Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!  
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7544 times:

Just some quick news for you guys....Boeing has just received an order from the United States Navy for 210 F-18 Super Hornet Aircraft. The deal is work up to $9.6 billion.

Farhan Ali
Seattle, USA

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7390 times:

I'm sure going to miss the Tomcats  Sad



FSP


User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7368 times:

I'm with you on that one FSPilot747, we do have the movie Top Gun for that though.  Smile

Farhan Ali
Seattle, USA


User currently offlineTwalives From United States of America, joined May 2001, 175 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7339 times:

I would say that constitutes a pretty good day for STL aviation...too bad there is never any positive news on the commercial side

User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7341 times:

While I'll miss the Tomcat, you gotta admit...the Rhino looks good in the old F-14 squadron colors.

An F/A-18F form the VFA-2 Bounty Hunters alongside an F-14 in VF-2 colors


An F/A-18E from the VFA-14 Tophatters


An F/A-18F from the VFA-41 Black Aces


An F/A-18F from the VFA-102 Diamondbacks


Here's hoping the USN keeps the Super Hornet in high-viz rather than switch over to lo-viz!



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7319 times:

The F/A-18: Jack of all trades, master of none.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7302 times:

I love that shape.

Hornet is a good deal better at close quarters fighting than Tomcat LMP.
Turns a lot tighter for example, better accelleration too.

About the only mission in which the Tomcat excells is very long range AA patrols using BVR weapons, which is a mission that officially is no longer needed because the threat of Soviet bombers is diminished.
The beancounters convenienently forgot to take into account that Iran, Lybia and China have those same bombers.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7306 times:

I really like the F/A-18 in that first picture with the Tomcat-esque paint job...I had to do a double-take on that one...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7298 times:

Woopsie on my part! The VFA-102 "F/A-18F" is a VF-102 F-14 in case you couldn't tell. Linked to the wrong photo. Here's what I meant to link to:



Note to self - look closer when posting while trying to hide a.net from your boss.  Innocent



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

I was wondering what that was all about!....

They are calling the F/A-18 E/F the "Rhino"?
That was the Phantoms'.!!!

errrrrrrrrrr....

ex-Phantom Phixer..


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7212 times:

You got it JeffM...go to VFA-14's website and witness the little rhino outline
http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-14/
Apparently they're recycling unofficial nicknames too. Kind of a dissapointment if you ask me. Nonetheless, still more original than "Super Bug."



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

My, my, my.....

surely they could have thought of something else?

jeezzzzzzzzzz


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6916 times:

LMP737, you wrote:

The F/A-18: Jack of all trades, master of none.

That may be true in the past, but today's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have far-improved avionics and far more powerful engines than the original F/A-18 models. They are probably among the most capable combat aircraft in the world, no contest.  Smile


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6904 times:

While the F414 is more powerful than the F404 you must remember that the F/A-18E/F is heavier. I've read in several articles that the F/A-18E/F thrust-to-weight ratio is somewhat lacking. Guess that's why GE is working on increasing the F414 thrust by 20%.  Smile

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6532 times:

The Super Hornet also has more "bring back" capability than the planes it is replacing - it can bring back more unused ordinance back to the carrier. This is important with expensive precision-guided weapons.

User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6389 times:

While the F414 is more powerful than the F404 you must remember that the F/A-18E/F is heavier. I've read in several articles that the F/A-18E/F thrust-to-weight ratio is somewhat lacking.


Lets put one thing aside first. In a Fighter there is no such thing a too much thrust.

Depending what payload, weight, altitude, and what-not the numbers for proformance are fluid. I ran some numbers and here is what I came up with.

With both aircraft at Gross takeoff weight and engines at Max Power at sea level (Full AB).

F/A-18C
F404-GE-400
Thrust 16,000 X2= 32,000lbs
GTO Weight 52,000lbs
Thrust to Weight Ratio is (.615)


F/A-18F
F414-GE-400
Thrust 22,000 X2= 44,000lbs
GTO Weight 66,000lbs
Thrust to Weight Ratio is (.666)

So the -18F has a bit higher T/W ratio than the -18C



Here are some numbers I've added just for fun.............



Rafale B
Snecma M88-2
Thrust 17,000 X2= 34,000lbs
GTO Weight 54,000lbs
Thrust to Weight Ratio is (.629)

Eurofighter Typhoon
Eurojet EJ200
Thrust 20,000 X2= 40,000lbs
GTO Weight 52,000lbs
Thrust to Weight Ratio is (.769)

F-35A
F135-PW-100
Thrust 40,000lbs
GTO Weight 59,500lbs
Thrust to Weight Ratio is (.672)





(Some numbers have been rounded to the closest 500lbs)



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6321 times:

I'd still pick an F-14D in a dogfight over an F/A-18 E/F.

Don't forget, the F-14 took over the A-6's bombing role. That makes it much, much more important than merely a long range interceptor to protect the CBG.

The Super Hornet also has more "bring back" capability than the planes it is replacing - it can bring back more unused ordinance back to the carrier.

Glad to see it can do what the F-14's been good at for decades. Big grin



I have to admit that ever since I was a little kid the F-14 has been my favorite US fighter by FAR (and not just because of Top Gun).


User currently offlineThumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6310 times:

Garnetpalmetto,nice pictures, I wonder how they got that Tomcat to fly so slow that the Super Slow Hornet could stay along side it?
Jwenting your wrong as usual an F-14D will fly rings around any Hornet its all about money. I told you before I have a son who flew Tomcats, now he is stuck in a Hornet.He hates it!


User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6183 times:

Here is a very interesting article that explains why the Super Hornet is not so super after all...


Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineSpoon04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 180 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

The credibility of the authors reflects Pentagon and Congressional incompetence at its worst. Naval Aviation heads in the Pentagon should roll for their individual/collective ignorance and stupidity pertinent to purchasing an aircraft with such disasterous and limited mission capabilities. The statistics illustrated in the article are almost horrifying to comprehend. The F/A18E/F program appears to be a complete disaster in all respects in terms of pragmatic and operational capabilities. As usual, the input of the pilots who fly the FA18E/F are ignored, and decisions which will affect Naval Aviation for decades to come are determined by desk-riding Pentagon officers and bureaucrats. That the "new and improved" Super Hornet can only perform a fraction of what a Tomcat is capable of is mind-boggling to say the least!! How in the hell did the Super Hornet program ever get approved in the first place? Heaven help all future fleet pilots!

User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Spoon, i doubt the super hornets are THAT bad, go cross-refer with other sources, dont take everything from 1 source


Now you're really flying
User currently offlineSpoon04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 180 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6111 times:

Greaser, I have to go with the credibility of a retired aeronautical engineer and a former commander of Pacific Fleet flight operations. I see no reason why both Kress and Gillcrist would fabricate the statistics and aircraft comparisons contained within their piece.

User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6113 times:

There have also been plenty of pilots impressed with the Super Hornet, Greaser. It comes down to that every time a new airplane comes out, there will be critics to pick at it. I'm sure if this sort of forum existed in the early '70s, you would have seen similar criticisms of the F-14, especially in light of its troubled development, of the F-16, of the C-5, etc. I happen to be a critic of the F-35 and I'm sure I could find "expert testimony" that the F-35 will be the worst aircraft ever. Does that necessarily mean that it will be the worst aircraft ever? Hardly. Consider all the sources out there. Keep in mind too, regarding that article that those individuals may not be the least biased out there. Bob Kress worked for Grumman - of course he's going to be critical of the F/A-18, which is now a Boeing product, considering the F-14 Quickstrike and other F-14 upgrade plans would have meant more money for Grumman. Admiral Gilcrist has also been critical in the past of the F-8 Crusader, a plane that most of the fighter jocks who flew it absolutely loved. Also, what community was he brought up in? F-4s? F-8s? It's possible that his own prejudices leak into that as well.

To be honest I'm not a huge Super Hornet fan and will be sad to see the F-14 leave carrier decks, but give the Rhino a chance.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6108 times:

A battle of credibility is all nice and interesting and enlightening, no doubts.

But Kress and Gilcrist did come up with what seems to me to be very valid, if not troubling, numbers.

Where are the numbers in favor of the Super Hornet?

And also, there has been troubled fighters in the past. The F-18 itself was nearly dumped by the US Navy in the early 80s; the US Navy did seriously consider buying a naval version of the F-16.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6099 times:

Actually, QB, it was Congress that wanted the USN to seriously consider the F-16. At around the same time the USAF was looking to procure the F-16, the USN was looking for a strike aircraft to replace its A-7s and the Marine F-4s and A-4s. Congress mandated that since the two were both looking that whichever won the USAF flyoff between the YF-16 and the YF-17 would be procured by both the USAF and the USN. As we all know, the F-16 won that flyoff, however, the USN was NOT pleased with the result due to its historical preference for dual-engine fighters and the fact that, as originally designed, the F-16 was going to be sans radar and asked that both General Dynamics and Northrop give proposals for navalized versions of both. Since neither had much experience with carrier-borne aircraft they teamed up with LTV and McDonnell-Douglas, respectively, with the modified YF-17 winning the Navy contract. While the original Hornet had some noteable design problems, at NO time did the USN look into acquiring the F-16. Check out http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18.html for background.

As for some numbers for the Rhino:

A fleet air defense F/A-18E/F carrying four AMRAAMs, two AIM-9s and external tanks would be able to loiter on station for 71 minutes at a distance of 400 nautical miles from its carrier, as opposed to only 58 minutes for the F-14D. (taken from Joe Baugher's site)

Total external stores carriage on the F-14 is about 13,000 pounds, on the F/A-18E/F it's 17,750 pounds (taken from the Federation of American Scientists)

Lastly, please keep in mind that the F/A-18E/F, while replacing the F-14s is hardly a real F-14 replacement, in part because it's judged that the F-14's mission is no longer needed. Rather the Super Hornet is just that - what the F/A-18 should have been all along.




South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
25 Spoon04 : Let's do this... Putting credibility, personal agendas and subjectivity aside, let's look at the allegations of Kress and Gillcrist and attempt to as
26 Post contains links Garnetpalmetto : Point 1: False. Let's start with the obvious "The un-refueled radius of an F-14 carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 pound LGB's, two HARM miss
27 Spoon04 : Garnetpalmetto, very good job in bringing additional information to the table! I just have one observation. When utilizing the word "super" to describ
28 Garnetpalmetto : Spoon, engine changes are fairly commonplace...the F-14 was plagued by engine problems and tweaks up until the -B model introduced the F-110s
29 Spoon04 : Thanks for the additional info Garnet!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Navy Orders More Tomahawks posted Fri Apr 4 2003 01:17:43 by STT757
RAF Orders Airbus 330 Tankers Worth 18.8bn? posted Tue Jan 13 2004 15:04:25 by Zak
Turkish Navy Orders 17 Seahawks posted Sat Nov 4 2006 15:22:30 by TK787
3 US Navy (?) Planes At SFO posted Sat Oct 7 2006 16:13:40 by Leamside
US Navy C9B posted Sun Jul 23 2006 19:13:31 by Kchs29418
UK Army, Navy, Orders Future Lynx posted Thu Jun 22 2006 21:43:55 by GDB
US Navy Fokker 27 posted Tue Jun 6 2006 21:21:33 by Columba
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
Fokker F28 Carrier Tests For US Navy! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 23:05:24 by BuyantUkhaa
US Navy T-39 Sabreliner Missing posted Wed Jan 11 2006 23:16:31 by Yanqui67

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format