Super Hornet Engages Moving Targets with JDAM

[Fly Navy]

.

Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet Engages Moving Targets with JDAM

ST. LOUIS, July 25, 2005 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] successfully demonstrated the capability of a single F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to engage moving land targets during a test at Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif.

"This is just another step in our efforts to develop an all-weather multiple moving target engagement capability for the Super Hornet," said Chris Chadwick, Boeing vice president for F/A-18 programs. "We plan to expand on this effort, to meet the goals of precision multiple moving target engagement envisioned in Sea Power 21."

Real-time targeting updates were accomplished using the aircraft's existing Digital Communications System (DCS) to communicate over a standard military link to a 2,000-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) equipped with a UHF weapon data link module. The weapon data link module included a miniature radio transceiver that transmitted link status back to the aircraft during weapon free-fall.

In the guided release demonstration, the position of the moving target, a radio-controlled panel-side truck, was continuously tracked by the Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) sensor onboard the Super Hornet. Periodic target updates were provided to the JDAM throughout the weapon's flight to the target. As a result, the F/A-18 weapon system successfully guided the inert bomb to within two meters of the moving target - close enough to destroy most moving targets. During a previous flight, two-way UHF link connectivity was verified to 40 miles between a ground-mounted JDAM and aircraft in flight. The UHF weapon data link exceeded expectations in maintaining communications between the F/A-18 aircraft and the JDAM during weapon deployment.

Further demonstrations of the Super Hornet's future precision engagement capabilities are planned for later this year and 2006.

 

[SteveG75]

Wow, 13 years ago, I was able to hit moving targets with a 500 lb dumb bomb from an A-6E using the AMTI (Airborne Moving Target Indicator) mode of the radar with a FLIR handoff. Nice to see that we have got back to where we were. We just traded all weather aircraft for all weather ordnance.

Imagine the A-6 if it was flying today. 400 gal centerline, 18.7 gas for 2+00 cycle time, loadout of 24 500lb JDAM's. Oh well. Such is life.

 

[Fly Navy]

I'd be all over the A-6 like a fat kid on a twinkie.

 

[petescheu]

oh come on now steve, that would make too much sense... why would the Navy do that. sure wouldn't mind having the extra 8 grand o gas in the hornet...

 

[Ryoukai]

Can sombody refresh my memory as to why the A-6 was canned? After the Tomcat, it's about the most badass plane to fly off a carrier, in my opinion at least.

 

[SteveG75]

So..., not to be the d!ck here, but how was the A-6 for defending itself in the A/A arena? Seriosly, not trying to be the a-hole, but I'd say the SH is doing pretty well as far as improving on the capabilities of the A-6. And like Fly said, I would've been like the fat kid, too.

That is what the TomCat's were for. MigSWEEP, MiGCAP, and escort.

Besides when was the last time we got an A/A kill on an A/G mission? Oh, and the A-6 has always been Sidewinder capable and the A-6F was going to have two extra station for AMRAAM plus the F-15E radar.

 

[SteveG75]

Good article (post?) here for a comparison between the two (future possible additions to EITHER airframe notwithstanding):

http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html

The author states he is a former A-6 pilot, good info. Though somewhat dated, its about to the level of detail that I'd care to get into.

Good info. I agrre that the F/A-18E/F is a worthy successor. I am not sure that would consider the source of that article to be unbiased.

Bill DuBois
CAPT, U.S. Navy
Deputy Program Manager
for F/A-18E/F
Naval Air Systems Team

 

[Brett327]

Oh, and the A-6 has always been Sidewinder capable

Who are you kidding? (smiles :icon_mi_1 ) Was that for the one in a million chance at a face shot towards the guy you actually see coming? How the hell were you guys planning on maneuvering for a heart of the envelope shot, Meat?

BTW: ATTENTION ALL AVIATORS - Per my discussions w/ other Prowler dudes up at the Prowler Ball, we're changing the "unofficial" name of the EA-18G to "Shocker" vs. Growler. Think of it like Viper vs. Falcon for the F-16. They had a b!tchin' patch up there to that effect. THAT IS ALL - RESUME AW POSTING ACTIVITIES.

Brett

 

[Slammer2]

Besides when was the last time we got an A/A kill on an A/G mission?

A bit off topic, but I once read how Gen. Chuck Horner (USAF) kept the Navy outta the action when it came to A/A and the USAF took all the kills. Don't know if that was Navy-biased though.

Oh well, I guess it was appropriate payback that the guys with the A/A kills came off of the Saratoga. They just lost Spicher the night before. (I think it was the night before).

 

[A4sForever]

A-6 and AIM-9's ?????

Actually, we strapped AIM-9's on our A-6's when we made the first foray into the Sea of Japan by a U.S. aircraft carrier since the Korean War. We came in between Hokkaido and Honshu, stayed way too long, and exited via the Tsushima Strait. The Russians were not pleased.

The Russians, figuring the SOJ was their own personal, private lake went ballistic. We were too close to Vladivostok to suit them as we squeezed by Hakodate in the north and then proceeded to run cyclic ops just over the horizon from Vlad. Remember, one of my SIOP "targets" was "a Russian Pacific Fleet Naval Base" ..... or so some said. The North Koreans were hot about it as well .... Lots of jamming by the bad guys and false airborne vectors --- the supposition was they wanted to create a border fly-over "incident". Used our KY's and code wheels continuously ...

"They" ran aircraft at us 24 hours a day for 5 days --- and almost ran us out of fighters. Actually, I guess they did. So on the second day, we loaded the A-6's and A-7's with 'Winders and away we went. Many pictures taken of us in our A-6's and A-7's sporting Sidewinders while snuggled up against a Badger or Bear .... one of these days I have to get my old cruise slides onto the computer.

Pix above: Different time; different place .... but you get the idea .........It worked so well, we used A-6's with 'Winders to supplement the 2 F-4 squadrons for the rest of the cruise when in Bear Country. You got to innovate and adapt ..... there's a lesson there.

It was also when my B/N (a Baptist preacher's kid from Texas) performed full-frontal nudity for a Russian Badger crew ... shocking, yes, but he believed the pressed ham was so common and pedestrian. No pictures of that, but I know the Russians have some ....

 

[The Chief]

A-6 and AIM-9's ????? ... Used our KY's and code wheels continuously ...[/b][/b]

Ahh SIOP. What a plan. Have not heard that term since, oh ... long ago.

Nice photo of the TU 16 Badger, Bravo model, I am guessing.

Yep, they also used their code wheels, always. They changed codes frequently, would take us about, 30 minutes to recover them. Worst case, when they would make major change, we would send an A-3 down their coastline, presto, new tracking grid breakout.

Ahh the memories.

 

[A4sForever]

A4s, I've heard stories about the NK's putting up false TACAN signals to try and get guys to return to the "boat" over NK territory. Ever experience that?

Affirmative ..... and guys on frequency speaking English as good as any Naval Aviator and all the correct terminology ....

 

[Fly Navy]

How often did people fall for that? Wouldn't you have to be pretty out to lunch on your SA to fly in the opposite direction of where your boat SHOULD be (you know... at sea)?

 

[beau]

I believe the last A/A kills by the USN were during the Gulf War I on a self-secort strike by a section of Hornets.

From the web:


Good article (post?) here for a comparison between the two (future possible additions to EITHER airframe notwithstanding):

http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html

The author states he is a former A-6 pilot, good info. Though somewhat dated, its about to the level of detail that I'd care to get into.

LT. Mongillo(now CDR if I recall) talked at a Saftey standdown in Corpus last year. He said that Tomcats were supposed knock down any fighters in a fighter sweep ahead of the strike. They went ahead but did not engage any enemy fighters......after the sweep the Hornets were comming in to drop the bombs when they heard an AWACS controller say they had bogies off their nose (later turned to bandits..meaning they could shoot)....the hud tape showed the kills and it was something like 45 seconds from the first bogie call to the shoot down.....what happened to the tomcats sweeping the trash out for the bombers?

 

[A4sForever]

How often did people fall for that? Wouldn't you have to be pretty out to lunch on your SA to fly in the opposite direction of where your boat SHOULD be (you know... at sea)?

Never. But remember --- anything CAN happen. No one fell for it during our Sea of Japan excursion --- but it sounded "good" and could have caused bigger problems than it did. And the confusion factor was compounded by the fact that it was black nights ... bad viz ... and we were getting "steer" vectors from the ship --- on the same frequency --- similar sounding voice --- supposedly "secure" frequencies --- heading outbound for NK and The Other Worker's Paradise to intercept inbound bogies --- and then reversals to the ship when the bogies turned around. Then back again ... and again ... got to pay attention.

What they wanted to do was overfly the carrier without an intercept --- and of course the aforementioned "border incident" --- Cold War gamesmanship at its finest. Lots of "stuff" going down for a couple of nights .....