Navy Considers Axing Conformal Fuel Tanks From Its Block III Super Hornet Upgrade Plan

The Drive/The War Zone ^ | 29 Jan 21 | Joseph Trevethick

[LSUfan]

The U.S. Navy is considering removing conformal fuel tanks, or CFTs, from the Block III upgrade package for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after discovering various issues with them during testing. Deciding not to pursue these tanks, which are designed to extend the Super Hornet's range even without it having to carry drop tanks in place of other underwing stores, could have significant ramifications for the service's future tactical aviation plans.

[LSUfan]

It can’t be overemphasized how bad this development with the conformal fuel tanks on the Super Hornet is. The aircraft was supposed to have significantly longer combat radius with them while carrying a combat load. Now it will have to carry external tanks which reduce the combat load. But it’s actually worse on that. For reasons involving aerodynamics, the underwing pylons on the aircraft are canted outboard 5 degrees. That produces drag and with a combat load the Super Hornet cannot exceed Mach 1. It is now slow with a light load and a combat radius significantly inferior to the aircraft it has struggled to replace for years: the A-6 and F-14.

[allendale]

What the Navy really needs is an effective, manned anti drone aircraft to protect the surface fleet.

[Don Corleone]

Like this hasn’t happened before to almost every Navy and Air Force fighter ever built. Load them down with crapola that destroys their design efficiency and combat effectiveness.

[DesertRhino]

The navy strike load and range has continually dropped since Vietnam. Ending the A-6 was a Cheney idea even though large numbers of them were brand new. The F-14d was a great load carrier with legs and speed. It was routinely launching from the Indian Ocean from beyond silkworm range, and doing strike missions with a good load over Afghanistan! We got rid of that beast and the A-6 tankers so those days are over. We went to an all 18 force but then decided to shrink things even more with the F-35 moonpig.
The carrier strike force has never had such a short range, or carried such a small load.
Oh well, I suppose it’s a total force concept where they bland in well with destroyers that cannot outmaneuver a container ship.

[dis.kevin]

I wasted in an A-6 squadron in the navy. The A-6 was the best medium attack aircraft ever. Going to the F/A 18 was a huge mistake.

[dis.kevin]

I “was in” not wasted. Spell correct

[CodeToad]

I wonder if this has anything to do with Boeing being a Woke company and incapable of engineering this solution.

[W.]

New Government motto: Nothing good for America gets past us!

[pfflier]

Conformal fuel tanks have been very successful on the F-15E. Their location is a little more conventional having less effect on the center of gravity (CG) as fuel is consumed.

I suspect the CFTs on the Hornet are causing CG problems because their location is higher than the original design CG.

When the tanks are full the CG shifts way up. As the tanks are emptied the CG shifts downward. Moving the CG dynamically causes all sorts of changes to the flight dynamics. That translates to big headaches in flight control characteristics and associated software.

[cp124]

Electric fighter jets.

[Bedford Forrest]

When the tanks are full the CG shifts way up. As the tanks are emptied the CG shifts downward. Moving the CG dynamically causes all sorts of changes to the flight dynamics. That translates to big headaches in flight control characteristics and associated software.

Just because Boeing lacks the ability to solve fundamental dynamic stability issues [AFTER the award of whatever contract] doesn't mean they are incompetent. After all, they can always outsource the software fixes to the Hinduvians - as they purportedly did in their last disaster- the 737 Maxi. Boeing should be barred from any further military programs. Their military production units should be stripped away and sold to other corporate entities - ones having longer and better track records. Lockheed is another huge offender. Naturally such remedies are pipe dreams barred by politics. Screw the warriors and the taxpayers, right?

[pfflier]

When I entered the business in the early 1980's there were 9 major American aerospace companies all with sound reputations. Now there are 4 (5 if you include British Aerospace).

You could see the conglomerate issues coming from a mile away. Instead of competition you take what they give you. SPOs have to be really sharp now when establishing specifications.

[2CAVTrooper]

“The carrier strike force has never had such a short range, or carried such a small load.”

Sure they did, but you’d have to go back to the 1920’s and 1930’s when naval aviation was still in its infancy.

[2CAVTrooper]

They want the CFT’s to replace part of the fuel lost with the tank mounted IRST, but why didn’t they incorporate the IRST in front of the windscreen like on the Su-27 or an under nose pod like the F-14? They built the E/F with room for growth, so why not a chin mount?

Any sort of ACM with say a Chinese J10 or Su-33, that center tank along with the multi-million dollar IRST is going to get jettisoned.

[2CAVTrooper]

The newer generations of the F-16 has CFT’s mounted much the same way they’re mounted on the -18.

Lockheed-Martin says there is zero performance loss when fitted with the CFT’s

Boeing and the Navy says CFT’s will not work on the -18 despite it being a key requirement of the Block III upgrade..... Sounds like someone is fishing for a few hundred million dollars more of taxpayers money which is typical of Boeing.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Ping

[MomwithHope]

I happened to notice you posted to Jeff Head. He last posted in 2019 and had quite a health battle going. Wonder if anyone has an update.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Mail