Super Duper Hornet Walkaround

[pourts]

+1
There's a reason why they didn't make the growler single seat, there's no way way a pilot could effectively run all the electronics and jamming by himself. Could the role of a FAC(A) be done by a single seat guy, sure. But once again the work load keeps him from being as effective as a two seater.

To add: though a dated study (1989) it does go into some interesting pros and cons of the single seat/ two seat hornet, including the fact that there are 102 gallons less in the two seat hornet but a lower fuel burn rate

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/PJA.htm

Just like there's a REASON the Prowler has 4 seats. At the time, that's what they needed. In the future, fighter aircraft will all have ZERO seats. Its one less human being to risk getting his head chopped off on Al Jazeera. This matters in a country like ours where the value of human life is so high, not that I disagree.

I read your paper, and found this hard to believe:
"However, analysis has determined that in identical
scenarios, the dual-seat Hornet burned less fuel than
the single-seater."

I call shenanigans. Even if the fuel burn is somehow magically less in a D, its not enough to make up for starting out with 700# less.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Puckered nozzle descent bro.....WSO's invented it, and you actually create gas doing it.....obviously

 

[Lawman]

Oh yeah, and EA? We've whittled a 4-person job (EA-6) down to a 2-person job (Growler) with an existing platform carrying externally mounted pods. How is it such a stretch of the imagination that a new aircraft could be capable of performing the same role with only one person? The systems can be made autonomous and there you have it.

Point of order on this idea from Rotor land...

There were a whole bunch of engineers that tried to make that same idea work in a single seat Comanche during the beginning of the LHX program before they finally realized there is no way to expect a single pilot to handle that level of workload (Fly NOE, Navigate, Monitor and manage 4-5 different radios plus digital traffic, maintain S/A, shoot bad guys, keep Greasy side down, Maintain formation with team aircraft, etc...). The Russians tried to build a single seat Gunship with the Ka-50 but changed their minds and went back to a Dual Seat side by side with the Ka-52.

Not saying we couldnt get away with a single seat anything. You could arguably engineer out the all but the Pilot for any number of aircraft and have them "conduct" their mission but the level of task shedding thats gonna come from it is eventually going to be unacceptable.

 

[bluesig1]

Just like there's a REASON the Prowler has 4 seats. At the time, that's what they needed. In the future, fighter aircraft will all have ZERO seats. Its one less human being to risk getting his head chopped off on Al Jazeera. This matters in a country like ours where the value of human life is so high, not that I disagree.

I read your paper, and found this hard to believe:
"However, analysis has determined that in identical
scenarios, the dual-seat Hornet burned less fuel than
the single-seater."

I call shenanigans. Even if the fuel burn is somehow magically less in a D, its not enough to make up for starting out with 700# less.

It was reverse physics in 1989? I cant vouch for how valid the paper was, I wasn't even in grade school when it was written. I thought it brought up some good considerations though.

MIDNJAC is right, I've heard of this puckered nozzle, It's actually taught immediately after API.

 

[SynixMan]

puckered nozzle descent bro.....wso's invented it, and you actually create gas doing it.....obviously

wtf?

 

[MIDNJAC]

wtf?

In the Hornet, bumping the throttles up ever so slightly from idle schedules the VEN's to tighten up a little bit (called "puckered"), and burns slightly less gas than a pure idle descent. Don't ask me how, just press the I believe button. Not sure if there are any other VEN equipped aircraft that this works on, but I'd guess so

 

[bluesig1]

Not going to lie, I thought that was made up, and was something dirty. Been around the FloraBama too much.:icon_zbee

Learn something new everyday

 

[RHPF]

The narrower opening produces a higher velocity air flow, but the fuel flow is constant (same as idle). The Rhino cannot do this since advancing the throttle programs in more fuel. At least this is what is taught (only a A-D dude though).

It obviously doesn't 'create' fuel, but if the fuel flow is the same as idle, but instead you get more thrust, it effectively produces 'free' thrust (aka fuel).

 

[MIDNJAC]

the rhino cannot do this since advancing the throttle programs in more fuel. At least this is what is taught (only a a-d dude though).

fadec ftl

 

[navyao]

Minus 360 degree stealth and super cruise, this version of the Rhino has all the bells and whistles of the F-35 doesn't it? Plus, like a lot of you guys have said improved SA with a WSO in back plus twin blowers, win-win I'd think. But, so I don't get dogged by any of you, my opinion was created from my limited experience as a MECH in a dual seat hook squadron several years ago. SA is a pretty important part of life I'd think, unless some of you guys have eye's in the back of your head now?

 

[Catmando]

The narrower opening produces a higher velocity air flow, but the fuel flow is constant (same as idle). The Rhino cannot do this since advancing the throttle programs in more fuel. At least this is what is taught (only a A-D dude though).

It obviously doesn't 'create' fuel, but if the fuel flow is the same as idle, but instead you get more thrust, it effectively produces 'free' thrust (aka fuel).

Maybe like the old F-4. At idle, the exhaust nozzles were full open. But if you bumped the throttles up just a bit, the nozzles would close giving you slightly more thrust with little or no increase in fuel flow.

 

[Flash]

Minus 360 degree stealth and super cruise, this version of the Rhino has all the bells and whistles of the F-35 doesn't it? Plus, like a lot of you guys have said improved SA with a WSO in back plus twin blowers, win-win I'd think. But, so I don't get dogged by any of you, my opinion was created from my limited experience as a MECH in a dual seat hook squadron several years ago. SA is a pretty important part of life I'd think, unless some of you guys have eye's in the back of your head now?

With threat systems increasing in capability all the time that will become more important as time goes on. Just because we have yet to face the latest and greatest in radar-guied SAM systems doesn't mean we won't sooner or later and the extra 'LO' the F-35 has will have more survivability that will be critical when facing those systems. And once they get the systems integration down with the sensors it will be that much mo' better. Would a second seat make it that much better? Sure, but you can't have everything all the time.

 

[Banjo33]

JSF brings a little more to the game than simply stealth and supercruise (which I thought was a -22 thing, not JSF?). Like Flash mentioned, the "systems integration" thing is a key factor in what the aircraft brings to the fight. 360 degree "awareness" (for lack of a better word) gives the AIRCRAFT SA on what's going on around it (blue AND red) and presents that information to the pilot as well as communicating and detecting AND the sharing of that info across the battlefield with other aircraft and C2 assets and again, presenting it to the pilot. Don't say we have that with LINK, this is supposed to go WAY beyond that system. Again, some of this may still be conceptual, but from what I've seen some of it is complete.

I think this is about as far as I dare tread with details. I don't know how much farther I can go before the lines of classification start to blur.

 

[Wingnut172N]

It was reverse physics in 1989? I cant vouch for how valid the paper was, I wasn't even in grade school when it was written. I thought it brought up some good considerations though.

MIDNJAC is right, I've heard of this puckered nozzle, It's actually taught immediately after API.

One of my aero profs mentioned last year that the canopy of the two-seat hornets was more aerodynamic than the smaller single seat canopy, and that lead to very slightly decreased fuel burn for the B/D/F compared to the A/C/E?

Not sure if it's true or not, just passing on what I was told.

 

[pourts]

Monitor and manage 4-5 different radios plus digital traffic.

You have 5 radios?