines caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and the aircraft was unrecoverable within the altitude available.”

Despite Captain Bews' best efforts, he could not regain control of the aircraft.  Given the nature of the problem, there is little guarantee he could have even if the altitude was higher.

Single engined Saab Gripens flying over the Alps.

Are twin-engined aircraft safer?  Maybe...  But not significantly so.

The single-engined Saab Gripen (which uses a variant of the F404 used in the CF-18) has enjoyed a near flawless safety record.  Out of a mere 11 major incidents, none were engine related.  This, despite the fact that Sweden operates the Gripen in severe conditions with one Gripen airbase located in the arctic circle.  They even perform arctic patrols with them and everything.

Too bad Canada would never buy a European-sourced aircraft for the RCAF.  Would they?

Tune in next week.

Published: By: Unknown - 6:44 PM

Fighter Jet Fight Club: Super Hornet vs. Silent Eagle!

Like many of you, I grew up in the shadow of an older sibling.  That older sibling always seemed to be so much better at everything.  Everything just sort of fell in place for him.  High school was a breeze, followed by university, followed by a prestigious and high-paying job.

My story was a little different.  I was the awkward kid in high school, flunked out of university, than wandered around from one low-paying job to another until I finally got my act together.  By the time I did, by older brother was already living in a nice house, driving a fancy sports car, and dating one beautiful woman after the other.

In retrospect, it was all about timing.  My brother was born 10 years before I was, giving him an ample head start.  He graduated university at a time when a diploma was all you needed to land a high-paying job (even a Bachelor of Fine Arts).  The economy was good and everybody was hiring.

I was not so lucky.  Intent on challenging myself, I chose the more difficult courses in high school:  Honors math, chemistry, physics, and biology.  Yeah...  Science, bitch.  While I kept my grades up in high school, university ended up being a disaster.  Needless to say, calculus and alcohol do not mix.  For the next few years, I kept stumbling around trying to find my path.  Finding work was a challenge, and a 5-year foray into journalism proved fruitless.  By the time I finally "found myself" in a career in emergency medicine, my older brother was well set on his life's path, getting job promotions and doing quite well for himself.

I bring up this sibling rivalry because it reflects the fates of Boeing's (formerly McDonnell Douglas) fighter offerings.

The F-15 Eagle has always been the favored son.  Put simply it was the air-superiorty fighter of the 1970s and 1980s.  While the F-14 may have co-starred in a Tom Cruise blockbuster, it was more of an interceptor and it just did not match the F-15's international sales success (with one exception).  Even today, after the F-14 has long been retired, the Eagle lives on, not just as an air-superiority fighter, but a strike fighter as well.  Cancellation of F-22 Raptor production means the F-15C will still be relevant for the foreseeable future.  With the development of the F-15SE Silent Eagle, Boeing hopes to continue producing Eagles for years to come.

By contrast, the F/A-18 Hornet has taken a while to find itself.  First developed as the YF-17 Cobra, it was passed over in favor of the YF-16 Fighting Falcon for the USAF's Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program.  Luckily, the United States Navy was in need of a light multirole fighter to supplement its F-14.  The Cobra would live on as the F/A-18 Hornet.  Later, cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II and retirement of the F-14 left the USN with another large gap to fill.  Still reeling from the recession of the 1990s, the Pentagon opted for a low risk solution of "upsizing" the F/A-18 Hornet.  This led to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

To this day, the F-15 continues to be more successful than its younger sibling.  Many air forces passed over the original Hornet in favor of either the more intimidating Eagle or the cheaper Fighting Falcon.  Even now, Boeing is struggling to find buyers to keep the Super Hornet assembly line running.

So how do these sibling measure up to each other?

[NOTE:  While I may have forgone the "Advanced Super Hornet" in previous FJFC installments, doing so would seem unfair here.  Neither aircraft is operational, nor does either have any guarantee of production.  I am willing to bend the rules a little this time.  There is still no information on how a Super Hornet with GE414-EPE engines would perform, so please bear with me.]

Air-to-ground:

Interdiction/Penetration:  Boeing has been hard at work trying to lower the RCS of the Super Hornet while it is carrying additional fuel and weapons.  While the CFTs and enclosed weapon pod (EWP) seen on the Advanced Super Hornet do not lower RCS compared to a an unladen Super Hornet, they certainly would compared to a Super Hornet carrying drop tanks and external missiles all mounted on pylons.  It helps that the Super Hornet was designed with RCS reduction in mind.  Then again, Boeing will be offering a "hybrid" Super Hornet that mounts the electronic warfare receivers from the EA-18G Growler.  This would assist in avoiding enemy defenses.  

While the F-15's basic design comes from a time when "stealth" was of little concern, Boeing has done all it can to reduce the Eagle's RCS in the F-15SE.  Conformal weapon bays keep ordinance hidden from prying radar eyes, and liberal application of RAM (radar absorbent material) has driven down the F-15's RCS just about as far as it can go.

So which one is stealthier?  Even with EWPs, the Super Hornet is still hanging stuff off of it, resulting in increased radar return.  The F-15SE's stealth modifications have focused on reducing frontal RCS, with much less attention places on other aspects (doing so would likely require a full redesign).  With too much guesswork involved regarding both aircraft, let us just call it even.  Advantage:  Tie

Deep Strike:  When Boeing super-sized the F/A-18 into the Super Hornet, one of the biggest payoffs was range.  When the Advanced Super Hornet's CFTs are added, this range increases even further (about 1000km).  With long range ALCMs like the AGM-158 JASSM-ER available, the Rhino will have no trouble reaching its target.  

Range has never been much of a problem of the F-15.  It was one of the first applications of CFTs (formerly known as FAST packs), allowing for extra fuel without much extra drag.  With the F-15SE, these CFT's have been converted to CWB's, but the ability to mount CFTs remains.  There is also a similar weapon selection to the Super Hornet, so reach is likely to never be an issue.

When it comes to range, both fighters should be considered to have more than enough.  About the only way to improve on either aircraft's range is to implement a long range bomber instead.  Advantage:  Tie

Payload:  The other major improvement the came about from the F/A-18's growth spurt is the ability to carry far more ordinance.  Not only could the Super Hornet carry almost two tons more worth of weapons (17,750lbs total), but it could bring more of those weapons back to the carrier and land safely.  Oddly enough, this came at a slight price.  "Separation issues" (i.e. bombs bumping the aircraft after release) forced engineers to mount the weapon pylons at a 3° outward angle.  It is hoped that the EWPs will help mitigate this somewhat, but the fact remains that "maxed out" Rhino will have to fight substantial drag.  

Not that it matters compared to the Silent Eagle.  The F-15SE should be able to carry anywhere from 23,000lbs to 26,000lbs (depending on the source).  Some of these weapons can be stored internally, eliminating drag.  

The F-15SE has the clear win here.  Advantage:  F-15SE

Close air support:  Precision guided munitions are all the rage these days.  Some say that dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 are quickly becoming obsolete.  Why should an aircraft fly low and expose itself to ground fire when it can fly above the clouds dropping laser and GPS guided bombs?  Thankfully, the Super Hornet can do both these things.  With the proper ordinance and a targeting pod, it can rain down "death from above" without ever exposing itself.  When the situation calls for it, the Rhino can fly low and slow, putting the "Mark One Eyeball" on the target.  Praised for its low-speed, high AoA performance, the F/A-18E/F makes a darn good CAS platform.

The Silent Eagle has similar ground pounding capabilities as the Super Hornet at high altitudes, but the F-15 was never meant to fly slow and low enough to land on an aircraft carrier.  The F-15SE is just out of its element at low altitudes.  It is a rugged aircraft, sure, but it really was meant to fly fast and high.

While the Super Hornet is comfortable flying low-and-slow or high-and-fast, the Silent Eagle really would prefer just to stay away and play sniper.  Advantage:  Super Hornet

Air-to-ground winner:  Both aircraft are impressive when it comes to the strike role.  The only real difference is that the F-15SE is more of a heavy bomber while the Super Hornet does better supporting ground troops.  You really cannot go wrong with either one, however.  Winner:  Tie

Air-to-air:

First look, first kill:  Neither is truly a "stealth" fighter, yet both have been thoroughly "stealthified". It would be hard to say which one has a true advantage when it comes to reduced RCS.  The F-15 likely has a slightly higher IR signature, thanks to its massive P&W F100-229 turbofans.  Both aircraft will incorporate built-in IRST sensors.  

Whatever similarities the two might have regarding stealth are thrown out the window when comparing radars.  The Super Hornet just does not have the roomy nosecone of the Eagle, despite both fighters being similarly sized.  Both aircraft use the same processor, but the dish on the F-15SE is about 50% larger.  

With everything else being more or less equal, this one goes to the one with the bigger radar.  Any advantage the Super Hornet might have in the IR spectrum would be academic by comparison.  Advantage:  F-15SE

Beyond visual range:  There is nothing really wrong with the Super Hornet as an air-superiority fighter, but there is nothing really impressive about it either.  Most agree that the USN lost some of its air-superiority capability when it retired the F-14.  Some even suggest that the USN upgraded the wrong fighter.  Even with a performance boost provided by uprated GE414-EPE engines, the Super Hornet will never be capable of the F-15's raw power and speed.  

No one has ever criticized the F-15's air superiority capability.  Quite the contrary.  With an undefeated 100-0 win/loss record in air-to-air combat, the Eagle has nothing to prove.  The F-15SE flies faster, higher, and maneuvers better than the Super Hornet.  Not only can it give its AMRAAMs more energy, but its larger radar makes locking on to the target a snap.  

Not only does the Silent Eagle have some clear advantages over the Super Hornet, but the F-15 Eagle family has the reputation to back it up.  Advantage:  F-15SE

Within Visual Range:  Things get a little more even as the aircraft get closer together and top speed becomes less of a factor.  Both aircraft are quite proficient at "turning and burning".  Both aircraft are equipped with HMDs and the ability to fire HOBS missiles, in this case, the AIM-9X Sidewinder.  

Both aircraft have roughly the same power-to-weight ratio, but the Silent Eagle capable of slightly better g-loading.  The Eagle also boasts of better time-to-climb and wing loading.  The Super Hornet does have a superior nose authority, however, allowing it to point its Sidewinder at target more quickly.

The Silent Eagle starts out with a slight advantage here, only to lose that advantage to the Rhino as things get slower and tighter.  Advantage:  Tie

Dogfight:  Both of these rugged aircraft are built tough.  Tough enough that it would likely take more than a lucky hit with either aircraft's 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon to take the other out.  

If both aircraft have converged into a "furball", the Super Hornet's nose authority really starts to give it a clear advantage.  Not only that, but the Rhino handles much easier at slow speeds than the high-strung F-15.  If that was not enough, the Super Hornet just so happens to hold more ammo than the Silent Eagle as well.

Where the Eagle was meant to fly high in the clouds, the Hornet prefers to buzz around closer to the ground.  In a close quarters knife-fight, the F/A-18E/F has a clear edge.  Advantage:  Super Hornet

Air-to-air winner:  The F-15 was first envisioned as an air-superiority fighter with "not a pound for air-to-ground".  It was only later that it was found out that the Eagle makes a pretty darn good strike fighter, as well.  By contrast, the Super Hornet was a budget-friendly attempt to replace two vastly different aircraft (the A-6 and F-14) resulting in an impressive, but still compromised design.  Winner:  F-15SE

Versatility/Logistics:

Versatility:  Once again, the Super Hornet scores an easy win in the versatility department.  Carrier capable?  Check.  Two-seater version?  Check.  Electronic warfare version?  Check.  Electronic warfare-light version?  Likely check.  Aerial tanker?  Check.  AEW&C version?  Maybe someone is working on it as we speak.

The F-15SE is a little more...  Simple.  While there are plenty of different F-15 variants (F-15C, F-15J, F-15SG, F-15K...), these all boil down to one of two archetypes:  Air Superiority (F-15C) or Strike Fighter (F-15E).  Sadly, a F-15G "Wild Weasel" was never meant to be.  The Silent Eagle is a strike fighter.  It strikes and it fights.  What more could you want?

The Super Hornet's "Jack-of-all-trades" capability once again secures the nod in this category.  Advantage:  Super Hornet

Logistics:  Former US president Bill Clinton once said:  "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: where is the nearest carrier?"  Super Hornets are already deployed all around the world in service with the USN.  Their "no frills" design has made them reliable, dependable, and easy to maintain.  It is said to be even easier to maintain than the older, less capable legacy Hornets.

Boeing has stuck with marketing the Silent Eagle only to nations that already use a F-15 variant of some kind.  This speaks volumes.  Without existing infrastructure, it seems likely that the F-15SE would be too much trouble for new buyers to operate.  The F-15 requires long runways and all the fixin's at its home base.  The F-15E's cost per flying hour is roughly 50% more than the Super Hornet, the Silent Eagle's RAM coating would likely only make the disparity even larger.

While the Super Hornet seems ready to do anything and go anywhere, the Silent Eagle comes across as somewhat of a diva.  Advantage:  Super Hornet

Versatility/Logistics winner:  While the Silent Eagle may be more impressive in the air, the Super Hornet proves itself easier to live with on the ground.  Not only that, but it is up for just about anything.  It really does put the "multi" in multirole fighter.  Winner:  Super Hornet

Final score:

Air-to-ground:  Super Hornet = 2  -  Silent Eagle = 2

Air-to-air:  Super Hornet = 2  -  Silent Eagle = 3

Versatility/Logistics:  Super Hornet = 2  -  Silent Eage = 0

Final Result:  Super Hornet = 6   -  Silent Eagle = 5

WHAT?  

Thus far, the Super Hornet has yet to win an installment of FJFC.  The Silent Eagle has yet to lose.  How did this happen?

In a word, balance.  The only role that the F-15SE would have a clear advantage over the Super Hornet is that of air-superiority.  Yet the Super Hornet is just as capable in the strike role, and offers the capability to perform other roles as well.  It should be noted here as well that the "Advanced" features of the "Advanced Super Hornet" (CFTs, EWPs, and increased engine power) had very little effect on the final outcome.  At most, the score would have been tied.

Not that it matters here, but the Super Hornet is far more affordable as well.  

Like the F-15SE, I'm pretty sure my older brother would win in a fair fight against his younger sibling.  He also has a nicer house and earns a larger paycheck.  That does not make him superior however.  It is merely the result of a singular drive to succeed at one's job path.  He seems to have little free time, no real hobbies, and takes life far too seriously.  Like the Super Hornet, I stylize myself as a bit of "Renaissance man", capable and knowledgeable in areas that have no bearing on my career, but I find it rewarding nonetheless.  I make time to do the things that I enjoy, and I'll be damned if I can't laugh at things, least of all myself.

Besides all that, I'm pretty sure Mom always did like me best. 

Published: By: Unknown - 10:32 AM