Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The USN Do Not Have Block C Engines Rhinos?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

I realize the Tomcats are gone, and the Rhinos are going to be around for a long time. But I recently saw a perposal for a block C vertion of the F-414, that is able to produce 29000 lb of thrust. With these engines the Rhino counld be the first F/A-18 model to reach mach 2, also it give us on the flight deck, something to talk about. I may be able to see why the USN replaced the Tomcat with Rhino ( eventhough it is hard, (and I mean hard! ) as can be). I may be able to see why the USN did not order a all new super fighter, but not re-engining the Rhino with the most powerful engines that can go on it. I can not see that!



PS: Maybe I just a power nut! Big grin

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Hate to break it to you, but you put the uprated 414's in it you still have to add extra drop tanks for a mach 2 dash, but to add something you also lose something, Bigger engine more fuel, more fuel more drop tanks, more drop tanks more drag, more drag more fuel fuel consumptition . The Rhino internal load of fuel is small, more than the hornet but not that much.
Face it dude you guys have a bomb/misslie truck, if they would have designed it with the thought of GE 110's or PW 229's it would have probably been the size of a F-14 with plenty of internal fuel to make a mach 2 run feasible. F-18E/F is a good airplane , jack of all trades master of none. But the brass have made it a ploding workhorse by putting something on every hard point making it bigger and slower than the C/D. Wait for the F-35 with the F119.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

Perhaps you have the Tim Taylor mentality and are ignoring practicality?  Silly There are many things to be considered and it may just not be worth the effort. But you said it's also a proposal, so that could mean a lot of different things too.


Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
Wait for the F-35 with the F119

That is to long away.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
F-18E/F is a good airplane , jack of all trades master of none.

And just a down right borning aircraft. Look I am in the USN and it is sad to have a plane that I can not brag about working with.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4005 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Rhino


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Bartels


I know that this is being missed, and I oviously missed something here, but since when does everybody call the F-18 the Rhino?
I have nothing against the F-18 personally, but this seems inappropriate. Rhino is dead.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
I know that this is being missed, and I oviously missed something here, but since when does everybody call the F-18 the Rhino?

The  vomit  Super Hornet nick name is Rhino.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4005 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):
The Super Hornet nick name is Rhino.

Ah, thanks. Oh well - nicknames happen.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 3):
And just a down right borning aircraft. Look I am in the USN and it is sad to have a plane that I can not brag about working with.

Maybe if you fork out a few billion, they'll uprate the engines for you Wink



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6):
Maybe if you fork out a few billion, they'll uprate the engines for you

Ok you may have a point, but it is sad that USN top jet, is so under powered. A F-22A at military power (non-afterburing) produce as much power as a  vomit  Super Hornet at combat power ( full afterburner).


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

It's more meant to tell the difference between aircraft for flight deck personnel. When a Hornet's on approach, the air boss refers to it as a "Hornet" but when a Super Hornet's on approach (both E's and F's) it's referred to as a "Rhino." Otherwise, especially at night, they'd be hard to tell apart to the ground pounders on deck. Obviously, the guys down in CATCC would be able to tell regardless.

"Our first aircraft is a RHINO now at 4 miles, 102 on Alpha, 102 on Alpha now at 4 miles."


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I realize the Tomcats are gone, and the Rhinos are going to be around for a long time. But I recently saw a perposal for a block C vertion of the F-414, that is able to produce 29000 lb of thrust. With these engines the Rhino counld be the first F/A-18 model to reach mach 2, also it give us on the flight deck, something to talk about. I may be able to see why the USN replaced the Tomcat with Rhino ( eventhough it is hard, (and I mean hard! ) as can be). I may be able to see why the USN did not order a all new super fighter, but not re-engining the Rhino with the most powerful engines that can go on it. I can not see that!

Current engines produce 22,000 lbs of thrust in afterburner. 44,000 lbs of thrust total. The additional 7,000 lbs of thrust per engine would indeed give the airplane a significant boost in performance, but bear in mind the Navy isn't looking for an air superiority fighter. They want Super Hornet to be a multi-role fighter. It would appear the Navy is quite satisfied with Super Hornet's current air-to-air capability. Will it need enhanced performance in the future? I guess that remains to be seen.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Will it need enhanced performance in the future? I guess that remains to be seen.

Who knows, but the option is there if it is needed.

The Tomcat was moving closer and closer to being turned into a bombtruck, and needed less and less for air defence. The Tomcat was a great aircraft, but its role is being taken over by other technologys. Same with the battleship, nothing out there is more powerful, but its role is no longer needed. If there is a threat that the F/A-18E/F or F-35 cant handle, the F-22 is just a call away.

If there was a major conflict, say vs China, I would expect a loss of 1 or 2 battle groups, then they will get thier asses handed to them. Kinda a 'better make your first hit a good one, cause you wont get another' kind of thing.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
The Tomcat was moving closer and closer to being turned into a bombtruck, and needed less and less for air defence. The Tomcat was a great aircraft, but its role is being taken over by other technologys. Same with the battleship, nothing out there is more powerful, but its role is no longer needed. If there is a threat that the F/A-18E/F or F-35 cant handle, the F-22 is just a call away.

If there was a major conflict, say vs China, I would expect a loss of 1 or 2 battle groups, then they will get thier asses handed to them. Kinda a 'better make your first hit a good one, cause you wont get another' kind of thing.

Maybe that is why the USN has an F-15N study now?


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
If there was a major conflict, say vs China, I would expect a loss of 1 or 2 battle groups, then they will get thier asses handed to them. Kinda a 'better make your first hit a good one, cause you wont get another' kind of thing.

Pearl Harbor 2.0 Sad



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
It would appear the Navy is quite satisfied with Super Hornet's current air-to-air capability.

It certainly does appear that way, probably because the guys in charge of the program are former A-6 and A-7 pilots, and compared to those aircraft the Rhino does have good air to air capability  rotfl 


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Will it need enhanced performance in the future?

If anything I expect they would want to improve range/combat radius rather than speed. The -E's got longer legs than the Hornet, but it's no A-6. In the most recent conflicts tanker availability has been at a premium.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
But I recently saw a perposal for a block C vertion of the F-414, that is able to produce 29000 lb of thrust. With these engines the Rhino counld be the first F/A-18 model to reach mach 2, also it give us on the flight deck, something to talk about.

Do you have more info on this? So far all I have been able to find is this GE press release from 2002.

< http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/pressc...r/military/military_20020722i.html >

The question is if this engine ever does make it to the fleet what's the cost going to be and what sort of structural changes will occur. When I was still in the Navy the EPE version of the F404 hit the fleet. All that was required was a software change. However that's becasue the the increase in thrust was only about 1500lbs. When the F110 was put in the F-14 Grumman had to beef up the airframe becasue the airframe had to handle an additional 16000lbs of thrust. My guess is that the same would ahve to happen with the Super Hornet.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
Hate to break it to you, but you put the uprated 414's in it you still have to add extra drop tanks for a mach 2 dash, but to add something you also lose something, Bigger engine more fuel, more fuel more drop tanks, more drop tanks more drag, more drag more fuel fuel consumptition . The Rhino internal load of fuel is small, more than the hornet but not that much.

Yes and no. Using the TF-30 and F110 as an example while the F110 had a higher fuel consumption at mil it had a lower fuel consumption at full burner. With the F110 the F-14 only needed mil in the cats where the A version needed full burner. The B/D was also able to the same thing as the A at a lower throttle setting. This all translated in an increase in range and on sation time. With the Super Hornet/F414 we would probaably see the same thing. From what I have read the E/F could use a boost in the thrust to wieght ratio department.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Maybe that is why the USN has an F-15N study now?

The only study is here on the A.net forums.  Wink


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

I read a few years ago when they were first talking about these upgraded engines was that the tech being applied to obtain the gains were more so designed to improve the reliability and maintainability of the engines and that the power increases were simply byproducts of those moves. GE said that in time the initial costs would be paid for and offset by the maintenance savings.

No doubt, a Block II F/A-18F with these upgraded F-414's would be sweet!


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13):
are former A-6 and A-7 pilots

The light attack mafia still runs the joint  Wink

It's a classic case of jack of all trades, master of none. The airwing composed of the F-14, A-6, and A-7 covered the load pretty well, in the aspects of a striking platform. Then again, the threat from Soviet Bears flocking on the battlegroup has diminished so the F-14's extreme BVR role seemed to melt away. The A-6 and A-7's tremendous punch could still be used though...that capability is sorely missed.

I wish the A-6F went through....it'd be a JDAM truck.

DeltaGuy


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why The USN Do Not Have Block C Engines Rhinos?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will The USN Ever Have A Real Fighter Again? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 02:57:16 by 747400sp
Does The USN Still Have That 736? posted Sat Jun 5 2004 02:18:06 by FlagshipAZ
Now Why The Hell Doesn't The Army Do This? posted Sun May 16 2004 16:43:40 by L-188
Should The USN Bought More Supply Class AOE's? posted Sun Feb 18 2007 00:44:09 by 747400sp
Why The Military Use So Many 747? posted Wed Feb 14 2007 23:26:35 by 747400sp
Why No USN Heritage Flights? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:41:06 by 747400sp
Do E-6 Mercury Have Trust Reverser? posted Fri May 26 2006 20:50:47 by 747400sp
Why The USAF Never Bought F-14 Tomcat? posted Thu May 11 2006 01:33:54 by 747400sp
IAF Trainer - Why The Delay posted Thu Mar 30 2006 17:07:48 by HAWK21M
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format