United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6796 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.
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6642 times:
United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6620 times:
I'm with you on that one FSPilot747, we do have the movie Top Gun for that though.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6593 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6553 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.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10685 posts, RR: 54 Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6557 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
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6549 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.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6463 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.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6167 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.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6155 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%.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5783 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.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1532 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5640 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)
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8417 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5572 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.
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).
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5561 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!
Spoon04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 180 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5406 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!
Spoon04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 180 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5362 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.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5364 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.
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5359 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.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5350 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 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!!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1648 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
, 10685 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1081 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
