Instead of ‘replace’ I think you’re better off stealing the blueprints and incorporating those things in the build from the start.
That monster TALL tail begs for ONE more TP400! You all know you want to see it.
The F/A-18J is basically the EA-18G stats set to the tune of beefing up the wing to handle bigger drop tanks and missiles on the outer wing stations AND the F414-EDE replacing the F414-GE-400. I added the caveat that some of the ‘fixed’ antennas of the EA-18G would be removable on the F/A-18J; lessens drag in other missions. I’m a big proponent of the newer standard aircraft cannon, the GAU-22/A, and think it should be in all future fighter aircraft after 2013 or 2014. It doesn’t make much sense to hold onto the M61 design when the GAU-22/A is such a better gun.
I figure an F/A-18J would win some orders with both the Japanese and Indians. ROKAF would probably want them, too, to form a HI-LO mix with the T/A-50 using the same F414-EDE powerplant. It’s a much more attractive Hornet than what the USN just ordered.
F/A-18J Golden Hornet
[u]General characteristics[/u]
* Crew: 2
* Accommodations: aft seat configured with a stick and throttle for the training environment (or without when crewed with a Weapons System Officer)
* Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m)
* Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m)
* Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
* Wing area: 500 ft² (46.45 m²)
* Empty weight: 32,000 lb (14,500 kg)
* Loaded weight: 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) (in fighter configuration)
* Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-EDE turbofans
o Dry thrust: 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 24,000 lbf (106.8 kN) each
* Internal fuel capacity: 13,650 lb (6,190 kg)
* External fuel capacity: 2 × 600-gal and 3 x 480-gal tanks, totaling 18,000 lb (8,165 kg)
[u]Performance[/u]
* Maximum speed:
o At sea level: Mach 1.0
o At altitude: Mach 1.8+ (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft
* Range: 1,400 nmi (2,600 km) clean plus two AIM-9Xs
* Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 925 km) for interdiction mission
* Ferry range: 2,000 nmi (2,300 mi, 3,700 km)
* Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m)
* Wing loading: 100 lb/ft² (489 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.96
* Design load factor: 9.0
[u]Armament[/u]
* Guns: 1 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon internally with 180 rounds
* Hardpoints: 11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 20,000 lb external fuel and ordnance
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air: AIM-120C/D AMRAAM, Meteor, Mitsubishi AAM-4, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, IRIS-T, Python 4/5, Mitsubishi AAM-3
o Air-to-ground: AGM-65E Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-154 JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM, SLAM-ER, Storm Shadow, Brimstone JCM
o Anti-Shipping: AGM-84 Harpoon, ASM-1 and ASM-2 anti-ship missiles
* Bombs:
o Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
o Paveway I/II-series laser-guided bombs
o Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) I & II
o Mk.20 Rockeye II, CBU-78 Gator, CBU-87 CEM, and CBU-97 SFW cluster bombs
o Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
o JDAM-series
* Others:
o SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod
o Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pods & removable wingtip AN/ALQ-218 detection pods
o up to five ALQ-99 high and low-band tactical jamming pods
o MXU-54S or CNU-88 transport pods
o up to four 480 US gal (1,800 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks when operating from a carrier
o wing stations (3, 7) allow for RAM coated 610-gal (2309 L) fuel tanks when operating from land
o one 330 US gal (1,200 L) and up to four 480 US gal (1,800 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for aerial refueling system (ARS).
[u]Cockpit & Avionics[/u]
* Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
* integrated AN/ALQ-218 RF receiver system and electronic warfare suite
* integrated nose LBI antenna and one removeable dorsal LBI antenna
* three programmable and interchangeable color MFDs (CMFD) with PiP capability
* J/AAQ-2 Infra-red searching (IRST) mounted in front of the cockpit
* AN/AAQ-37 derived Distributed Aperture System (DAS) system
* Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) mounted under the nose of the aircraft
* Link-16 fighter data link
* JHMCS helmet
[u]Some differences in the F/A-18J from the F/A-18E[/u]
* Common EA-18G Avionics: Avionics and software have an 85 percent commonality with current EA-18Gs. However, the F/A-18J cockpit features the larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color displays similar to those designed for use in the F-35C. The F/A-18J uses the same high speed data networking, including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel, of the F-35 program. A cockpit speech-recognition system improves the pilot’s ability to operate the aircraft. Like the F-35, the F/A-18J will not carry a HUD.
* Stronger Wing: The Block III has the ability to carry AIM-120D on the wingtips. More fuel can be carried underwing, with each wing having wet stations for one 480-gal (1820 L) fuel tank and one RAM coated 610-gal (2309 L) fuel tanks (tanks as proposed for F-15SE) when operating from land; another wet station is under the fuselage and can carry another 480-gal (1820 L) fuel tank. The F/A-18J wet underwing stations will also be compatible with the F-35’s 426-gal (1612 L) supersonic fuel tanks. Maximum of five 480-gal (1820 L) fuel tanks when operating from a carrier deck. However, the F/A-18J is limited to one 330-gal (1,200 L) tank and four 480-gal (1820 L) fuel tanks when configured for the aerial refueling system (ARS).
* Improved Multi-Mission Weapons Stations: The Block III Super Hornet has eleven weapons stations. All weapons stations are integrated with datalinks, giving the ability to carry more smart weapons than ever before. Because the wing can inherently support heavier loads closer to the wing tips, the new layout is greatly improved over the previous Super Hornet, offering much more mission flexibility. And for aircraft carrier operations, about one extra ton more payload can be brought back to the ship over the F/A-18E model.
* 20% Higher Thrust Engines: Increased engine power comes from the F414-EDE, an advanced derivative of the Hornet’s current F414-GE-400 engine family. The F414-EDE produces 20 percent more thrust and improves overall mission performance. Greatly enlarged air inlets that have been RAM treated help to provide increased airflow to the engines.
* 20% Additional Fuel: Structural changes to the airframe increase internal fuel capacity by 1,600 pounds. Additional fuel can be carried under wing due to the stronger support. The landing gear was lengthened in order to accommodate the much larger stealthy 600-gal drop tanks of the F-15SE. This extends the Hornet’s mission radius by up to 20 percent.
[u]Summary[/u]
The F/A-18J originates out of a requirement for an F-4EJ replacement for the JASDF. The F/A-18F did not fulfill the RFP, and the F-35A was not available in the necessary timeframe. And because Japan was developing its own middleweight fighter in the same timeframe as the F-35A availability, the JASDF was not particularly fond of simply a more beefed up F/A-18F. Several of the key technologies of the F-35A – namely DAS and EOTS) were incorporated into the F/A-18J in order to give the aircraft its best shot at beating out the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale in the bid. Boeing decided that an EA-18G derivative with new F414-EDE engines and the F-35A weapons suite would give them the best shot to win.
The Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is used with the F/A-18J Block III Super Hornet to provide optimal situational awareness and a high-off-bore-sight cueing of the AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. It is augmented by the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) mounted under the nose of the aircraft, giving the same capabilities as the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR without compromising the aircraft’s low radar observability characteristics. An AN/AAQ-37 derived Distributed Aperture System (DAS) system will provide full spherical infrared coverage around the aircraft, eliminating any need for night-vision goggles. The J/AAQ-2 Infra-red searching (IRST) mounted in front of the cockpit augments the DAS for target search and tracking purposes, and gives a forward hemisphere silent lock on capability to launch command guidance missiles at greater than visual range.
Raytheon’s AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar will increase the F/A-18’s air-to-air target detection and tracking range and provide higher resolution air-to-ground mapping at longer ranges. Considered to have slightly better range performance than the Joint strike Fighter’s APG-81 AESA, but inferior to the F-22A’s larger APG-77. The new radar enables the aircrew to execute simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks. The AN/APG-79 also provides higher quality high-resolution ground mapping at long standoff ranges.
The AN/ALQ-124 integrated defensive countermeasures system (IDECM) EWSP system includes the AN/ALE-55 Fiber-Optic Towed Decoy, ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser, AN/ALQ-214 jammer, and the AN/ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receiver. An AN/ALQ-218 RF receiver system integrated into the nose provides a coordinated situation awareness and manages the on-board and off-board deception countermeasures, the expendable decoys, and signal and frequency control of emissions. (Unlike the EA-18G, the ALQ-218 will not require removal of the gun.) The AN/ALQ-218 combined with the ALQ-99 high/low band combination form a full spectrum electronic warfare suite that is able to provide detection and jamming against all known surface-to-air threats. The F/A-18J will also use the same INCANS Interference Cancellation system of the EA-18G that will allow voice communication while jamming enemy communications.
Fantasy ‘proposal’ threads are always fun…
I say we call it the “Golden” version… fitting for something from the Far East.
F-16J Golden Falcon
[u]General characteristics[/u] (F-2A/B bodies)
* Crew: 1 (or 2 for the F-16K)
* Length: 15.52 m (50 ft 11 in)
* Wingspan: 11.13 m (36 ft 6 in)
* Height: 4.69 m (15 ft 5 in)
* Wing area: 34.84 m² (375 ft²)
* Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
* Loaded weight: 33,000 lb (15,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 48,700 lb (22,100 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× General Electric F110-GE-132 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 19,000 lbf (76.3 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 32,000 pounds (143 kN)
o FADEC controls
[u]Performance[/u]
* Maximum speed:
o At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
o At altitude: Mach 2.0 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)
* Combat radius, attack: 340 mi (550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
* Combat radius, anti-shipping: 520 mi (835 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
* Ferry range: 2,620 mi (4,220 km) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
* Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
* Wing loading: 88 lb/ft² (430 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: > .95
[u]Armament[/u]
* Guns: 1 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon internally with 180 rounds
* Hardpoints: (holding up to 17,000 lb of payload)
o 2× wing-tip Air-to-air missile launch rails or removable AN/ALQ-218 detection pods
o 6× under-wing
o 3× under-fuselage pylon stations
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air: AIM-120 AMRAAM, Mitsubishi AAM-4, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, IRIS-T, Python 4/5, Mitsubishi AAM-3
o Air-to-ground: AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-154 JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM
o Anti-Shipping: AGM-84 Harpoon, ASM-1 and ASM-2 anti-ship missiles
* Bombs:
o Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
o Paveway I/II-series laser-guided bombs
o Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) I & II
o Mk.20 Rockeye II, CBU-87 CEM, CBU-89 Gator, and CBU-97 SFW cluster bombs
o Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
o JDAM-series
* Others:
o SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or
o AN/ALQ-131 & AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods & removable wingtip AN/ALQ-218 detection pods or
o three ALQ-99 high and low-band tactical jamming pods or
o up to three 426-gal (1612 L) supersonic fuel tanks or
o two 600-gal (2300 L) subsonic fuel tanks underwing and/or
o one 370-gal fuel tank centerline
[u]Cockpit & Avionics[/u]
* Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
* integrated AN/ALQ-218 RF receiver system and electronic warfare suite
* three programmable and interchangeable color MFDs (CMFD) with PiP capability
* J/AAQ-2 Infra-red searching (IRST) mounted in front of the cockpit
* Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) mounted under the nose of the aircraft
* Link-16 fighter data link
* all-color glass cockpit
* JHMCS helmet
[u]Some differences in the F-16J from the F-16E[/u]
* a 25% larger wing area
* lengthened landing gear to accommodate larger centerline packages
* composite materials used to reduce overall weight and radar signature
* longer and wider nose to accommodate a phased-array radar
* dorsal spine electronics compartment in the single seater
* larger tailplane
* larger air intake
* three-piece cockpit canopy
* MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus
* capabilities for four ASM-1 or ASM-2 anti-ship missiles, four AAMs, and additional fuel tanks
Also, the F-2 is equipped with a drogue parachute
Support for two 450-gallon conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), dorsal spine compartment, AN/APG-80 AESA radar, and JHMCS helmet. The CFT’s are for increased range or time on station and free up underwing hardpoints for weapons. The dorsal spine compartment is located behind the cockpit and extends to the tail; adds adds 30 cubic feet (850 L) for more internal avionics and chaff/flare dispensers. The MIL-STD-1553 data bus is replaced by MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus which offers a 1000 times increase in data-handling capability.
I think you’d be better off using the F-2 model’s wing planform with the best features of the block 52+, 60, and the F-16I.
AMX an overkill? No way. It’s an affordable fighter with affordable costs to operate. A little bigger than an A-4, slightly better performance, with slightly smaller payload. It’s not overkill in any way IMHO.
The AMX was a solid design. If the U.S. had operated it then you would have seen it produced in huge numbers. An AMX-based carrier attack plane would have been good for the likes of Brazil, Argentina (once upon a time), and India. No need to slep the Skyhawks over and over.
For a Super Hornet Block III, how about this?
1. Start with the EF-18G model as the baseline for any new Super Hornets
2. Strengthen the entire airframe for an operational 9G manuevering (up from peace-time 7.5G)
3. Strengthen the wing for AIM-120D’s at the wingtips (best fire the heaviest missiles first, keep remaining missiles near COG)
4. Certify the outer wing stations (2, 8) for 480-gal (1820 L) fuel tanks when operating from the carriers
5. Strengthen the inner wing stations (3, 7) and oversize the landing gear to allow for RAM coated 610-gal (2309 L) fuel tanks (tanks as proposed for F-15SE) when operating from land
6. Integrate the IRST
You wouldn’t want to stretch the air plumbing, it artificially constructs air flow. Not to mention the fact you’d have to rewrite your software for flight control. You’re better to stretch in ways that don’t require so much reinvention of the wheel.
Israel has some tools that would make it lopsided. They can deploy drones from under the wing of an F-16I to aggressively locate and neutralize tankers and airborne electronic warfare planes. Plus they can overfly Turkey with satellites every hour to help out locating those assets. It wouldn’t hurt their feelings to lose a drone they flew into the sides of a big THK plane..
It’s not the props that you worry about with V-22, it’s that jet exhuast streaming out. Helicopters deflect that turbine exhaust downwards or hide it with a shrouded diffuser.
The Chinese are responsible for NK being in the position they are in. China will decide whether it collapses or not. There is no indication they are abandoning NK anytime soon.
Maus92-
I like how your thinking this out. After day 3-4, how about delivery of weapons via drone at that point. All your shiny toys can relax while the robots cleanup the neutered defenses.
The 1:125 catastrophic rate was optimistic. If you fly more often into space your accident rate should be relative to the original shuttle, perhaps slightly lower if its size profile is smaller. The difference is that the shuttle has contingency plans for nicks and scratches from space debris. I doubt the smaller space plane concept would be so forgiving. Frequent space travel is always this catch 22 paradigm.