%2Bfifth%2BGeneration%2BStealth%2BFighter%2BJet%2Bfrom%2Bits%2Bflight%2Bplaaf%2Bpakistan%2Bair%2Bforce%2Bpaf%2B(6).jpg)
Boeing is seeking an international launch customer for a 20% higher thrust version of the General Electric F414 turbofan that powers the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE) includes an all new core and forward fan to dramatically increase the fighter's takeoff performance, said Bob Gower, Boeing vice president for F/A-18E/F. The improvements would increase the F414 thrust rating from 22,000lbs to 26,600lbs. The baseline F414-GE-400, which also powers the Saab Gripen demonstration aircraft, is itself a 35% higher thrust version of the F404 and entered service with the Super Hornet fleet in 1998. More recently, the US Navy, Boeing and GE have been developing durability improvements to reduce foreign object damage and specific fuel consumption, Gower told reporters participating in a Boeing media tour. While the USN seeks a new engine core to make the F414 more durable, some international customers are interested in a new engine fan that enables higher thrust, Gower said.
"The 'enhanced durability engine' becomes the 'enhanced performance engine' when you put the fan on it," Gower said. Although the core enhancements are already under contract with the USN, the programme is seeking an export customer to launch development of the F414 EPE, Gower said. The international order would lead to follow-on sales for the USN, which would gradually replace its current inventory with the improved version, Gower said. Several countries, including India, Brazil, Denmark, Greece and Kuwait, are considering the F/A-18E/F, with the Royal Australian Air Force already signed on as the first export customer. The RAAF has ordered 24 F/A-18E/Fs, including 12 provisioned to become EA-18G Growlers. The improved thrust would likely be most welcomed among militaries operating in hot weather, which reduces engine performance especially at a takeoff. Despite the dramatic thrust increase, the EPE would not require enlarging the F/A-18E/F's engine inlets to enable increased air flow, Gower said. "We are not modifying the mould line of the aircraft," Gower said. "The current inlet gives us enough [air] in-take." Gower also said the EPE would require changing the number of compressor stages, but he did not elaborate. The USN is also planning to steadily improve the F/A-18E/Fs sensors, electronic warfare system, connectivity and weapons load-out over the next decade, Gower said. "The US government and Boeing and our suppliers," said Gower, "continue to invest in the platform because we see opportunities both domestically and internationally for the platform."
9 comments:
of aussies paid extra for 10 years of maintaince and spares for f18e/f
but think this boeing saying that f18e/f doesn't need maintainance depot before it clocks 6000 flying hours ,and aussies not going to fly 6000hours in just 10 year and they will keep this aircraft for next 30 years ,
so if f18e/f doesn't need maintainance before it clocks 6000 flying hours then why aussies paid hell amount of money for maintainance
and 6000 hours is total life of f18e/f along with its engines,and IT IS BEING CLAIMED BY BOEING THAT F18E/F doesn't need maintainance BEFORE 6000 hours of flying is totally marketing figure and it is unbelievable that an aircraft doesn't need maintainance for its entire life and should be avoided
Good!My blog is about China's latest military developments,military photos,strategic reviews,Hope that more exchanges
rafale and gripen NG also seeking export customer to launch M88-3 engine developemnt and gripen NG development
M-88-3 does exists no more atleast currently and france went ahead with M-88-2 ECO with 90+ kN in afterburning mode M-88 ECO has the same weight as M-88-2, but has a longer engine part life, lower cost of ownership, lower operating costs and is of course higher performance.
And Gripen NG will use F-414 with backup option of EJ-200
If I am not wrong than you are referring to this statement
"The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won't need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that."
Well my fiend these statements don’t say that there will be no routine maintance and spare part support is required to keep flying the Super Hornet. Operational level consists of routine maintenance and much more demanding is depot-level maintenance.
but again all these aircraft cost almost $ 16 -40 million more than russian aircraft
but think again russian rd33-3 comes at $2.1 million each and one can buy 4 engines for 9 million US dollars and total life of 4 engines would be around 15000 hours
now india bought 40 f404 engines for LCA at price of $ 6 million each and considering higher thrust of f414,m88 eco,ej2000 would cost almost $ 8 million a piece
and total life of f414,m88,ej2000 would be between 6000 to 8000 hours compared to 15000 hours life of 4 rd33 engines
i heard that russia sold 12 su30m2 for price of $ 500 million ,which cost just $ 41 million each even f16 blk52 would cost more than this let alone f18,rafale and typhoon
operating cost of russian fighters is bit more than western fighters but this isn't bad if russian jets cost several million dollars less than western aircraft
moreover mid life upgrade of russian jets is cheaper
mirage2000 upgrade per aircraft $ 40 million US
france asking even more than this
mig29 upgrade per aircraft $ 16 million US which includes new rd33-3 engines and no new engines on m2000
so if m2000 is cheaper to operate becoz of single engined aircraft than mig29 but it is way costlier than intial procurement price and than in mid life upgrade
@ Anon at 5:05 AM
While 'economics' have an important role to play in funding any military, but rather than just looking at initial cost of procurement, TWO very important criteria for any military aircraft (or equipment) are LCC (Life Cycle Cost) and MA (Mission Availability)with MA being the overriding criterion.
Traditionally, western equipment has proven better on both these counts.
What is the point in having a squadron of more than 20 aircraft, when in times of need, it takes a month of planning to launch eight aircraft for 'over the target' requirement
but rather than just looking at initial cost of procurement, TWO very important criteria for any military aircraft (or equipment) are LCC (Life Cycle Cost) and MA (Mission Availability)with MA being the overriding criterion.
-------------------------------------------
russian aircraft are cheaper but bit more costlier than western aircraft in LIFE CYCLE COST,
so the higher life cycle cost of russian aircraft is covered by
lower intial procurement cost+lower midlife upgrade cost
so there is $ 24 million US difference in mirage2000 upgrade and mig29 upgrade,and mig29 were procured at much mower price than mirage2000
so this difference of 24 miilion covers higher life cycle cost of mig29
even now mig35 cost $ 40 million and f18 cost
$ 56 million or rafale cost $ 70 million
and there is total difference is of $ 16 and $ 30 million
and also the mid life upgrade will also make difference hence the lower intial procurement cost+lower mid life upgrade cost covers higher operating life cycle cost
anyway aussies bought f18e for 80 million US dollars and paid extra for taining and support
and mig35 still cost 40 million US dollars
so there is differnece of $ 40 million
and this $ 40 million will cover up for higher life cycle cost
anD FOR MISSIION AVAILABILITY
----------------------------------------
in recent report INDIAN air chief clarified about mig21 that indian airfroce flies them 20 days a month and 2 sorties per day ,so if considering minimum time for those two sorties last 45 minutes each or 1.5 hours for two sorties
so in 20 days(or in a month ) a mig21 is flown almost 30 hours and for full year a mig21 is flown almost 360 hours
or if considering 1/2 hour minimum time for which a sortie lasts or an hour for two sorties ,so for 20 days(or in a month) it is 20 hours and for 12 months it will be
240 minimum hours for which each mig21 is flown
MOREOVER HE SAID IN 2001-2002 MIG21s FLEW 55000 SORITES when indian pakistan relations were tense
air chief said in last 10 years mig21 flew total over 550000 sorties there have been 93 mig21 accidents and this means there is one crash every 5914 sorties and this is not bad for an aircraft build in late 50s and the price at which mig21 were acquired
if mig21 can provide this GOOD MISSION availability or 350 hours a year then current russian fighter are much better than mig21
mig35 will easily clock 400 hours a year
this is equally good to western aircraft and in mission availability
Post a Comment