Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hornet Or Super Hornet - Which One Is Faster?  
User currently offlineNorbb From Austria, joined Jun 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Hi all!

I know that speed is not that important today, but does anyone happen to know which one of these fantastic aircraft has the higher maximum speed?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm keeps telling me that the F/A-18C reaches 1.7 mach while the Super Hornets top speed is only 1.6????

Maybe noone wants to wear the brand new engines out?

Ps: excuse my english
Ps2: please note that this question does not allow me to sleep

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

The super horror is a bit slower at the moment I think. It will be faster soon though. It has a problem with it's intakes that is being fixed and it is getting new engines in a while.

User currently offlineNorbb From Austria, joined Jun 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3049 times:

Thank you for your response! My world is alright again!

The intake optimized and maybe more powerful/fuel efficient engines! It´s gonna be a real beauty with the appropriate performance. I cant wait for the new speed record after the "update"!!! Big grin

Thnx again for the great news!


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

These new F/A-18E & F Super Hornets are going to slowly replace the F-14 Tomcat in a few years.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

The Super Hornet will be faster. The A-D model Hornets are some of the slowest tactical fighters out there.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

I was just reading that the F/A-18E/Fs are being beaten in acm by F/A-18C/Ds! Apparently the Es bleed speed at an astonishing rate when in turns. I hope the improvements in Radar and Engines will help it beat the plane it is replacing...

User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

I also just read that the C/D have better turn and roll rates...

User currently offlineNorbb From Austria, joined Jun 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

I have already heard about the replacement of the F-14 Tomcat. So if they are going to defend the fleet, which primary weapon will they carry?

The old AIM-54 Phoenix? 12 shorter range AMRAAMs? Or maybe a ram-jet powered LRAAM?  Nuts

Regards
Norb


User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

I don't think the F/A-18 is going to be filling the exact same fleet defence role as the F-14. In war the long range defence would be taken care of by the Aegis equipped carrier escort ships.

There are no planes to use the AIM-54 on the F/A-18, just the AIM-120.


User currently offlineRedskin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Well i suppose that it is now official, the super IS SLOWER than it father.

What kind of PROCUREMENT SPASTIC orders a bird that is slower, and less manouverable than it's predessor. Even worse is the fact that it is the same palne, ( sort of). I think this is called regressive advancement.( is that an OXY Moron ) or have i invented a new term


User currently offlineNorbb From Austria, joined Jun 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2994 times:

As I saw the first photo of the super hornet i noticed the modified intakes at once. I thought rectangular intakes - as used in the F-14 and F-15 - "cut" the air better making higher speeds possible... A Hornet at mach 2... that was my dream!  Nuts

But instead? What a pity...  Crying

Greetings


User currently offlineZionstrat From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

I can't get over the timbre of this thread- For some reason the SHornet is getting trashed because it won't hit mach 2? I think you're missing the point.

Although the YF17 was originally planned for the tactical fighter role that the F16 filled, the F18 has always been multirole and has done a remarkable job replacing the A7, A6, and now F14- Why would anyone demand such a plane to outperform its predecessor in every way? The important question is, what metrics are required, and can the ac meet them?

It is obvious that the Hornet exceeded those requirements and that the SHornet is even better. Keep in mind that the Hornet was the first ac to prove that a true multi-role configuration works- It was fully loaded Navy F18s that made the first ac kills of the gulf war as they defended themselves and went on to complete their attack. In the past attack fighters would have jettisoned their load first, essentially defeating their attack role.

The supper Hornet is simply a larger version of a proven design that allows for more take home fuel at the end of the day. And give me a break on the mach 2 issue- F4s in Vietnam proved that the need for mach 2 wasn't nearly as important as a good gun and the ability to turn.

Please take this in the right sprit- I'm not out to dis anyone, just asking that you consider mission requirements and recognize that the Hornet meets them better than anything else on the immediate horizon (lets give JSF a little more time to bake Smile


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2990 times:

The superhornet of today is underpowered. New engines and a slight redesign of the air intakes should fix that.
With the everincreasing emphasis on standoff weaponry, burstspeed and dogfighting turns are not considered top priority in selecting an aircraft. Range and stability are more important (note, I do not agree with this, but I am not making the decisions). In that, procurement policy is stepping back to the 1960s, when Brittain considered the days of the manned aircraft to be almost over. SAMs would provide an impenatrable shield against intrusion, from behind which ballistic weapons could be launched with impunity against whoever was stupid enough to make them angry.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineNorbb From Austria, joined Jun 2001, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

You are right Zionstrat!

It is a fact that the Super Hornet has other, more important qualities ranking it over the A-6, A-7, Tomcat and Hornet C/D.

Austria is going to buy new multipurpose fighters to replace the REALLY OLD Saab 35OE Draken. I have heard that a Swiss HornetC is capable of shooting down 6 or more Drakens. Maybe it has to do with the fact that the Drakens weaponry is limited to two Sidewinders. Big grin

Anyway, the candidates are: Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage 2000, JAS-39 Gripen, F-16 Falcon and the F/A-18E.

I would choose the Super Hornet of course. My point was that the only weakness of the E/F´s is their speed. Please notice that all the other aircraft are capable of mach 2.

Maybe mach 2 is my psychological speed limit for a modern fighter?

Maybe I am just mad?  Nuts

Regards


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

First off, I am not knocking the F/A-18 Hornet as it does what it was designed to due quite well. It was designed to replace the A-7E Corsair II as a medium attack aircraft. It was not designed to be a fleet defender which is the role the F/A 18 E/F will take over from the F-14 Tomcat. It is a jack of all trades master of none. The current F/A-18 A, C, and D fleet is slow, has limited range, and is fuel needy. Besides all of those problems, the aircraft has less bring back capabilities than the F-14 which is one of the reasons why the F-14As of VF-41 and VF-14 were tasked with more bombing missions during operation Allied Force and were the ONLY aircraft to deliver certain types of LGBs. So, basically the ancient F-14As were higher priority aircraft than these "gee whiz" ain't technology great F/A 18Cs. The F/A-18 E/F has improved upon the fuel problem and slightly on the range issue. Speed, continues to be an afterthought though.

Besides all of those problems, the aircraft has less bring back capabilities than the F-14 which is one of the reasons why the F-14As of VF-41 and VF-14 were tasked with more bombing missions during operation Allied Force and were the ONLY aircraft to deliver certain types of LGBs.

What the United States Navy and DoD SHOULD have done was keep the F-14D in production (The D model is the most capable aircraft in the Navy's inventory). When you have a weak father, you normally have a weak son.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineZionstrat From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2971 times:

Norbb-
I remember reading about and F4 jock who was trading up to a higher model and realized that he had one last shot at getting his mach 2 badge (the newer model had a reduced top end and the old model only broke mach2 under very special conditions)-

So he took the old model up, pushed it hard into a series of dives, exceeded the max aoa, and managed to stall both engines- Of course they relit and after apologies to the guy in back I think they actually broke mach 2, but the point of the story is that I think everybody agrees that mach 2 is an excellent "psychological speed limit" and are willing to go out of the way to get it Smile

Of course, I want a ride in an SR71 Smile

Thanks for the input!


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

What else is the Navy doing with the F-14A besides replacing the two unreliable underpowered 20,000lb thrust P&W TF-30s to the 27,000lb thrust GE F110?

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

Over the past 5-7 years, the F-14 fleet has been dramatically improved. Unfortunately the F-14D productions run was cut short, but by no means was that the "End" of the line. The F-14 has been pretty busy since the "Gulf War". It has continued to protect the fleet while serving as the "Heavy" bomber for carriers, dropping countless LGBs on Saddam Hussein, along with playing a major role in Operation Allied Force as a fighter, bomber, and reconaissance platform and performed FAC (F). Below I will explain.

The F-14 is now a multi-mission aircraft that not only defends the fleet (Which it has done since '72), but is the high priority attack aircraft. With the installation of the LANTIRN pod, the F-14 has truly come into its own as an attack aircraft. As I said earlier, VF-14 and VF-41 (both equipped with F-14As) put the LANTIRN pod to good use in Kosovo. In fact, the F-14 squadrons were the choosen platform for bombing missions over the two F/A-18 groups! Along with fleet defence, fighter escort and being its own escort when it bombs ground targets, the F-14 has also become what is known as a FAC (F). Which is a Fast Forward Air Controller. 6 crews pioneered this mission over Kosovo, and soon the F-14 was the preferred Forward Air Controller over A-10 Warthogs, F-16 Vipers, and even their 2 seater Marine F/A-18D friends. The reason for this is the LANTIRN pods screen in the back seat of the F-14 is larger than the F-16s, or F-15E's for that matter and is a better platform than the one the F/A-18C and D use. Also, unlike the F-16 and A-10, the F-14 has two sets of eyes. The F-14 Tomcat also remains one of the only tactial reconaisance platforms in the United States Military. The TARPS pod is constantly put to use around the world with F-14 crews putting it all on the line for those valuable photos. So, needless to say the F-14 Tomcat is enjoying a renaissance in its golden years.

Not to bad for a girl that is sometimes called old! I can't say enough about the F-14 and the capabilities that it brings to the carrier deck. While the F/A 18 is a nice aircraft, it just can't cut the mustard when compared to the F-14 as they were designed to do different things. It all comes down to what the aircraft was designed to do and what it is capable of.

If you have any more questions about the F-14 or any other aircraft feel free to ask. Lastely, in past discussions there has been some talk about speed not being all that important. SPEED IS EVERYTHING. Those that don't recognize that need to spend some more time hitting the books. With it you can fight or get the heck out of dodge.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineZionstrat From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

CX747-
I enjoyed the bombcat update and agree that the 14 is an incredibly flexible ac- However, I can't let the speed is everything statement slide in here without quoting a little history Smile

In close combat, look at the F4 in Vietnam- A great fast aircraft that couldn't turn with much older, much slower aircraft- I don't argue that hit and run dive tactics can pay off (i.e. Wildcat vs. Zero, followed by Hellcat vs. Zero) but if you are forced in close for tactical reasons you will loose- Check out the scores by our ‘Red’ teams flying F5s and 20s if you need proof that the fast fighter doesn’t necessarily have the advantage.

This is the point of high AOA flight and trust vectoring in current designs- Reducing turning radius and sitting nose high while barley moving provides an incredible advantage when you need to get on the opponents tail.

So let’s look at speed when you don’t want to get on the opponents tail- How about interception and CAP? Your buddy the F14 remains at the top of the heap with the F15 in the same ball park- However, speed isn’t what puts them there- Look at the 102, 104, 106 and their short time at the top of the food chain- For that matter consider the origins of the XR71 as an interceptor, or the MIG25- All were incredibly fast, but the 14 and 15s rule because of the ability to track and attack long range targets and then mix it up closer/slower/tighter with the survivors.

And in a SAM world, there is no such thing as enough speed which explains why the B1B comes home with pinecone FOD from time to time.

Speed isn’t going to help you out when you break away and take one up the tail pipe (like the Corvette on the Interstate—You might outrun the patrol car, but you won’t outrun their radio)- This is especially true with the adoption of off axis weapons- Where is the safe spot to break away from an ac that can accurately acquires anything running away over 180°?

The key, as always, is the optimum mix of speed, maneuverability, and weapons platform. This varies by role, but keep in mind that the top aces from WW2 flew slow and maneuverable ac- And even warthog drivers occasionally carry a sidewinder hoping that a fighter will be stupid enough to try to go one on one down in the weeds-

Which brings us to the last point, combine the right pilot with the correct technology mix and it doesn’t matter how fast the opponent is (within reason… don’t mix Zeros with Mig25s just to prove me wrong Smile



User currently offlineQantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

For one, the Super Hornet has much better handling than the original Hornet. The high and low alpha handling of the aircraft is exceptional and the RAAF is looking to re-equip it's Hornets with the Super Hornet software due to this. Of course the airframe is a little different and the Hornet wont be able to pick up the exceptional alpha handling of the Super Hornet.

User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2923 times:

"For one, the Super Hornet has much better handling than the original Hornet. "

So you know better than the US Navy pilots that have actually flown it? They all say it handles worse..........

And the Software and avionics don't have anything to do with the handleing of the plane.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

I whole heartedly agree with you that speed is not everything. An aircraft must be able to handle exceptionally well. Combining the TWO together makes an exceptional aircraft.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineQantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Whistler, I read this from the Australian RAAF Chief pilots perspective. Where he referred to it as having much better handling than the original hornet series.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Hornet Or Super Hornet - Which One Is Faster?
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...
Hornet Or Super Hornet - Which One Is Faster? posted Tue Jun 26 2001 13:31:00 by Norbb
Fighter With The Highest Landing Speed. Which One? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:29:05 by Art
Air Force One Is Coming To Town posted Sun Apr 16 2006 21:19:08 by Leothedog
Which Plane Is Fastest: Zero To Mach 1? posted Fri Apr 5 2002 20:28:51 by 4holer
Which Is Sound Better A B-52 Or A B-1 Bomber posted Sun Nov 6 2005 18:49:37 by 747400sp
The Super Hornet Is In A Film Already! posted Wed Oct 17 2001 01:01:06 by FlyBoeing
F-18 Hornet, One Loud A$$ Jet posted Thu Sep 20 2001 05:41:17 by Klm744
Super Hornet Mishap At Pensacola... posted Mon Dec 4 2006 16:36:49 by Ulfinator
Why No Blue Angels Super Hornet? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 00:41:26 by FlyUSCG
Is It Me Or Do KC-135R Land At A High Noise Level? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 15:59:48 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format