Mythbuster: "Experts"

Captain Buster was never one to say know to a free lunch, especially lately.  As his financial planner was fond of telling him, Captain Buster was much better at flying a CF-18 than managing his debt.  While he was not exactly starving, his bank statements were not exactly heartwarming.

Besides, Captain Buster was looking forward to catching up with his old buddy, who had left the RCAF to join the private sector.  Vought-Republic, one of the biggest defense contractors around, was picking up the lunch bill today.  What Buster did not realize was that his friend would be bringing a co-worker...

"Thanks for meeting with us today, Buster.  It's great seeing you again."

"Yeah, it really is good to have a chance to catch up.  How has civvy life treating you?"

"Really good!  I've just made junior vice-president.  You should see my office, it's got a great view of the city."

"Wow."

"Let me introduce you to the man responsible.  This is George Payola, my boss.  He used to be in the USAF...  Flew an F-4."

"Nice to meet you, Captain Buster, your friend here has nothing but good things to say about you."

"He's a filthy liar than!"  Captain Buster joked.  

Payola countered with a polite laugh.  "We must admit to having a bit of an ulterior motive in asking you to lunch today...  We're on a bit of a hiring drive and your friend here seems to think you would make a great test pilot for our new F/A-37.  What do you think?"

"I don't know...  I'm pretty happy where I am..."  This was a lie.  Captain Buster had just been passed over for yet another promotion, and he was getting sick of the cold winters.

"I hope you give us the chance to convince you."  His friend interjected.  "This job comes with a substantial pay raise, stock options, and we can set you up near our corporate offices in California."

That did sound good.

"All this for flying a plane?"  It sounded almost too good to be true.

"We'll want you speak at airshows, do a few YouTube videos, that sort of thing.  We look at our test pilots as a public relations resource as well.  People would rather see a Chuck Yeager-type in a flight suit than some MBA in an Armani knock-off."

"Sounds easy enough...  What the hell...  I'LL DO IT!"

"GREAT!  Now, before we get into the details, we need you to sign a few things..."  Payola dumped a stack of legal documents on the table.  "Just the standard conditions, non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements, security clearances...  You know, the usual."

Captain Buster started having second thoughts...

Required reading.

"When in doubt, defer to the experts."

There really is no shame in admitting that a subject is too complicated for a layman to understand.  When that time comes, it is only human nature to seek out those with a better understanding.  This is especially true in the world of military aircraft, where cutting edge technology intersects with the world of top-secret "for your eyes only".  To put it simply, much of the truth about modern-day fighter aircraft is beyond the reach of us mere mortals.  This is where we must place our faith in the experts.

But who are these experts?

I have written about a few of these guys before.   Whenever an in-depth conversation of fighter aircraft, especially the F-35, happens, these are the names that often come up:  Flynn, Sprey, Wheeler, Thompson, and Sweetman.  All have extensive knowledge on the subject, far more than that of your typical blogger (present company included).

So what happens when these "experts" disagree with each other?

Stewart all the way...

We pick a side.

We do not pick a side at random.  We pick the side that most reflects our own beliefs in the subject.  We then use this as a resource to reaffirm our own beliefs in a process known as confirmation bias.  If "Mister X" says that "Fighter A" is amazing and "Fighter B" is terrible, and we believe that ourselves, then we will begin to trust "Mister X" as an authority on the subject.

Ah...  But what if "Mister Y" states that "Fighter A" is a colossal failure?  Surely someone is wrong!  If we agree with Mister X, than clearly Mister Y is an incompetent boob, then.  At least, that is is what we would want to believe.

What if "Mister X" and "Mister Y" are both highly qualified?

Who do we trust?

Trust me!

The simple answer:  Do not trust anybody.

Everybody has bias.  EVERYONE.

That does not mean we have to discount everything that everyone has to say.  Instead, we simply need  to listen (or read) more carefully in order to separate the subjective from the objective.  Doing so is easier than you might think.

A subjective statement is one that is based on feelings, opinions, or personal bias.  A statement like this is usually intentionally vague, or uses descriptors such as "I feel" or "I believe".

Here are some examples:

• "This jet feels like a rocket when it accelerates."
• "I believe this aircraft has the most advanced sensors ever."
• "I think this aircraft is a disaster."

None of the above statements can really be proved right or wrong, since they are dependent on the observer.  An aircraft that feels like a rocket could still accelerate fairly slowly compared to others.  Believing an aircraft has the most advanced sensors ever does not make it so.  The aircraft does not become a disaster simply because the observer thinks it.

Objective statements are, quite simply, hard facts.  They can be easily verified and are usually quite specific.  

Some examples:

• "This jet takes 45 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1."
• "This aircraft uses an AESA radar, IRST, and a helmet mounted display."
• "This aircraft is behind schedule and over budget".

Unfortunately, it is still possible to present a rather biased report using nothing but objective statements.  This can be done by omitting certain key facts.

Here is an example.  

Right from the beginning, we know that the video will be subjective rather objective, based on the part of the question which reads:  "Based on your experience..."  We will ignore that part for now, however.

In this video, Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn talks about the F-35's range.  He makes several objective statements, all of which are true:

• The F-35 carries 50% more fuel internally than the CF-18.
• This does translate to a longer range and longer loiter time.
• Canada does have the largest coastline.

What is more important is what Flynn does not mention in the video:

• The F-35 cannot carry any fuel externally at the current time.  
• The F-35 may carry more fuel, but does it burn more or less than the CF-18?  50% more fuel does not necessarily mean 50% more range.
• Which "4th generation fighters" he is referring to.  (F-16s?  F-15s?  MiG-29s?)

By keeping things intentionally vague, Flynn shields himself from any disputes.  

And it's not lupus.

As a test pilot for the F-35, Billie Flynn can certainly be considered as an expert on the F-35.  Flynn has a vested interest in its success however.  Althouhgh he used to be commanding officer in the RCAF, he is currently employed by Lockheed Martin.  

As many of you have experienced, employment with an organization often means more than a paycheck.  Non-disclosure agreements, non-compete clauses, and other legally binding contracts are usually part of the deal.  Most organizations expect their employees to act as public relations ambassadors on top of their normal duties, and many have strict rules regarding media communications.  

Therein lays the catch-22.  Those with the most access to the information are often the least able to talk honestly and candidly about it.  That leaves the rest of us scrambling for whatever scraps of information we can get in order to form our own objective opinions.

What about myself?

I can truthfully say:  I am no expert.  My only access to information is Google and the links graciously provided to me by the commenters here and in the Facebook group.  I started this whole blogging thing on a whim and it still amazes me at the response I have gotten.  

Like many of you, I have had a life-long fascination with fighter aircraft.  I have friends and family that are (and have been) active members in the Canadian Forces, including the RCAF.  I read...  A lot.  While struggling to find my place in life, I studied both engineering and journalism.  I then said to hell with both and went into medicine.  

These three seeming separate disciplines overlap more than you might think.  They also form the basis on which I form my opinions.  

1. Engineering encourages one to analyze, calculate, and quantify.  It also gives one a basic understanding of how materials interact when subjected to force.
2. Journalism encourages one to research and "dig deeper"...  It also allows one to identify "PR speak".
3. Medicine encourages the use of evidence to back up any hypothesis or claims.

Experts are a dime-a-dozen.  It is not too hard to find a so-called "expert" on any given subject.  It is often just as easy to find an expert willing to take an opposite position (this seems to be the business model of most 24-hour news networks).  

Facts are precious commodities.  Facts allow each and everyone of us to form our own opinions based on the evidence provided.  The great thing about having your own opinion is that you are free to change it at any time, especially when presented with new facts.  

After a while, you may find yourself armed with enough facts to become an expert yourself...

Published: By: Unknown - 4:48 PM

Mythbuster: Drones

X-47B Pegasus

Captain Buster felt his stomach tie in knots when he was told the news.  How was this possible?  After countless years as one of the RCAF's most talented pilots, he was now wondering what he would end up doing until retirement.

"Sorry Captain...  But I'm afraid you are now obsolete.  These new drones are cheaper, stealthier, fly longer, and can maneuver way harder than any manned fighter.  They really are the future don't you see?"

Captain Buster was not convinced.  "How is some bucket of bolts going to make up for years of experience?"

"That's the beauty of it, don't you see?  We just upgrade the software every couple of years and these things will be better than you could ever be!  Don't feel so bad.  It's much safer to stay on the ground anyway."

"I don't know how to do anything except fly!  What am I supposed to do?"

"Maybe we can switch you over to flying a transport or something..."

Oh crap.

Drones.

The mere mention of the word brings to mind a deadly swarm of unfeeling, mechanical death machines intent on human destruction.  Or something like that, anyway.  The recent proliferation of UAVs and UCAVs in places like Afghanistan and Iraq certainly do make it seem like airborne combat will soon consist almost entirely of "drones."

UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and UCAVs (unmanned combat aerial vehicles) certainly do have advantages over traditional combat aircraft.  With no need for a pilot onboard, the aircraft does not have to make concessions to the squishy human pilot.  There is no need for ejection seats, life support systems, or even a cockpit.  The aircraft can be flown into dangerous territory without risking human life.  UAVs do not need to eat, sleep, or take bathroom breaks, allowing them to stay on task for longer.

For high performance aircraft, the advantages of UAVs become even more tempting.  There is no risk of a pilot blacking out due to high-g maneuvers, and the space and weight normally reserved for a cockpit can instead be used for sensors, weapons, or extra fuel.

With all these benefits, it is surely just a matter of time before most modern aircraft are replaced with UCAVs and the like.  Why risk human lives when drones can do the job, right?

MQ-9 Reaper

The truth is, human piloted aircraft will be around for quite some time.  Drones have their advantages, but they are not the be-all, end-all just yet.  Drones have come a long way since their humble beginnings, but they are not ready to replace front-line manned combat aircraft just yet.

The rapid evolution of UAVs lately may give a false indication of just how ready they are for front-line service.  This new found capability did not happen overnight.  In fact, despite their recent publicity, drones themselves are nothing new.

50s era Ryan Q-2 Firebee

UAVs have been around longer than powered flight.  In 1849, Austria loaded up about 200 pilotless balloons with explosives and sent them towards the city of Venice.  Needless to say, relying on timed fuses and wind currents made these early UAVs far less effective than modern GPS guided munitions, but it was pretty impressive thinking for the mid-19th century.

UAVs have slowly evolved over the years, usually acting as remote controlled target drones or rudimentary reconnaissance assets.  Some, like the D-21, certainly looked impressive, but were ultimately failures.

"pwning n00bz"

The last fifteen years has seen a "perfect storm" for the proliferation of UAVs.  Computing power has improved to the point that these aircraft can now act semi-autonomously, so they are no longer just glorified remote controlled planes.  Most still require a "man-in-the-loop" but some, like the RQ-4 Global Hawk can fly virtually untethered to any sort of ground control.

This quantum leap in UAV intelligence has come during a time where they can operate uncontested over low threat airspace like that found in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Normally, these slow moving UAVs would be sitting ducks for enemy fighters, but the lack of any credible aerial threat allows them to operated with near impunity.  Not only that, but ground targets tended to be "soft", requiring only smaller weapons like a 500lb bombs or Hellfire missiles.  This fits well as even larger UCAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper only have a maximum payload of about 3,000 pounds.

This combination of improved computing power combined with low-threat airspace has certainly boosted the UAV's profile, but there are still plenty of areas where UAVs are not going to be performing anytime soon.

Air Superiority

Yeah...  Don't hold your breath.

Not a single UAV ever built, or even planned, has the air-to-air capability to rival even the most modest of modern fighter aircraft.  UCAVs may have the potential to perform extremely high-g maneuvers without blacking out the pilot, but right now their performance is rather limited.  Even advanced UAV demonstrators like the X-47B are subsonic, with design elements focused towards endurance over speed and agility.

Not only that, but no current or planned UAV has the ability to mount air-to-air weaponry like the AIM-9 Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM.  Predator drones were once fitted with short-range Stinger missiles, but the results were borderline laughable.

Cost

The RQ-4 Global Hawk

UCAVs like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper have low operating costs compared to modern multirole fighters.  This is not due to some special UAV formula.  They are cheaper to fly for the simple reason that they are simple aircraft.  In fact, the Predator uses a small piston engine that would not look out of place under the hood of a Subaru. 

UAVs still need to be maintained by ground crew, and they still need pilots, even if those pilots never leave the ground.  Like any other military asset, their capability is very much determined more based on what high-tech gear they carry inside.  For some, this gear tends to be expensive.

Possibly the most glaring example of this is the RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance UAV.  It is definitely impressive, capable of flying at altitudes up to 60,000 feet for over 30 hours at a time.  The Global Hawk is possibly the most advanced UAV currently in existence (that isn't top secret).

All that capability comes at a cost however, and therein lays the Global Hawk's main issue.  Germany has cancelled plans to operate the UAV due to excessive costs and certification issues.  Part of the issue is that UAVs like the Global Hawk are not permitted to fly in civilian airspace.  This hampers their usefulness over crowded regions like western Europe.

Even the USAF finds the RQ-4 a tad expensive.  This fact is especially glaring when the relatively new Global Hawk still does not meet the current operational capabilities of the nearly 60-year-old Lockheed U-2.  This could be excused if the RQ-4 was cheaper to operate...  But it was not initially.  Threat of cancellation managed to get costs down, however.  Ultimately, the RQ-4 will replace the U-2, but only begrudgingly.  

Ethics

"I'm sorry Dave...  But I'm afraid I can't do that."

No discussion about drone warfare is complete without mentioning the ethic debate.  Volumes have been written and likely will be continued to be written well into the future.  This new found capability  raises plenty of philosophical questions:

• Does war lose meaning when one side does not have to risk its own flesh and blood?
• Will taking human lives be the result of a simply computer algorithm?
• Will the proliferation of drones result in our becoming a police-state dystopia?
• What if the machines rise up against their creator? 

I am not going to pretend to know the answers to these questions, or others like them.  These are the sort of questions that will need to be answered before UCAVs completely replace manned fighter aircraft.  

Optional equipment.

Saab has been proposing an unmanned Gripen.

If anything, the trend in UCAVs is not towards replacing manned aircraft, but supplementing manned aircraft.  The U.S. Navy's UCLASS program is set to develop an aircraft that will fly alongside their Super Hornet and F-35C fleets.  Saab is said to be working on an "unmanned" version of their updated Gripen multirole fighter.

Looking further into the future, early proposals for both the F/A-XX and the Next Generation Bomber call for an "optionally manned" capability.  This would suggest that both aircraft could have both manned and unmanned variants.  Considering that these two aircraft will not see production until the 2030s, it is safe to assume that manned combat aircraft will be around at least until the 22nd century.  

Some so called "experts" may disagree with this, however...

Published: By: Unknown - 2:12 PM

Mythbuster: "Future" Tech

"PEW PEW PEW!"

Captain Buster Junior cleared his throat and spoke loudly and clearly into his helmet microphone.

"Computer...  Initiate air combat protocol.  Arm all missiles, activate all electronic warfare modules, and charge up the directed energy weapon."

His order was confirmed by the CF/A-55E's onboard artificial intelligence.  "Affirmative.  Sensors confirm two hostile bogeys coming in from the east.  Radar jamming initiated.  Missiles armed.  Fusion cells charged to ninety-eight percent."

"Great."  Captain Buster Junior answered.  "Transmit the usual multi-language message stating that they have violated Canadian airspace and..."

"CAPTAIN!  Missile launch detected!"

The pilot reflexively banked his aircraft into a defensive maneuver and barked back at his aircraft.  "CRAP!  Okay, target that missile with the DEW turret and prepare to fire CUDA missiles!"  

"Acknowledged.  Directed Energy Weapon locked on.  Do you wish to fire?"

"YES!"

Captain Buster Junior heard a tell-tale "BOOM!"  His joy was short lived as he saw two crimson beams of light flash by his aircraft.  That was too close.  He turned his head, and his helmet mounted display projected a holographic image of the two enemy aircraft directly onto his retinas.  It only took a moment for the green square surrounding them both to turn into a red circle, indicating missile lock.  

"FIRE MISSILES!"  

It only took an instant for four missiles to eject out of his aircraft's weapon bay and streak towards their target at hypersonic speed.  At that speed, they were too fast to be targeted by the enemy aircraft's own directed energy weapon.  Two missiles slammed into one, obliterating the aircraft instantly thanks to their precision and kinetic energy.  

Only one missile hit the other aircraft; damaging it, but not destroying it.  As it turned to limp home, Captain Buster Junior cracked a sinister smile as he turned his own aircraft to give chase.  He was finally able to make out his enemy's distinct lack of cockpit.  This was not a manned fighter, but a drone!

"Computer...  Target enemy UCAV...  See if you can hack its systems and upload an E-BOLA virus.  That'll give the bad guys a nice surprise when it gets home!"

"Affirmative, Captain."

F-35 model with proposed "CUDA" missiles.

 When one looks at some of the concepts being developed now, it seems very clear that the future of aerial warfare will be quite different from what we see today.  Innovations in directed energy weapons (DEW), smart bombs, and the like lead us to believe that air combat two decades from now will look more like science fiction.  This is understandable.  After all, twenty years time is all that separates the Me 262 and and the SR-71.

Surely, twenty years time is all that separates us from "the next big thing" in military aviation as well.

From this...

To this in twenty years.

The last twenty years has seen an explosion in consumer technology.  It is only natural to assume that military technology has and will make similar advances.  This is not necessarily the case, however.  Whereas consumer technology is very much driven by factors such as lifestyle changes, fashion, and prestige, military technology is driven more by perceived necessity and budget pressures.  This makes military technology development much more risk averse.

What this means is that companies like Apple and Samsung need to constantly innovate in order to maintain market share in a world filled with fickle customers.  Faster processors, more vibrant screens; all wrapped up in thinner bodies.  Meanwhile, most military technology hits the point of "good enough".  A 500 pound smart bomb does not become more effective with the addition of a high-definition screen or a built-in fingerprint scanner.

From this (Vietnam era M-16)...

To this.  (Modern M4)

Instead, military weapon advancements tend to be more "evolutionary" than revolutionary.  The modern-day M4 carbine is near identical to the M-16 battle rifle first used in Vietnam over 40 years ago.  Sure, there are plenty of improvements "under the skin" resulting in better accuracy and reliability, but the rifle is still gas-operated, rotating bolt assault rifle that fires 5.56mm rounds.  Attempts to replace it with something more radical have so far been unfruitful.  Even suggestions to change the caliber have been shot down.

Why?

Because for all its weaknesses, the M4 is still very much a "good enough" weapon.  It is lightweight (much lighter than the pre-Vietnam M14), accurate (less accurate than the M14, however), cheap to produce, and easy to maintain.  Other assault rifles may be superior in many ways, but not superior enough to warrant replacing the half-million M4s already in service with the U.S. Army.

Can something as simple as a battle rifle cannot be used as an analogy to high-end jet fighters?  The last twenty years would seem to indicate it can.

F-22 Raptor

Thirty years ago, the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program produced a fighter that was originally intended to replace the F-15 Eagle as the USAF's predominant air-superiority fighter.  That fighter, the F-22 Raptor was certainly superior to the F-15C in almost every respect, but escalating costs and the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Raptor production being curtailed at 187 instead of the planned 750.  

To this day, the F-22 is still a fighter without a real purpose.  It only recently made its combat debut, an action that did little to showcase its air-superiority talents.

Meanwhile, the F-15, the very aircraft the Raptor was meant to replace, continues production.  A slew of upgrades and a strike variant will keep the production line running until 2018, a full six years after the last F-22 was delivered.

B-2 Spirit

The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber has met a similar fate.  Originally meant to replace the geriatric B-52 Stratofortress, 132 B-2s were planned to be built.   Like the F-22, escalating costs and changing times led to many questioning the need for such a beast.  In the end, only 21 examples were built, resulting in the aircraft's infamous unit cost.

It seems doubtful that the B-2 will outlive the 50's era B-52, which is planned to keep flying until 2044.

At least the USAF got some of the aircraft it clamored for.  The USN was not so lucky...  Or was it?

A-12 Avenger II

The planned replacement for the venerable A-6 Intruder was ambitious if nothing else.  The A-12 Avenger II was meant to bring stealth capability to the American carrier fleet.  The A-12 had much in common with the USAF's B-2; a stealthy, flying wing shape, an internal bomb bay, an troubled development, and an astronomical price.

Eventually, the A-12 was cancelled when it was found that it would be too heavy to operate from a carrier.  Even if it could, the aircraft would have been too expensive to fly anyway.

Artist concept of the NATF

The proposed NATF intended to replace the F-14 Tomcat never even left the drawing board.  Even plans to base it heavily on the F-22 in order to save costs were not enough to save it.

Instead of the A-12 and NATF, the USN was provided with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as a sort of "consolation prize".  While not nearly as glamorous, the Super Hornet has made for a competent and cost effective workhorse.

Now, with delays and cost overruns plaguing introduction of the F-35C, the USN is faced with the difficult decision of what to do as it retires its aging legacy F/A-18 Hornet fleet.  Does it simply wait, does it expand and upgrade its Super Hornet fleet, or does it dive headlong into UCAV's like the X-47B?

F-35A Lightning II

Whatever the end decision is, the result will likely have more to do with budgets than anything else.  The biggest enemy of most militaries face right now is budget cuts.  It is hard to imagine military purchasers splurging on expensive and unproven technology when they cannot even afford to maintain their current capability.  

Despite concerns about "emerging threats" and the like, modern fighters are still more than a match for current threats.  Western airpower, as it currently stands, is still "good enough" to handle any potential threat.  Even if there are concerns about a diminishing technological advantage, the truth is that the USAF alone enjoys a distinct numerical and technological advantage over the Russian and Chinese air forces.

Perhaps the current predicament will lead to a new sort of benchmark for future weapon systems.  Instead of focusing strictly on the Cold War mentality of "superiority at all costs", perhaps future weapon systems will focus more on cost effectiveness.

What we were promised:  A SR-71 Blackbird replacement concept.

What we got:  The MQ-9 Reaper UCAV

Indeed, it is through cost effectiveness that UCAV's like the MQ-9 Reaper have become quite prevalent over the last few years.  It is far cheaper to patrol an area with a slow, propellor driven drone than it is a supersonic multirole fighter.

Oddly enough, if you were to pick up a book on "Future Aircraft" twenty years ago, you would not see a single aircraft resembling the modest drones used over Iraq and Afghanistan.  Instead, you would have seen streamlined flights of fancy said to fly at hypersonic speeds.

The truth is, while fantastic new technologies may grab the magazine covers, the future usually ends up being far more mundane.

At least we know that UAVs will probably replace manned fighters in the near future...  Right?

Published: By: Unknown - 7:55 PM

Mythbuster: "Super" Hornet

Captain Buster climbed into the familiar cockpit, and let his muscle memory do the rest.  Flick a switch here, push a button there, check that dial over there...  It was all such a routine now that he did it without thinking.  

"Captain Buster!"

Zoned out, the CF-18 pilot ignored the voice in his headset and continued his preflight checklist.  He was just about ready to start up the engines when the rude voice in his headset woke him from his zen-like trance.

"CAPTAIN BUSTER!"

"WHAT?  Can't you see I'm busy here?"

"Captain Buster, you may want to double check your surroundings.  That's not your aircraft you climbed into."

"Everything looks alright from here...  Look, I've already completed the preflight checklist.  Why can't I just fly this CF-18 instead of my usual one?"

"Normally, that wouldn't be an issue, but we are not authorized to fly that aircraft!"

"Since when?"

"Since you climbed aboard a U.S. Navy Super Hornet by mistake!  Your CF-18 is the next one over!"

F/A-18F (left) refuels a F/A-18C (right)

When the time came to start evaluating potential CF-18 replacements, many have advocated doing the simple, sensible thing and simply upgrading to the newest F/A-18 variant.  It is argued that this would be the simplest and likely cheapest solution.  Transition training would be simplified, both for ground crews and pilots alike.  

Unfortunately, it is not that easy.  The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not simply an updated variant of the classic F/A-18 Hornet that is the basis of our CF-18.  

It is easy to see why there may be some confusion.  

Both fighters look incredibly similar, and both fighters have the same designation (F/A-18).  Both are considered "multirole" fighters in service with the USN.  Both are made by the same manufacturer (since Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas).  

The fact is, however, the Super Hornet is almost an entirely different aircraft.  So different that it should have earned its own "F" designation (F/A-24?).

How different?

It's like a regular Hornet...  Only "Super".

For one, there is the size difference.  The Super Hornet has been stretched out in nearly every direction, almost everything about it is bigger, as you can see in the picture above.  While it may not seem that substantial, the Super Hornet is actually much closer in size to the F-15 Eagle than its smaller sibling.  Its empty weight (14,552kg) is a full four metric tonnes greater than the legacy Hornet (10,400kg).

Since the Super Hornet is bigger and heavier than the CF-18, its airframe is almost completely different.  Only the front fuselage is identical.  While keen-eyed spotters can often identify the Super Hornet by its trapezoidal intakes, there are also minor differences in the wings, leading-edge extensions (LERX), and other areas.

GE F414 

Super Hornet changes go beyond being skin-deep however.  Inside, the Rhino uses two GE F414-400 afterburning turbofans.  While these are based on the GE F404s found in the legacy Hornet, they are actually closer to the F412s found in the aborted A-12 Avenger II.

Those upgraded engines are needed for the Super Hornet.  While they provide about 4,500 pounds more thrust (with afterburner), the Rhino actually has a slightly inferior thrust-to-weight ratio and rate of climb than its older sibling.

CF-18 Cockpit

Super Hornet cockpit

"Advanced Super Hornet" cockpit

Avionics-wise, the differences between the aircraft get a little more complicated.

Throughout its life (so far) in the RCAF, the CF-18 has received extensive upgrades to its cockpit and radar.  While its current APG-73 radar matches those originally found in the Super Hornet, the Rhino has since upgraded its radar to the APG-79 AESA unit.

The cockpit layout is fairly similar, but that would change substantially with the proposed "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade that would see a large touchscreen display replace several multi-function displays (MFDs).

In all, the transition to the F/A-18E/F models would still require a substantial amount of retraining for both air and ground crews.  It would not require as much as some of the other potential fighters, but it certainly would not be "plug-an-play".

Still, would it not make sense to upgrade Canada's current Hornet fleet with its natural replacement?

The "legacy" Hornet's replacement, the F-35C.

Maybe, but the Super Hornet was never even developed as a true "legacy" F/A-18 replacement.  That honor goes to the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C.  The USN still flies a substantial amount of legacy F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Ds.

The Super Hornet was developed, not to take the place of the "legacy" Hornet, but to fill the gap left by two wildly different aircraft:  The F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder.

F-14 Tomcat

A-6 Intruder

With the Cold War ended, the American military machine was under intense scrutiny by the Bush (Senior) and Clinton administrations.  Deficit spending was the new enemy, and casualties were to be expected.  Both the A-6 and the F-14 were due for replacements, but those replacements did not look cheap.

The A-6's planned replacement, the A-12 Avenger II, was already years behind schedule thanks to budget overruns and design issues.  Meanwhile, the F-14's replacement, the NATF, looked to replicate the same stratospheric costs surrounding the F-22 Raptor.  This made it a non-starter.

The USN still needed new aircraft, however.  The small F/A-18 Hornet lacked the range to take over the F-14's interceptor duties, nor did it have the payload capacity to take over the A-6's strike capacity.  The USN needed to fulfill these roles while convincing a budget-minded congress to loosen its purse strings a little.

Ultimately, the Super Hornet was developed as a means to provide a versatile aircraft that would not only be able to fill the gap left by the F-14 and A-6, but be low-cost and low-risk enough to secure funding.

In retrospect, the USN got what it needed, if not exactly what it wanted.  The Super Hornet, when equipped with AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AESA radar, helps take the place of the faster F-14 while carrying nearly the same payload as an A-6.  It does not quite match what modernized F-14s and A-6s might have been, but it has certainly been "good enough".

But what about the Aussies?

RAAF F-111

While the RAAF has begun procuring the F/A-18F as an "interim fighter" whilst waiting for the F-35 to become combat-ready, those Super Hornets are meant to replace the RAAF's recently retired F-111 fleet.

In the end, the Super Hornet's name is a bit of a misnomer.  "Super" would imply that the F/A-18E/F is substantially better than its non-super sibling.  This is not the case.  By most fighter aircraft metrics (speed, maneuverability, etc), the Super Hornet performs similarly.

What the Super Hornet does have to offer is its size.  Its larger airframe allows it to carry more fuel and more weapons.  More importantly for the USN, its larger size allows it a higher "bring-back" weight.  This means that not only can a Super Hornet take-off a carrier with more fuel and weapons, but it can land as well (since you don't want to dump fuel and expensive smart bombs into the ocean prior to landing).

It's kinda like that...

Instead of thinking of the F/A-18E/F as a "Super Hornet", perhaps it is better to think of it as a "Supersized Hornet" or a Hornet XL.  It is easy to see why the Super Hornet has so many fans, it is a lot like the CF-18...  There is just more of it.

To some, the Super Hornet is the family size pack of double-stuff Oreo cookies.  It is the same cookie that you know and love...  Only more so.

Hard to argue with that.  

Published: By: Unknown - 8:09 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