F/A-18E with F-100/110

[Hamez_boi]

simply put, the F/A-18E was even more of a noncompetitive fighter strike aircraft than the F/A-18C was despite it being a further development, i wanted to speculate if a better engine could be fitted to remedy it having atrocious acceleration.
for those interested in specifics here's some data:

 

[Sferrin]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ultra-hornet.14834/#post-148592

 

[Hamez_boi]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ultra-hornet.14834/#post-148592

interesting but how far off were they from fitting larger engines to the real E?

 

[Scott Kenny]

interesting but how far off were they from fitting larger engines to the real E?

Significantly.

F414 is 31" at the inlet, F100 is 35"
F414 is 35" overall, F100 is 46.5"
F414 is 154" long, F100 is 191"

So F100 was almost 12" bigger in diameter and 37" longer than F414. (Edit) And also 600lbs heavier, but so what that's trivial compared to the physical dimensions.

 

[Sferrin]

interesting but how far off were they from fitting larger engines to the real E?

I don't think it was ever even a consideration. The F414 was the larger engine over the F404. (Yes, I know they're roughly the same size, but it was the upgrade.)

 

[MadRat]

I think if you were going this route of F1x0 then F-15S needs to share commonality. Ultra Hornet would focus on range (via higher fuel fraction) whereas F-15S would focus on kinematics and energy performance.

Edit: ultra hornet not ultra eagle

 

[GTX]

See P-610 in this thread for some idea of what such a development might look like: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-p-530-p-600-p-610-yf-17-design-evolution.448/

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Are those figures about the F/A-18E performance compared to the F/A-18C accurate? I believe some early Super Hornet prototypes were flown with F404 engines installed because the F414 wasn't ready and the performance characteristics were downright awful as one might expect. Yet I thought the F414 gave it performance that was generally very comparable to the A-D models.

 

[Hamez_boi]

Are those figures about the F/A-18E performance compared to the F/A-18C accurate? I believe some early Super Hornet prototypes were flown with F404 engines installed because the F414 wasn't ready and the performance characteristics were downright awful as one might expect.

nope apparently part of the manual so the lethargy is real

 

[ST21]

I believe some early Super Hornet prototypes were flown with F404 engines installed because the F414 wasn't ready and the performance characteristics were downright awful as one might expect.

Never happened.

You might be thinking of the Rafale A demonstrator which flew with F404s since the M88s were not yet available.

 

[insidersource]

The F414 engine also had worse fuel consumption compared to the F404 due to the bypass ratio going from 0.34:1 to 0:25:1. This was to get increased thrust out of an engine that could fit in the same engine bay.

In hindsight the Super Hornet probably wouldn't have been purchased. The funds could have gone towards A/F-X and Classic Hornets could have been purchased as a cheap interim solution. The Classic Hornet could have received an AESA radar and it would have performed nicely.

The superior acceleration figures of the Classic Hornet in the first post was most likely using the 17,700lb thrust level. The F404 eventually went up to 19,000lb which would have allowed the Classic Hornet to approach F-16 acceleration levels.

I think the bring back capability was the biggest flaw of the Classic Hornet but during Kosovo they had a waiver which could have become permanent.

An easy solution to the Hornets lack of range would have been to make a tanker version of the E-2 Hawkeye frame. The E-2 was in production. Without the radar and systems it could have carried 12 ton of fuel and being a turboprop it would have very high endurance/loiter.

 

[DWG]

In hindsight the Super Hornet probably wouldn't have been purchased. The funds could have gone towards A/F-X and Classic Hornets could have been purchased as a cheap interim solution. The Classic Hornet could have received an AESA radar and it would have performed nicely.

The 1993 Bottom-Up Review decided the Super Hornet was the low-risk, and cheaper, approach in comparison to the A/F-X. That decision is still not wrong.

An easy solution to the Hornets lack of range would have been to make a tanker version of the E-2 Hawkeye frame. The E-2 was in production. Without the radar and systems it could have carried 12 ton of fuel and being a turboprop it would have very high endurance/loiter.

If you want a carrier-capable tanker in that timeframe, the KA-6H would be in the ballpark considering it was a relatively simple conversion of the flight-tested A-6F Intruder II, it was F404 powered, and the Intruder line had only been shuttered in 1992. The S-3s were also seeing heavy use as buddy-tankers at that time and a KS-3A tanker version had been flown in the early '80s with a load of 16,600l. A tanker version of the US-3As would presumably also have been possible

 

[insidersource]

The 1993 Bottom-Up Review decided the Super Hornet was the low-risk, and cheaper, approach in comparison to the A/F-X. That decision is still not wrong.

The Super Hornet had not flown yet and that review was based on optimistic performance numbers of the Super Hornet. If the real Super Hornet figures were provided during that review I highly doubt it would not have been selected.

However also in hindsight the Super Hornet would not have received canted pylons and the performance numbers wouldn't have been as bad.

If you want a carrier-capable tanker in that timeframe, the KA-6H would be in the ballpark considering it was a relatively simple conversion of the flight-tested A-6F Intruder II, it was F404 powered, and the Intruder line had only been shuttered in 1992. The S-3s were also seeing heavy use as buddy-tankers at that time and a KS-3A tanker version had been flown in the early '80s with a load of 16,600l. A tanker version of the US-3As would presumably also have been possible

Yes lots of options with the A-6 and S-3 tankers. they would both have similar fuel capacity to an E-2 based tanker.

I would still select the E-2 frame for a tanker due to a much longer loiter time when used as a recovery tanker. The E-2 could easily loitor above the carrier for 50% greater durstion than any S-3 or A-6 due to the straight wing prop design. The low fuel consumption during loiter is a huge advantage. It could stay on station for multiple waves of fighters and any fighter returning from a mission that is low on fuel can get a ton of gas.

The E-2 frame in 1993 was projected to be in service for many decades to come so for commonality and maintenance reasons it makes sense to base the tanker off the E-2.

 

[Scott Kenny]

However also in hindsight the Super Hornet would not have received canted pylons and the performance numbers wouldn't have been as bad.

No, those canted pylons were a result of a bad computer model.

You'd need to have someone at McBoing run the Legacy Bug data through that same computer model before final design review of the Super Bug and see that it also showed stores strikes that had NEVER happened in ~20 years of combat operations.

 

[DWG]

The Super Hornet had not flown yet and that review was based on optimistic performance numbers of the Super Hornet. If the real Super Hornet figures were provided during that review I highly doubt it would not have been selected.

Surprisingly reviews are done on the numbers and needs that exist at the time. And the really significant figure going into the BUR wasn't any performance number, it was 'How much is this thing going to cost?'

The E-2 could easily loitor above the carrier for 50% greater durstion than any S-3 or A-6

As a nice big here I am? If you need a tanker above the carrier, you need it there for the minimum time possible, not maximum.

 

[MadRat]

I noticed my last message had a typo. A hybrid Eagle for both programs that featured F-15s that pretty much happened anyhow, and F1x0-powered Super Hornets. Base it off a modified Eagle with canted rudders. Boeing consolidates the program to some degree while ensuring USAF and USN get their needs met.

But lets not forget technology that appeared later. The F-15S Silent Eagle, with its fastpack-derived conformals modified for internal weapons, and that stealthy Ultra Hornet, with the centerline stealth weapons pylon, always seemed sensible to me.The stealthy pylons except located underwing made more sense than on centerline positions. The USN could keep their giant LERX by incorporating fixed, diamond-shaped inlets. They would want to keep fastpack style mounts to focus on maximum fuel for strike missions. This leaves weapons pods on the wings available. Take off with a light fuel load, get fuel while airborne, and then fly your mission. The air defense mission on internal fuel and no conformals for maximum performance over your fleet. The Standard-derived AAM makes more sense launched from an F-15 derived Ultra Hornet, too. It takes political leadership to get a plan like this to the fruitation phase.

 

[insidersource]

In terms of the Super Hornet using the F110 there was actually a more suitable engine under development. Two of the A/F-X cleansheet designs used an afterburning F412 engine. This is an engine approximately half way between the F414 and F110 in terms of size and performance. The F412 non-afterburning engine was developed for the A-12 subsonic attack aircraft. This was effectively an F404 engine with a 25% larger fan and second low pressure turbine like the F110 to drive that fan. It had a much higher bypass ratio estimated to be between 0.8 to 1:1.

This higher bypass ratio afterburnering F412 could have been fitted to the Super Hornet design if the engine bays were slightly widened in a similar fashion to how the F-4 phantom bays were widened to fit Rolls Royce Spey engines. The higher bypass ratio engines would have massively improved fuel efficiency and would have perfectly matched the slow design. The weight increase from the wider engines would have been more than offset by the lower fuel consumption.

The F414 is ~2,400lb
The F110 is ~3,800lb

I would expect the afterburning F412 to weigh 2,800-3,000lb.

As a nice big here I am? If you need a tanker above the carrier, you need it there for the minimum time possible, not maximum.

The E-2 Hawkeye is already flying above the CBG for as long as possible. It is pumping out radar signals saying here I am. Having a tanker version would make no difference.

The MQ-25 will be implementing this high endurance tanker mission for the first time. The Navy has run the numbers compared to the low endurance Super Hornet buddy tanking. High endurance could have been first introduced using a Hawkeye based tanker. We are talking 12+ hours endurance here.

With carrier fighters that first 50nm of the mission that includes the afterburner take-off and climb to high altitude consumes a similar amount of fuel as 150-200nm of high altitude cruise. So by having a tanker only 50nm away from the carrier will be boosting the range of the fighters by over 200nm. In terms of mission planning if there is a tanker in the fighters can strike deeper knowing that if they run low on gas they can hit the tanker before landing. Most people would think having a tanker only 50nm away from the carrier would only increase the fighter combat radius by 50nm. It would increase the combat radius by 150-200nm.

Having the high endurance tanker allows it to stay on station for a long time. Most returning fighters might not need fuel it just needs to be there for emergencies. A low endurance tanker will have to keep going back to the carrier every few hours and just use up aircraft cycles and take up landing and take-off slots reducing the number of strike sorties.

Base it off a modified Eagle with canted rudders. Boeing consolidates the program to some degree while ensuring USAF and USN get their needs met.

The original F-15A weighing in at just under 13 ton empty with that relatively large 56m2 wing had potential for being carrier capable. The landing speed could have been made acceptable with just double slotted flaps like the Su-33.

The F-15EX with conformals is now over 18 ton empty. It still has that small 56m2 wing and it now lands at incredibly high speed. The F-15E not only lands faster than the F-22 but often lands faster than the F-117. It would have been easier to navalise the fixed wing F-22 compared to the F-15SE.

 

[DWG]

The E-2 Hawkeye is already flying above the CBG

Why give away the location of the CVBG when you can offset the AEW station a couple of hundred miles from the carrier, especially if you know the threat axis?

 

[quellish]

The E-2 Hawkeye is already flying above the CBG for as long as possible. It is pumping out radar signals saying here I am. Having a tanker version would make no difference.

Not the D model.

 

[insidersource]

Why give away the location of the CVBG when you can offset the AEW station a couple of hundred miles from the carrier, especially if you know the threat axis?

If the enemy has a radar system that can detect a recovery tanker loitering 10,000ft above the carrier then they can also detect the fighters flying in and out at 30,000ft. The recovery tanker is then not responsible for giving away the position.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In terms of the Super Hornet using the F110 there was actually a more suitable engine under development. Two of the A/F-X cleansheet designs used an afterburning F412 engine. This is an engine approximately half way between the F414 and F110 in terms of size and performance. The F412 non-afterburning engine was developed for the A-12 subsonic attack aircraft. This was effectively an F404 engine with a 25% larger fan and second low pressure turbine like the F110 to drive that fan. It had a much higher bypass ratio estimated to be between 0.8 to 1:1.

This higher bypass ratio afterburnering F412 could have been fitted to the Super Hornet design if the engine bays were slightly widened in a similar fashion to how the F-4 phantom bays were widened to fit Rolls Royce Spey engines. The higher bypass ratio engines would have massively improved fuel efficiency and would have perfectly matched the slow design. The weight increase from the wider engines would have been more than offset by the lower fuel consumption.

The F414 is ~2,400lb
The F110 is ~3,800lb

I would expect the afterburning F412 to weigh 2,800-3,000lb.

That is nowhere near as simple or as cheap as you think it is.

How much did it cost to redesign the F-4J into the F-4K/M, again? 500mGBP total, 170 aircraft delivered. 200mil more than planned. That's 2.94milGBP per plane, at at time when the exchange rate put a brand new F-4J at 856,000GBP.

But sure, let's redesign the engine bay.

The original F-15A weighing in at just under 13 ton empty with that relatively large 56m2 wing had potential for being carrier capable. The landing speed could have been made acceptable with just double slotted flaps like the Su-33.

The F-15EX with conformals is now over 18 ton empty. It still has that small 56m2 wing and it now lands at incredibly high speed. The F-15E not only lands faster than the F-22 but often lands faster than the F-117. It would have been easier to navalise the fixed wing F-22 compared to the F-15SE.

The DOD looked at an F-15N Sea Eagle instead of the Tomcat. Once the Eagle airframe was beefed up and fitted for AWG9 and Phoenix missiles, it wouldn't have been much lighter than a Tomcat.

 

[insidersource]

That is nowhere near as simple or as cheap as you think it is.

How much did it cost to redesign the F-4J into the F-4K/M, again? 500mGBP total, 170 aircraft delivered. 200mil more than planned. That's 2.94milGBP per plane, at at time when the exchange rate put a brand new F-4J at 856,000GBP.

But sure, let's redesign the engine bay.

The original poster was talking about redesigning the Super Hornet to fit the even larger F100/F110 engines. The F412 would have been the engine of choice if MD was willing to move away from the Classic Hornet sized engine bays. The Super Hornet had already enlarged most parts of the aircraft compared to the Classic Hornet.

In my opinion the narrow engine bays carried over from the Classic Hornet is the biggest flaw of the Super Hornet. To get the higher thrust for the heavier aircraft from such a narrow engine required one of the lowest bypass ratios of only 0.25:1. Fuel consumption during subsonic cruise is incredibly poor. The end result is an engine optimised for high speed placed in a frame optimised for low speed. A total mismatch.

Low bypass ratio is fine for a short range air-to-air fighter like the KF-21 or a supercruising fighter like the F-22 but it is a terrible choice for a strike fighter that spends most of the time subsonic with heavy bombs under the wings..

Keeping the narrow bays was probably part of the attempt to say the Super Hornet was a minor upgrade of the Hornet.

The original poster was speculating if a better could could improve the Super Hornet. He concentrated on the poor acceleration but I think the poor fuel burn is a bigger issue in the bomb truck role.

The DOD looked at an F-15N Sea Eagle instead of the Tomcat. Once the Eagle airframe was beefed up and fitted for AWG9 and Phoenix missiles, it wouldn't have been much lighter than a Tomcat.

That proves my point. I said only the light single seat F-15A with the lighter APG-63 and sparrow missile combination could have been successfully converted into a carrier aircraft. It is the only F-15 model that is light enough as a starting point to maintain the existing 56m2 wing. It would have been on par to the A-5 Vigilante in terms of landing speed with minimal changes.

The F-15 two seat frame with the heavier AWG9 radar would be just like the heavier two seat F-15E in terms of difficulty. Nearly all commonality with the air force variant would be lost with the level of modification required to get an acceptable landing speed. It would need a significantly larger wing to support the heavier weight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The original poster was speculating if a better could could improve the Super Hornet. He concentrated on the poor acceleration but I think the poor fuel burn is a bigger issue in the bomb truck role.

Okay, point taken there.

That proves my point. I said only the light single seat F-15A with the lighter APG-63 and sparrow missile combination could have been successfully converted into a carrier aircraft. It is the only F-15 model that is light enough as a starting point to maintain the existing 56m2 wing. It would have been on par to the A-5 Vigilante in terms of landing speed with minimal changes.

The F-15 two seat frame with the heavier AWG9 radar would be just like the heavier two seat F-15E in terms of difficulty. Nearly all commonality with the air force variant would be lost with the level of modification required to get an acceptable landing speed. It would need a significantly larger wing to support the heavier weight.

No. Even the single seater would need massive reinforcements compared to the USAF version.

And quite frankly the whole point of a big fighter on the carriers was to have the AWG9 and Phoenix missiles.

 

[MadRat]

Why would a Super Hornet need AWG-9?

 

[Hydroman]

Ah, let's be daring guys, bring back and pop in a couple of PW J-58s, let's have some fun!

 

[MadRat]

The whole point of the Hornet program was consolidation of several previous jet roles. Super Hornet does not need to be better than a Tomcat, just more affordable while replacing other jet roles at a minimum of 80% as well. The promise of the Super Hornet to fill the void of the Tomcat failed miserably with F414s. But with F100/F110 its got the power to haul much more juice. I don't even think the Super Hornet with F1x0 needs the front end of the F-15. What it needs is long legs as a result to focus on fuel fraction. The avionics and weapons of Super Hornet were never its weakness, but range certainly is/was.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why would a Super Hornet need AWG-9?

F-15N Sea Eagle did.

 

[MadRat]

F-15N Sea Eagle did.

Okay, I see where you drew the connection. But I don't think anyone was suggesting an F-15N. I suggested a common rear fuselage to share manufacturing to some extent and maybe you thought I was suggesting Super Hornet as an F-15 development. The frint of the Super Hornet was much less of a problem than its fuel fraction. That is why I suggested using diamond shaped inlets and LERX for the naval variant. Mostly because the thread is about a better Super Hornet.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But I don't think anyone was suggesting an F-15N.

Insidersource was suggesting an F-15N

 

[Hamez_boi]

The F-15S Silent Eagle.

It is F-15SE fyi

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The superior acceleration figures of the Classic Hornet in the first post was most likely using the 17,700lb thrust level. The F404 eventually went up to 19,000lb which would have allowed the Classic Hornet to approach F-16 acceleration levels.

I'm not sure about that, it only says F/A-18C when the F/A-18A would perform almost identically to early F/A-18Cs and could have also been included in the comparison. I'd hope that whenever that manual was written would be comparing the aircraft to the late production lots with the F404-GE-402 since the US Navy received a respectable number of those.

 

[MadRat]

https://www.deviantart.com/dankushagi/art/Air-battle-between-fighter-jets-2-959773424fiction art looks like a cross between F-15 tail and F/A-18 front end.

 

[Cjc]

The whole point of the Hornet program was consolidation of several previous jet roles. Super Hornet does not need to be better than a Tomcat, just more affordable while replacing other jet roles at a minimum of 80% as well. The promise of the Super Hornet to fill the void of the Tomcat failed miserably with F414s. But with F100/F110 its got the power to haul much more juice. I don't even think the Super Hornet with F1x0 needs the front end of the F-15. What it needs is long legs as a result to focus on fuel fraction. The avionics and weapons of Super Hornet were never its weakness, but range certainly is/was.

Problem of course being that the navy could have gotten that with the a-7x program for both cheaper (both in not haveing to procure a new plane and haveing the same engine) and better range (for the same payload) all without having to damage the f-14 program the way the f-18 did.

 

[insidersource]

Problem of course being that the navy could have gotten that with the a-7x program for both cheaper (both in not haveing to procure a new plane and haveing the same engine) and better range (for the same payload) all without having to damage the f-14 program the way the f-18 did.

I'm not sure if the A-7X would have been suitable. The US Navy had the option of creating a super variant of four different frames. F/A-18, F-14, A-6 and A-7. Picking the F/A-18 Hornet and turning it into the Super Hornet was probably the incorrect choice. The avionics of the Super Hornet could have been fitted to the Classic Hornet. The lack of range of the Hornet could easily have been fixed with minimal tanking.

I would have selected the A-6F. It would have shared F404 engines with the Classic Hornets. It would be an excellent combo. The A-6F as a tanker would allow the Classic Hornets to exceed the combat patrol area of the F-14. The heavy air-to-ground payloads would then be carried by A-6F. The Classic Hornets would then be primarily air-to-air and lighter multi-role payloads.

The range of the A-6F would be excellent and it could carry an AMRAAM for self defense.

The single seat Super A-7 would have half the range of the Super A-6. The US Navy bought lots of two seat Super Hornets for complex air-to-ground missions. The Super A-6 would have a big advantage with two seats.

If we look at the war in Afghanistan the US Navy didn't have aircraft that could provide continuous close air support from a carrier in the Arabian Sea. This forced the USAF to use heavy bombers from distant bases. The A-6F would have been perfect. A dozen A-6F could just rotate in and out from the carrier providing 24 hour close air support for weeks on end.

 

[MadRat]

Something tells me the proposed F404-powered A-6F was not an ideal solution in a 1995 timeframe. Seems like they could have found a more efficient motor to use, one less fuel thirsty and with more thrust. A non-afterburning F401 maybe would have been a better candidate. More weight but also way more power and significantly lower fuel burn. Allison TF41 was off the shelf with the same thrust as F401 but an even better SFC. People also forget some of the non-afterburning F100 variants are even better at efficiency.

Imagine going to an all-F100 or F110 powered fleet of fighters. Non-afterburning fighters would include E-3F, A-6F, and A-7F. Afterburning fighters would include F-14, F-18 (maybe call it a more distinctive F-24), EA-18G (or EF-24?), and F-16N. Choose one engine family for them all. E-3F? Because the Viking was still useful in 1995 and only retired in 2009.

 

[insidersource]

Something tells me the proposed F404-powered A-6F was not an ideal solution in a 1995 timeframe. Seems like they could have found a more efficient motor to use, one less fuel thirsty and with more thrust.

The F404 is actually a flawless match for the A-6.

The A-4 Super Skyhawk ends this debate. The original A-4 Skyhawk used the same J52 engine as the A-6 Intruder. The Super Skyhawk had the F404 fitted and it provided 20% improved acceleration, climb rate and range.

The A-6F would have also received a lighter composite wing improving lift to drag ratio slightly, increasing fuel capacity by ~10% and adding two extra wing pylons.

The A-6F would have had a combat radius 50% greater than the F-35C with a similar bomb load.

A non-afterburning F401 maybe would have been a better candidate. More weight but also way more power and significantly lower fuel burn. Allison TF41 was off the shelf with the same thrust as F401 but an even better SFC. People also forget some of the non-afterburning F100 variants are even better at efficiency.

The diameter is far too large for the A-6 engine bays. It would need a complete redesign.

Imagine going to an all-F100 or F110 powered fleet of fighters. Non-afterburning fighters would include E-3F, A-6F, and A-7F. Afterburning fighters would include F-14, F-18 (maybe call it a more distinctive F-24), EA-18G (or EF-24?), and F-16N. Choose one engine family for them all. E-3F? Because the Viking was still useful in 1995 and only retired in 2009.

The US Navy could only afford one jet aircraft development in the 1990's. Corsair, Intruder, Hornet and Tomcat. Which one would you pick to make Super variant?

The Navy going with the Super Hornet means the carrier can have just one aircraft type. All of the other options would require two aircraft types.

If the Navy placed an order for 300+ Quickstrike F-14D then it would still need a low cost compliment. These F-14D aircraft would probably still be flying with a huge AESA radar.

If money was spent on the Corsair then the air-to-air role would be left to short range Hornets and/or ageing F-14.

If the money was spent on the A-6F it could buddy refuel the Hornets to fully cover the air-to-air role. It also provides the longest range strike option.

There is no way the US Navy would have selected the Super Hornet option had they known the range and acceleration would be so much worse than expected.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Something tells me the proposed F404-powered A-6F was not an ideal solution in a 1995 timeframe. Seems like they could have found a more efficient motor to use, one less fuel thirsty and with more thrust. A non-afterburning F401 maybe would have been a better candidate. More weight but also way more power and significantly lower fuel burn. Allison TF41 was off the shelf with the same thrust as F401 but an even better SFC. People also forget some of the non-afterburning F100 variants are even better at efficiency.

Imagine going to an all-F100 or F110 powered fleet of fighters. Non-afterburning fighters would include E-3F, A-6F, and A-7F. Afterburning fighters would include F-14, F-18 (maybe call it a more distinctive F-24), EA-18G (or EF-24?), and F-16N. Choose one engine family for them all. E-3F? Because the Viking was still useful in 1995 and only retired in 2009.

Yes, major logistical advantages going to all one engine (crud, the USAF and USN were close to that for a while with all the J57 powered birds).

But I don't think that ES-3F would be an option to re-engine with F100/110. TF34 engines are only 1500lbs. F414s are 2500, F401s are 3400 including afterburner, F110s are ~4000lbs including afterburner. TF41s are 3500lbs without afterburner.

However, F401 was dead by the mid 1970s.

F118, the F110-without-afterburner designed for the B-2 and used in the late-model U-2s, weighs in at 3200lbs.

If there was any desire to still operate EKA-3s they'd be a reasonable candidate for an F118 engine swap.

 

[MadRat]

For some reason it shows E-3, but I meant S-3. Hard to beat the TF-34 but the dry F100 would have given about 5 tons of extra thrust. EA-3 Sky Warrior had been retired by then, but it was also worn out. S-3 were pretty old, too, but we kept them flying another 15 years. For some reason I always liked the S-3.