F/A-18F Super Hornet

[eraser_tr 29]

Maybe we'd be talking about the SH if they gave it the performance to be a worthy opponent to the aircraft we are talking about. The only reason it goes as fast as it does is because the lobbyists pushed her so hard :stink:

[+Dave 2,318]

Really? Ask IAF Fulcrum pilots.

The MiG-29s were made to look silly when the bigger,heavier MKIs repeatedly and easily out manuevered the lighter Fulcrum using TVC. Before the Fulcrum could do anything, the MKI was on the MiG-29's tail

 

Well air shows stunts was not the right phrase but in the end the HMS makes it all a moot point. One thing about the SH that is good is that is has an extremely high alpha and does not need TVC at all. So a plane doesn't need TVC to get the desired results. Regular Hornets and Super Hornets are known for there ability to pull off maneuvers that would send most fighters out of control.

 

Did someone need a pic of a SH. I took this yesterday at the airshow at Tinker AFB.

[+Jarhead1 27]

I cant wait for this thing to come out, i am itching to blow something up with it, and also the Su-25 Frogfoot, i am looking forward to that also

 

Any updates on either bird?

[Atreides 144]

Don't MKI's and Fulcrum's use HM sight's ? At the end of the day pilot skill's count for alot as well, Iran -Iraq conflict a MIG-21 MF shotdown an IRIAF F-14 so...

[+Jarhead1 27]

The Iraqi AF Foxbat force was a force to be reckoned with too, they were the most modern fighter Iraq had until 1990 i believe it was when they bought and leased MiG-29s, and they didnt last long, lol

[gerald14 0]

The Iraqi AF Foxbat force was a force to be reckoned with too, they were the most modern fighter Iraq had until 1990 i believe it was when they bought and leased MiG-29s, and they didnt last long, lol

 

Really, not until they were shot down by F-15s!!!!!!

Edited June 12, 2007 by gerald14

[eraser_tr 29]

No, they bolted for Iran the first sight of the USAF.

[+Jarhead1 27]

They had a few a/a kills, not many though, lol

[RunsWithScissors 0]

Awesome pic, USAFMTL Love the Super Guppy (I think?) in back...

 

On the about the Eagle and gunfights, I once talked to an Eagle driver who said if he was going into a fight KNOWING he'd be using guns only, he'd go in "something that can turn into it's own asshole like an A-10" I said, "yeah but by the time you got there the other guy would have run out of gas & went home!" Now, I have 12 air-to-air kills in the A-10 in WoE (8 of 'em with the gun) , but I still think (in real life) I'd rather be in the F-15. I can always run away, if necessary!

Edited August 31, 2007 by RunsWithScissors

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

No, they bolted for Iran the first sight of the USAF.

 

Those were Su-25s dude. It was the Mig-25s who manned up and took shots at coalition forces... a pair of whacky Iraqis who had the balls to take on a pair of Eagles from approx 40kms+ out, got nothing but air, bolted, had another pair of Eagles give chase had up to 10 missiles shot at him as they scarpered!(the Eagles got nothing but air too).*

 

I'll give props for the ballsiness but...

 

 

*Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993, pp 230-231.

[RunsWithScissors 0]

Some Fulcrums went after the F-15Es the 1st night, too. Didn't work out too well for the MiGs in this attempt, either.*

 

*Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War, William L. Smallwood, 1994 (same guy who wrote "Warthog")

Edited August 31, 2007 by RunsWithScissors

[Shin_kazama 0]

F/A-18F and E Super Hornets WIP .

 

 

 

F/A-18E

 

 

 

when's this out marc?

[+Dave 2,318]

when's this out marc?

 

When its done..... 2 weeks

[+EricJ 3,970]

Good, now I can get back into flight simming :)

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Isn't Marc working on, like, 400 projects? I'd be stunned if he actually sleeps... :yes:

[FOTF 0]

He'll sleep in two weeks

[PigDriver 0]

Any chance anybody out there is thinking of doing an RAAF skin...Hint...

[MiGMasher 0]

I can't, because I want one too for some serious A2G work. But I still say it is not a fleet defender.

 

The US Navy has admitted as such. I was looking for Tomcat pics last year on the Official USN website when I came across the steadily growing collection of Super Hornet pics. The captions for those pics said the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an attack aircraft that if necessary could undertake fighter duties. When I read comments to that effect on those Superbug pic captions it lent credence (to my mind atleast) to those rumours that derided the F/A-18E/F's air combat ability in spite of in-service aircrews' seemingly glowing reports on the type. Until the JSF arrives the older model Hornets look like they're picking up the Air Combat slack.

[+Gocad 26]

Until the JSF arrives the older model Hornets look like they're picking up the Air Combat slack.

 

Except for that the F/A-18A-D replaced mostly the attack aircraft such as the A-7 and A-6, which means they were not really meant to be first-line air superiority aircraft. And the same can be said about the JSF.

That's the problem with multi-role aircraft, they are after all somewhat of a compromise.

The Tomcat, on the other hand, was designed around a single weapon system, the Phoenix missile. It was rather conincidence that the it could also fulfill other roles, such as doing Recon or Attack missions.

 

Imagine how useful the Tomcat would be these days, were it still in service, but had it been unable to carry bombs or even recon pods.

 

Ever seen pictures of Hornets that operate over Iraq or Afghanistan? Just look at their wingtips.

Air combat seems to have become a secondary task these days....

 

Link: Navy News photo. Just an example.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Gocad

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Why they don`t build new Tomcats?! Improved one?! It`s still one of the best planes ever build!

[eraser_tr 29]

Thats a long, complicated story that would likely get this thread locked.

 

The JSF is primarily an A2G aircraft as well. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the F-22, and the total lack of air opposition in both Iraqs and Afghanistan has left the people in charge of equipment to neglect the importance of air to air capabilities. A handful of Raptors can't handle all the air combat if there was a war with a country that could offer serious air opposition.

[+Jarhead1 27]

Amen brother, I too, believe they are setting us up for failure if we get into something bad later on down the road with an enemy that can actually fight in the air and actually attempt to gain air superiority, and then I believe we will be SOL.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Jarhead1

[eraser_tr 29]

It always has to be the hard way for our procurement people. We had nothing for WWI, we were way behind and made stupid choices for early WWII planes(like no turbosuperchargers= no high altitude performance), the early cold war and foresaking guns for unreliable missiles and now jack of all trades strike craft.

[+ordway 23]

Wow, this is what an analyst had to say about the Super Hornet vs. Flanker...

 

 

"In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that the advantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes to the Flanker"

 

 

"In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet, even with the latter carrying external tanks. There is no substitute for clean internal fuel. The Flanker's radar aperture is twice the size of the Hornet family apertures, due to the larger nose cross section"

 

"High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, also goes to the Flanker, as does supersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform."

 

"The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantage in EWSP capability."

 

 

"In summary, the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet decisively in aerodynamic performance. What advantage the Super Hornet now has in the APG-79 radar will vanish in coming years as Russian AESAs emerge. The one area in which the Flanker currently trails the Super Hornet is in radar signature (stealth) performance. The Super Hornet has inlet geometry shaping, inlet tunnel S-bends, and an AESA shroud all of which reduce its forward sector signature well below that of the Flanker"

 

"The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat."

 

 

Hmmm, well, errrrr, uhhh, ummm, we are still better trained....it's the MAN, not the machine!

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

[+EricJ 3,970]

Because the Navy didn't want too. If I remember one factoid, was that the plant was all but shut down, producing spares but no new aircraft. Alot of discussion through the future will bring alot of continual speculation. Pretty much, the Tomcat, as great as it was, is old, and the Navy didn't feel like doing it. Remember not much public opinion matters to lobbyists, or the dollar. There's alot of things the Tomcat could have, and should have done, but time moves on, and eventually the great "legacy" planes have to be retired due to the changing world.