Soren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
The Super Hornet is bigger (25% larger wing area), has longer range (carries 33% more internal fuel = 41% increase in mission range), can carry more weapons (has two extra weapons hardpoints) than the old Hornets, and it is fitted with the newest electronics.
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Also a lot slower and less maneuverable than the Hornet! Thus the nickname the Super Slow Hornet! Don't want to get into this again but the F-14 D will fly rings around it! Should have upgraded the Tomcats and got rid of the Hornets!
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4474 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:
The Super Hornet is still a weak aircraft just like its older sister. As stated above, the Navy should have gone full tilt with the F-14D. The F-14D can fly farther, faster and with a greater payload than either the F/A-18C or the F/A-18E/F. Also, the arguement stating that the F/A-18E/F is capable of carrying a wider variety of weapons than the F-14 holds no water. The F-14 could be wired to carry everything in the inventory if the Navy wanted it to.
Current pilots and RIOs transisitioning from the Tomcat the the Super Hornet are not impressed. Less power, less gas, less range. The only thing they do like is that they are flying new aircraft. That being said, they could be flying around in new F-14Ds.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
I disagree with the Super Hornet being less manouverable. I saw in action in February an F/A 18 operated by the RAAF, followed by a Super Hornet of the USN. Both of these aircraft put on a maneuvering display, low level flypasts etc. And from what I saw the Super Hornet kicked ass in terms of manouverability. I'm speaking purely from a spectators point of view but the Super Hornet was a real show stopper and I give it a thumbs up!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Super Hornet would be less agile IF it didn't have more powerful engines as well.
The first prototypes indeed had the same engines as the C/D model because the new ones weren't ready yet, giving rise to that myth which certain people opposed to the program for whatever reason keep trying to perpetuate.