Hornet Country

Brought to you by the publisher of Australian Aviation, written by Australia’s leading military aviation writers and featuring exclusive interviews with leading figures, unique photography and specially commissioned artwork, Hornet Country tells the story of the development and evolution of the Hornet fighter family, and its service with the Royal Australian Air Force. developing a classic focused on cambering the leading edge of the LEX to suppress the vortex at low angles of attack (AoA), thus minimising drag.

pRoJeCT 530 Northrop gave the conceptual program a higher priority in 1967 by commissioning more detailed design proposals. An internal concept, Project 530, emerged in late 1967.

The design still resembled an F-5 in plan with its long, slender fuselage and short, stubby trapezoidal wings.

But the wings were now set midfuselage and the intakes had moved below the wing’s leading edge.

The P530 was further refined with concept P530-1 adding twin vertical stabilisers and a longer swept LEX.

Concept P530-2 saw the vertical stabilisers moved forward between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabiliser, with the LEX lengthened further, taking on a curved, more contoured look. Designers added a larger LEX to the P530-2 to enhance lift and stabilise the airflow over the wing at high AoA.

When used in concert with the aircraft’s twin vertical tails, the aerodynamic benefits of the LEX provided exceptional rudder authority and control at high AoA and directed a healthy supply of ‘clean’ air to the engine intakes.

The handling characteristics at high AoA were described as excellent, with the YF-17 demonstrator later proving it could achieve angles of attack of up to 34 degrees in level flight and 63 degrees in a zoom climb while remaining controllable at indicated airspeeds as low as 20kt.

Design P530-3, internally dubbed ‘Cobra’, evolved further away from the F-5 and closer to the Hornet with a refined fuselage design and inlets set well back under the LEXs. The Cobra name was inspired by the reared, flattened head or hooded look of the forward fuselage when viewed in plan thanks to the large leading edge root extensions.

More importantly the LEX gave the Cobra improved airflow along the fuselage and better handling at high AoA.

Although larger than the F-5, the Cobra could still trace its visual lineage to the earlier aircraft via several design similarities. Details such as the modestly swept wedgestyle trapezoidal wing, long nose, close-mounted twin engines, nosemounted gun, wingtip missile rail, and the use of LEXs to improve the aerodynamics, were all familiar. But the twin tails, mid-mounted wing and location of the engine intakes now differentiated the designs greatly.

Despite a lukewarm reception for a full-scale mockup of the P530 at its unveiling at 1971’s Paris Airshow, it continued to be developed into 1973, Northrop In the mid to late 1960s, Northrop began working on a successor to its popular F-5 family of lightweight fighters. Although the F-5 was not taken on in great numbers by the US it was very popular with allied countries that wanted a cheap, fast, lightweight and easy to maintain aircraft to fulfil their air defence needs. And for two decades, it was the most important part of the Northrop product line.

n-300 In 1966 a Northrop team headed by one of the original designers of the F-5, Lee Begin Jr, began working on a new high-performance, lightweight air superiority fighter. Dubbed the N-300, it was essentially a stretched F-5 with two engines and two small highly swept leading edge wing root extensions (LERX – colloquially shortened to LEX).

Northrop had been experimenting with LEX designs since the early 1960s after engineers had noticed an improvement in the maximum lift of the F-5 even with its relatively small triangular flap actuator fairing on its wing root leading edge.

Northrop and NASA initiated a cooperative effort to study the effects of inboard vortex flows and how strong beneficial vortex flow effects were generated by large, highly swept wing extensions located forward of the wingfuselage junction. More studies The genesis of a classic McDonnell Douglas fighter, from the YF-17 to VFAX.

Building a classic

“The infusion of new technology would mean that your industry jumps two generations of aircraft in production capacity terms, putting it right in the forefront of fighter technology. And the transfer of software technology will have tremendous hidden value in the spin-off to other industries. ” – Jim Caldwell, McDonnell Douglas international marketing manager, 1979. key objectives of the Next Tactical Fighter (NTF) program was to introduce to Australian industry new technologies and capabilities to manufacture and support the new aircraft.

Although it was accepted this would come at a premium, it was thought the longer-term benefits to industry and RAAF would at least offset and hopefully far outweigh the initial costs.

A Defence Aircraft Industry Steering Group (DAISG) was established in 1977 to review up to six options for industrial involvement and its report formed the basis of the NTF industry program. Both the F-16 and F/A-18 bids produced favourable production and Australian Industry Program (AIP) terms so these were not a significant factor in the final decision to go with the Hornet.

As both bidders were of US origin, the Australian Government was able to negotiate favourable terms on the release of technologies and workshare, regardless of which aircraft was chosen. As a close US ally, Australia had a choice of buying an aircraft outright from the manufacturer, or through the Pentagon – USAF for F-16 or USN for F-18 – via Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangements.

But Australia could not obtain simultaneous comparative pricing information from both the maker and the US Government under the FMS contractual arrangements.

The evaluation team eventually recommended buying the new fighter through FMS for the following reasons: » The F-16 Multinational Air Combat Fighter (ie F-16A) program for Norway, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands had demonstrated FMS arrangements for programs involving coproduction overseas were viable.

» The F-18’s and F-16’s parent services, the USN and USAF respectively, already had contracts with the manufacturers – and both types were scheduled to remain in production for at least 10 years.

» By using FMS, the RAAF could get production slots from the parent service, thus utilising its purchasing power.

» It was thought Australia would have difficulty negotiating and managing such a large and complex program independently.

The FMS decision meant all contracts with Australian industry for the manufacturing program were subject to US Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs), such as asset controls, to be exercised over tooling and test equipment, sometimes out of proportion to the value of the asset. This would later prove to be difficult for many local suppliers as they tried to deal with not only all the terms and conditions implied by the FARs but also the resources needed to manage them.

A Memorandum of Agreement was signed with the US Government in September 1980 for the procurement and co-production of either the F-18 or F-16. Following the F/A-18’s selection, eight letters of offer and acceptance were signed with the US Navy, and deeds of agreement were signed with McDonnell Douglas and General Electric for the AIP program.

The initial project cost estimates for the RAAF F/A-18 program as calculated in August 1981 was A$2. 43 billion. This estimate covered the cost of 75 aircraft, spare parts, support, simulators, training and test equipment and ground support equipment. Included also was the cost of the AIP, the acquisition of two operational flight trainers, a redevelopment of RAAF Bases Williamtown and Darwin – later Tindal – and a contingency amount. Weapons and ammunition were to be funded separately.

A 1992 F/A-18 industry program review gave the final cost of the project at A$4. 67 billion, but allowing for massive changes in the exchange rate and inflation, the actual cost came in A$186 million under this.

The 1978 DAISG guidance paper outlined two major objectives of the AIP: To provide in industry the capability to undertake required engineering, maintenance and spares provision support for the aircraft, its systems, equipment and support facilities during its service life.

To establish, maintain or enhance the defence industry capabilities in general and provide a balanced, stable, ongoing workload using the opportunities presented by the F/A‑18 project.

Additionally, the AIP was expected to provide the following additional benefits: The extra work program and resulting offset orders expected to flow from the new industry capabilities, it was claimed, would generate orders worth about $550 million in 1981 prices.

The new skills introduced into the Australian aerospace industry

GROWLER electronic attack

The versatile Super Hornet is adapted for advanced electronic attack. The EA-18G Growler is an advanced airborne electronic attack (AEA) development of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, selected to replace the US Navy’s ageing EA-6B Prowler and cleared for service entry in late 2009.

The aircraft is designed around the same ALQ-218 ICAP III AEA electronics suite used by the four-seat EA-6B, albeit with more advanced and automated operator systems suitable for two-crew operation.

The Growler is designed to perform the following roles: Suppression of Enemy Air Defences: The EA-18G will counter enemy air defences using both reactive and pre-emptive jamming techniques.

Stand-off and Escort Jamming: The EA-18G will be highly effective in the traditional stand-off jamming mission, but with the speed and agility of a Super Hornet, it will also be effective in the escort role.

Non-Traditional Electronic Attack: Dramatically enhanced situational awareness and uninterrupted communications will enable the EA-18G to achieve a higher degree of integration with ground operations than has been previously achievable.

Self-protect and Time-Critical Strike Support: With its Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, digital datalinks and air-to-air missiles, the EA-18G will have selfprotection capability and will also be effective for target identification and prosecution.

The EA-18G differs physically from the F/A-18F in several key areas. It’s ‘plumbed’ differently in production with additional wiring and databuses for data transmission from wing stations and various fuselage antennae points.

The Super Hornet’s nosemounted gun is gone, it carries two ALQ-218 tactical jamming receivers (TJR) pods on the wingtips and from one to five ALQ-99 jammers on centreline and wing stations.

And even if a Growler is carrying five of the 450kg (990lb) jammer pods, it still has two wing and two shoulder stations for auxiliary fuel, an ATFLIR electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) pod and weapons.

Integration of the AEA system into the F/A-18F includes:»»Modified EA-6B ICAP III ALQ-218 receiver system.

»»Advanced crew station.

»»Legacy ALQ-99 jamming pods.

»»Communication countermeasures ALQ-227 system.

»»Expanded digital Link 16 communications network.

»»Electronic attack unit.

»» Interference cancellation system (ICANS) for communications while jamming.

»»Satellite receive capability via the multi-mission advanced tactical terminal.

Originally dubbed F/A-18C2W then F/A-18G, the EA-18G has similar mission radius and timeon- station figures to the EA-6B but transits to and from its station much faster – Mach 0. 95 instead of Mach 0. 85 – and can escort fast strike packages or self-escort itself all the way to a target then fight its way out of trouble with its own air-to-air missiles.

The aircraft can take up to five streamlined ALQ-99 pods on stations 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, AGM-88 HARM missiles on stations 2 and 10, and an AIM-120 AMRAAM on either shoulder station, stations 5 and/or 7, up to two total. Flight testing ATFLIR pod on the EA-18G began in 2012.

But the heart of the Growler is the ALQ-218 pod, which has stateof- the-art selective/reactive and pre-emptive jamming capabilities combined with a communications receiver and jamming electronics for electronic suppression and attack against communication threats.

The ALQ-218 provides the initial verification for the correlation between the planned electronic order of battle (EOB) and the actual tactical, ‘local’ EOB. Manufacturer Northrop Grumman says the system ensures the required probability of detection and response times, ensuring crew situational awareness and allowing reactive, surgical jamming.

As a fighter derivative, the Growler can carry not only HARMs but also the SLAM-ER and J-class weapons such as JDAM and JSOW.

It has an EO/IR pod for passive detection of ground and air threats and for targeting laser and GPSguided weapons, and can transmit and receive comms via voice or datalink while jamming.

Perhaps most importantly, it’s also equipped with the APG-79 AESA radar for target detection and identification. The radar also can be used in ground mapping mode to assist with targeting and to take cueing information from the ALQ-218 precision receiver system to enhance precision targeting.

And unlike the aircraft it is replacing, the Growler can shut down selected frequencies or even specific radars or comms, geo-locating these emitters via the ALQ-218s, especially when flying in company with similarly equipped aircraft.

The Growler retains 90 per cent commonality with the F/A-18F, considerably reducing support and training costs. The only exceptions are in the more elaborate wiring loom, the LR-700 receiver and satellite communications boxes that replace the nose-mounted gun and the ALQ-218 receivers that take over from the wingtip missiles on stations 1 and 11.

Its first flight was in August 2006 with delivery of the first two test aircraft to the USN in September and November 2006. The first production model was delivered in September 2007.

GROWLER DEVELOPMENT The EA-18G can trace its origins to the early 1990s, during the fiscal crunch that beset US defence budgets after the end of the Cold War. Following its sterling service in Desert Storm, the US Navy proposed a radical enhancement of the EA-6B known as the EA-6C AVCAP – Advanced Capability.

However, it soon became apparent its best hope for a future jamming platform lay with a missionised version of the aircraft that was to become the cornerstone of US naval aviation, the Super Hornet. The idea had much merit, given the volume in which the aircraft was to be bought.

But it took some convincing to persuade the US Navy’s EW community that a two-crew fast jet could perform the jamming mission as ably as the four-seat EA-6B.

To this end, Boeing did extensive market research among the Prowler, Hornet and Tomcat communities, flying them to St Louis to consult them about optimum cockpit layout, software and configuration requirementsOpposite – Growler development aircraft EA-1 (rear) and EA-2 fly in formation. being

Super into service

Taking the Super Hornet, 82 Wing’s first new aircraft in 35 years, from initial training in the US to delivery to Australia to Full Operational Capability took less than 35 months. The Royal Austalian Air Force’s 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets were built under the second of Boeing’s multiyear procurement contracts (MYP II), which spanned 2005 to 2009 and initially covered production of 210 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs.

The RAAF’s aircraft came from an allocation of 47 added to MYP II in FY09, then acquired from Boeing on Australia’s behalf by the US Navy under a Foreign Military Sales arrangement. Streamlined production meant Boeing was delivering Super Hornets ahead of schedule, allowing the US Navy to offer production slots to the RAAF at relatively short notice.

ROLLOUT A44-201 (BuNo 167597, the 394th Super Hornet built) was formally rolled out at a July 8 2009 ceremony in St Louis attended by Chief of Air Force AIRMSHL Mark Binskin and the two most important figures in the introduction of the Super Hornet into RAAF service – Air Combat Transition Office head and future officer commanding 82WG GPCAPT Steve Roberton and 1SQN commanding officer WGCDR Glen Braz.

Flying the flag for Boeing were 1,500 officials and workers including Boeing Integrated Defense Systems president Jim Albaugh, joined by members of 1SQN then based at NAS Lemoore in California for conversion training and Mayor of St Louis Francis Slay.

After the July rollout, production of Australian Rhinos proceeded apace. The second RAAF F/A-18F, A44-202, followed in August, and then one Super Hornet each month rolled off the line at St Louis until the end of 2009.

By mid-2010 Boeing had assembled all 12 of Australia’s Lot 32 jets, with one completed in January, February and March, two rolled out in April and one in May.

The second tranche of Australian Super Hornets were Lot 33, delivered pre-configured for conversion to the electronic attack mission. Four were completed between September and November, followed by one in January and February, two in March, with another two examples leaving the production line in April and June 2011. The RAAF’s last two F/A-18F+s, A44-223 and -224, were completed in July 2011.

But even before production of Australia’s Super Hornets began in March 2009, 1SQN and parent unit 82WG at RAAF Amberley had commenced an intensive transition program to prepare for the Wing’s first new aircraft in 35 years.

TRAINING YEAR Under the command of WGCDR Braz, 1SQN relinquished its F-111Cs to a combined 6SQN/82WG pool in 2008. Soon after, about 25 RAAF maintenance technicians and eight aircrew arrived at NAS Lemoore near Fresno, central California to begin instruction on the Rhino with the Navy’s west coast Fleet