The U.S. Navy began taking delivery on the first Block III F/A-18 Super Hornets for testing last year, and while the jet may look strikingly similar to its predecessor on the outside, a peek inside the cockpit shows just how much this fighter has changed.
The new Block III Super Hornet promises to be as significant a jump in capability as the earlier transition from the Block I Hornet to Block II Super Hornet in the early 2000s. As a result, the new F/A-18 Super Hornet (called the Super “Duper” Hornet by some) will join the Air Force’s new F-15EX Eagle II in serving as among the world’s most advanced non-stealth fighters in operation today. In all, the U.S. Navy intends to purchase some 78 all-new Block III Super Hornets, while also upgrading its existing fleet of 550 or so jets to match.
Related: THE NAVY’S PLAN TO REPLACE THE SUPER HORNET BY THE 2030S
From Hornet to Super Hornet
Originally designed and built by McDonnell Douglas, the first F/A-18 Hornet took to the skies in 1978 and made its way into service as the U.S. Navy’s go-to carrier fighter in 1984. The Hornet design was intended to serve as a replacement for a variety of carrier aircraft, including the A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom IIs, while complimenting the dogfighting dynamo of the era, the famed F-14 Tomcat. The Hornet’s broad capability set and impressive performance made it a standout platform for both the Navy and Marine Corps, thanks in no small part to its multi-role focus. Indeed, it’s F/A prefix is indicative of this multi-role skillset, with F standing for Fighter and A standing for Attack.
By 1992, the U.S. Navy was ready to double down on the Hornet, but in order to keep up with the changing times, the aircraft needed a significant facelift. In truth, this new Super Hornet was a largely new aircraft that simply carried over the F/A-18 designation, in part, to convince Congress that the program was a cost-effective derivative effort, rather than a pricey clean-sheet design.
The change from Hornet to Super Hornet, which are also known as the Block I and Block II orders of this aircraft, was dramatic. The Block II Super Hornet, sometimes called the Rhino by pilots, is larger than its predecessor and has some standout design cues that you may not notice at first pass, but become hard to ignore once you’re familiar with these two fighters.
Those changes granted the Super Hornet 33% more internal fuel storage and 15,000 more pounds in maximum weight, allowing for a 41% increase in operational range. The changes inside the cockpit were dramatic too. The old physical keyboard was swapped out in favor of a touchscreen display, as well as the addition of an Engine Fuel Display (EFD) and Reference Standby Display (RSD). Those displays and others throughout the cockpit also went to full color, instead of the previous monochrome.
Other avionics tucked inside the fuselage were upgraded, including onboard radar (the Super Hornet was equipped with a APG-79 radar system that could keep track of more enemy aircraft and spot them from much further distances). In order to support this improved air-to-air capability, additional weapons stations for weapons like the AIM-120 were added, alongside improved radar warning receivers, a ALQ-214 jammer, and more chaff and flares than the Hornet could manage.
The legacy Hornet was still a capable fighter, however, and Marine Hornets remained aboard America’s flattops all the way until February of this year.
The Block III Hornet is flying straight into the 21st century
Last June, the U.S. Navy accepted delivery of its first two Block III Super Hornets for testing; a single-seat E-model and a two-seat F model. Both iterations of the new fighter have undergone significant upgrades and design changes over the Block II version of the jet, broken up into five major design features.
Cockpit
The Super Hornet cockpit has undergone a serious overhaul for Block III, incorporating a single touchscreen design in place of a litany of gauges and readouts.
“The advanced cockpit system (ACS) takes the legacy displays of the Block II and puts them all into one big touchscreen piece of glass that’s almost like an iPad interface for the pilot,” Jennifer Tebo, Boeing director of development for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs, explained.
The intent behind the streamlining of these screens isn’t to reduce the data available to pilots, but rather, to help manage it more effectively. Fighter pilots have to glean information from multiple screens and the world around them and then fuse it all together in their heads to develop a well-rounded concept of the battlespace they’re in. While flying supercomputers like the F-35 makes this process even easier for pilots, the Block III Super Hornet promises to bridge the gap between fourth-generation jets like the Super Hornet and computing powerhouses like the F-35.
“It’s customizable and expandable and you can set it to how you want your displays to show up every time you jump in the cockpit. I’m left-handed so I like my keypad on the left side with fuel and engine information on the right,” an unnamed Navy test pilot told Forbes last year.
Conformal Fuel Tanks
One of the most pressing issues facing the U.S. Navy in the 21st century is the lack of fuel range in its carrier-based fighters. Neither the existing Block II Super Hornet nor the advanced F-35C Joint Strike Fighter have the range they’d need to engage Chinese targets without placing their carriers in direct range of China’s hypersonic anti-ship missiles. As such, a slew of efforts are underway to pull more range out of these aircraft, including the development of the MQ-25 Stingray refueling drone for use on America’s flattops.
Related: MQ-25 STINGRAY: A NEW DRONE THAT COULD BE A GAME CHANGER
But in order to address this problem on the aircraft itself, the Block III Super Hornet includes the addition of conformal fuel tanks that add 3,500 pounds of fuel. These additional tanks are called “conformal” because they hug the fuselage of the fighter, limiting added drag. While this won’t be enough to offset the capability gap created by China’s anti-ship missiles, it is an important step in the right direction.
Earlier this year, Aviation Week reported that “technical, structural, and sustainment” issues had risen the anticipated cost of incorporating these conformal fuel tanks, placing their future in jeopardy. However, with the Navy concerned about the range of its existing fighters, it stands to reason that the service will find a way to work out these issues.
Related: CARRIER WOES: THE NAVY’S FIGHTERS CAN’T REACH CHINA
Networking Capabilities
The Block III Super Hornet is leaning into the future of data with its Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) mission computer and its Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link. The DTP-N is 17 times more powerful than the existing mission computer aboard the Super Hornet, but more importantly, utilizes an open architecture that will allow for software to be changed or updated without having to actually replace any of the aircraft’s hardware.
All of that computer power will support the rest of the force in the area, not unlike the “quarterback in the sky” F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, thanks to that TTNT data link.
According to Tebo, the TTNT “will allow all of the information to come into the jet from the battlespace that we need to be processed for decision making as well as pushing it back out to the rest of the air wing so that we can share common pictures of data and get better situational awareness,”
Advanced as these systems are, they are not on par with the F-35’s onboard systems, nor are they compatible, so the Block III Super Hornet will be forced to communicate with F-35s via the longstanding Link-16 tactical data link system.
Tougher to spot on radar
The F/A-18 was never designed to be a stealth fighter, and despite an improved radar cross-section, the Block III Super Hornet isn’t either. However, making it tougher to manage a weapons-grade lock on the new fighter has been a focus among Boeing designers, and although much of what has been done in this effort has been kept secret, reports indicate a serious improvement in minimizing detectability.
The Block III Super Hornet’s reduced radar cross-section won’t make it a “stealth” fighter, but like other less-than-perfect stealth jets, the intent may not be to completely evade detection, so much as delay engagement. Enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile platforms may be able to spot the Block III Super Hornet, but the goal is to impede securing a weapon’s grade lock to buy the aircraft time to escape or evade.
Related: WHY THE NAVY NEVER PUT THE F-22 ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
4,000 more hours in the sky
The Block II Super Hornets in operation for the U.S. Navy today are each rated for 6,000 flight hours, so it goes without saying that the past two straight decades of combat operations in the Middle East and elsewhere have wrought havoc on maintenance schedules and aircraft availability. In another one of those significant changes that are tough to spot with the naked eye, the Block III Super Hornet is rated for an additional 4,000 hours, bringing the total up to 10,000.
This is still a far cry from the F-15EX’s reported lifespan of 20,000 hours, but offers a significant jump over both existing F/A-18s and the F-35C, which is also rated for 6,000 hours.
This longer lifespan will make the new Block III Super Hornet a most cost-effective means of delivering air power than ever before, while also offering the Navy itself greater latitude in logistical planning.
Bonus Improvement: Infrared Search Track System
Technically not considered a “Block III” improvement, the addition of a centerline tank-mounted infrared search track system (IRST) in the Block III Super Hornet has been called “integral” for the capability of the fighter by Boeing officials.
This passive detection capability is aimed squarely at fifth-generation competitors like Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 or China’s Chengdu J-20. The IRST can be used to scan the horizon for radar-beating fighters, picking up on the infrared heat released by their jet engines without broadcasting a signal through space to tell others you’re on the hunt. This will give the non-stealth Block III Super Hornet a real fighting chance against stealthy jets, potentially spotting them against the sky backdrop from a hundred miles away.
It baffles me to no end that my country Canada is buying F-35s which are single engine fighters when years earlier a government think tank report titled “One Dead Pilot” points out the dangers of single engine fighter aircraft being taken out by bird strikes (see the single engine CF-104 Starfighter loss statistics) and having to cover large territory with not many diversion air field options especially in the arctic regions compared to the US.
To make matters worse why would the Canadian Government not want to go with a proven design and relatively easy conversion for our pilots. There are so many glitches and problems with the F-35 I would not want to touch them. The cost per hour flight time of a Block 3 F/A-18 Super Hornet is way less and in the long run it will save Canadians many millions of dollars in operating costs.
Politics over common sense is not how military equipment procurement should be conducted. You go for proven off the shelf equipment that brings most bang for the buck not for what is a twig in the wind when it is unproven.
The F-35’s inability to fly at supersonic plus speeds without damaging the stealth finish, problems with the oxygen system, navigation systems and displays are enough to say red herring. To add insult to injury it seems our Canadian government is also worried about being environmentally friendly by using a single engine fighter when it should be putting the safety of pilots and airframes first. Even in the United States I find it strangely odd the F-35 is being used by the Navy with only a single engine when twin engine aircraft since the F-4 Phantom have been the norm.
Should Canada see F-35s by the year 2027 with the recent halt of production we will be lucky and if our legacy Hornets are not dust by then will be a miracle.
The current political instabilities in various theatres makes me want to scream to both the Canadian and American goverments to stop obsessing on the F-35 and build more of proven designs: F/A-18 Super Hornets, F-15EX and develop a newer version of the A-10 Warthog. A major conflict could be closer than we think and we need to have a fleet of aircraft at the ready to take on what may be coming.
I completely agree with you. Just as baffling is why the US Marines aren’t buying Super Hornets to replace their legacy Hornets and F-35s to replace their Harriers…it’s all money And politics.
Canada has consistently done things on the cheap. There has never been a question about the motivation and loyalty of the Canadian service members. They are absolutely among the best I ever encountered.
The problem with Canada is their socialist government. Trudeau wanted an alternative to the F35
so he said no. He looked at the abysmally inadequate Rafale, and other lesser planes. If Canada does like our planes, no problem. The alternative is building your own planes, which is not an option due to lack of existing manufacturing capabilities. They could also purchase less capable planes from Europe.
Guess what? The Canadians bought the F35 anyway. Why? It’s cost is significantly less than Rafale and it has capabilities far above any gen 4+ or gen 4 fighter. It was a no brainer.
I believe Trudeau is a poor leader and he has the spine of a jellyfish. I believe he thinks the US is obligated to fill the gaps in his woefully inadequate military. Pay your own way Trudeau, you need us far more than we need you.
Okay, off topic, but in reply to Dutchman.
The F-35 is more of a flying super computer than anything resembling a legacy platform.
If the A-10’s gun didn’t work as advertised, the 25mm cannon on the F-35 would not be there, in favor of a 20mm or even the 27mm Mauser both of which are smaller and lighter while just as effective for air to air combat. In fact, I think the Marines and Navy got it right with the gun pod rather than stuffing it into an already overcrowded airframe. The F-35C will probably be the best dogfighter of the bunch, with reduced wing loading, and without the weight of the 25mm cannon.
The most common threat vehicle in the world, as far as tanks are concerned, is the T-55 and its copies. Followed in the distance by the T-72. Both of which have been destroyed in combat by A-10 30mm cannon fire. Post Dessert Storm, it was found the the HEI rounds were just as effective at knocking out enemy armor as the DU AP rounds, and those rounds haven’t been employed since. The HEI round is better for everything else too.
The A-10 and friendly fire…
If you’re going by total incidents, yes it is factually true that the A-10 has the most. Also some of the ugliest. But you have to consider the number of CAS sorties flown, where the A-10 dwarfs every other platform, and the nature of each incident. It’s not that the A-10 has any particular flaws in its design that make such incidents more likely, it’s that the A-10 has so much more opportunities for such incidents to occur due to the mission it was designed for, and the massive amount of flight time it has put in supporting troops in close contact. If you’re looking at Desert Storm, A-10 vs the British, they had removed their air ID panels, because it was thought they didn’t require them anymore. Unfortunately, the A-10s did not recognize the Warrior IFVs as friendly, thus they were authorized to engage them. The results were obviously tragic. Same goes for the various A-10 vs USMC incidents in both Desert Storm and the Iraq invasion of 2003. In these instances, the investigation placed the majority of the blame on the Forward Air Controller or JTAC as they are now more commonly called. In one instance, in particular, there was a hard-fought battle in progress, and one Marine platoon got ahead of the main line of advance, while the FAC was stuck in the mud with the tanks. So when the A-10s called in that there were armored vehicles around the objective bridges, it was assumed by the FAC that it had to be enemies, because the Marines were all stuck in Ambush Ally. Which turned out to be tragically wrong. A-10 pilots and JTACs that I work with all agree that the 30mm cannon is the weapon of choice when you have troops in contact because each HEI round has the explosive power of an M-69 hand grenade, and the strafing runs can be conducted much closer to friendly positions than any other ordnance available from a fighter aircraft.
The other advantage of the A-10 is time on station. The A-10 can hang around longer than anything other than a UAV or an AC-130. Yes, F-16/18/15s can go get more gas and come back, but they have to leave the area to do so. The A-10 can too, by the way, but it is much longer between trips.
The A-10 also flys lower than other fixed-wing platforms, and often intimidates the enemy before there is a fight, to begin with, according to enemy reporting.
Is there a future for the A-10? Yes, there is, and there are roles the A-10 is uniquely suited for. Maritime interdiction of Chinese “coast guard” vessels (armed fishing trawlers) for example, or the Iranian “boat swarm” tactics can be areas for A-10s to shine. Destruction of enemy air defense assets is another role that the A-10 could serve very well, once the F-35 has suppressed them.
Pierre Sprey is an interesting BS artist, to be sure.
LazerPig is entertaining, to say the least.
I wish our RAAF would buy another 48 or so ‘F’s plus another 12 ‘G’s to quickly beef up our strike & EA capabilities in our part of the world. With what is happening at the moment..we need to urgently. These are good planes to have.
The Block I Super Hornet was not the F/A-18A-D. Block I F/A-18E/F were equipped with legacy avionics, particularly the C/D’s APG-73 pulse-doppler radar. The Block Ii birds feature structural modifications to carry the APG-79 AESA radar, plus a cockpit update. The APG-73 with its mechanically-aimed planar array required significantly different installation to the APG-79’s fixed AESA.
I thought the Navy cut the contract to 24 new builds thru FY21 so that the Pentagon can shift the defense budget towards R&D for the new fighter jet.
Shush
This is my favorite plane. Followed by the P-47 thunderbolt (WWII).
The P47 is the greatest propeller fighter ever.
“This is still a far cry from the F-15EX’s reported lifespan of 20,000 hours…”
But you’re not taking into consideration that the EX will not be taking off and landing on a football field-sized runway. My 2¢…
That’s what came to mind immediately when reading the article. All else being equal, a carrier-based fighter simply *can’t* last for as many fight hours as a land-based fighter, because carrier takeoffs and landings put such immense strain on an airframe.
Liked it.
Amazing. Truly evolutionary, you could almost claim revolutionary with the reduced radar cross signature, single pane of glass cockpit instruments (configurable), extended range, and tougher frame coupled with longevity!
I am still disappointed in how LM was basically rewarded financially to “fail to success” with the F-35 – BUT, and I stress the qualifying “but” – the “trickle down” or lateral movement of the F-35 program and technology into our 4th gen +++ (my extra plus!) has paid off in dividends it is softening that sting. I think the war fighter, and the tax payer both are starting to see dividends from the F-35 program pay off in spades.
The F-15EX, and now the F/A-18 Block III are in a class all their own, and IMHO way ahead of any 4th gen threat out there, and possibly a real problem for newer 5th gen.
Great article
About the F-35, Mason…
Does the name Pierre Michel Sprey ring any bells?
The Air Force has not admitted to have made a mistake with the F-35 program. They simply said they wanted a new light fighter like the F-16. That does not mean by any means that the F-35 is a failure.
Pierre Sprey was hired by the RussiaToday media channel to give his opinion on the F-35, and considering he wasn’t involved with its development like he was with the A-10, (actually, he was not involved literally at all apart from a brief moment where he stormed into the conference room and demanded that the A-10 be scrapped and replaced with the Blitzfighter after which he was laughed at by the people in the conference room and escorted out,) he could only speak negatively about it. After a bunch of advertising by RussiaToday, this was picked up by Western media outlets scouring for something to hit big with, without verifying it because why would you verify something when you are guaranteed to hit big and verifying could only make it less impressive for the reading audience. The other Western media outlets then picked up on that, etc etc. Since your profile icon is that of an A-10, I take that you know Pierre Sprey and agree with his ideology. That is “opinionable” so that’s ok, but please beware of Sprey’s tricks, and the stupidity of modern day media. This is known as the Woozle effect combined with publication bias. And many have fallen for it.
For example, take the legendary A-10. Results have been twisted, (for example by using a generation of tanks older than the generation it was supposed to fight for target testing which would mean that 6 out of 10 tanks strafed were considerably damaged instead of the 1 out of 10 that it was calculated to damage considerably, and describing cannon accuracy as any round landing within a 12 meter radius of the intended target being counted as accurate, a large mistake,) and since big gun go brrrrrrrrr and everyone likes that the A-10 has been massively overestimated over the past few decades. These two “things” plus that the first few decades it lacked an FOF system and proper communication tools, has caused the A-10 to rack up more friendly fire casualties than all friendly fire casualties of all aircraft ever flown by the U.S. armed forces combined. It’s fair to say that even the oh so notorious F-111 Aardvark did a much better job than the A-10 at CAS.
To learn more about mistakes made in military analysis and reporting, I’d like to refer you to a weirdly named but reputable fellow on youtube named “LazerPig”. Watch the following videos and I promise you’ll feel enlightened:
– Gonzola Lira roundtable;
– A-10 part 1;
– A-10 part 2;
– F-35.
I wish you great pleasure browsing the internet. Please stay vigilant.
The Dutchman