United777
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 8:04 am

US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:10 pm

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
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:53 pm

I'm sure going to miss the Tomcats  Sad



FSP
 
United777
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 8:04 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:06 pm

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

Farhan Ali
Seattle, USA
 
twalives
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun May 13, 2001 9:35 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:36 pm

I would say that constitutes a pretty good day for STL aviation...too bad there is never any positive news on the commercial side
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:22 am

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.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4858
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:33 am

The F/A-18: Jack of all trades, master of none.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:48 am

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
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:34 am

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
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:46 am

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 avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:42 pm

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..
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:15 pm

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 avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:26 pm

My, my, my.....

surely they could have thought of something else?

jeezzzzzzzzzz
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:50 pm

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
 
LMP737
Posts: 4858
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:22 am

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
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:07 pm

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
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:11 am

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
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:37 am

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).
 
Thumper
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:12 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:22 am

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!
 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:27 am

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.
 
Spoon04
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:15 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:03 pm

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!
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:43 pm

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
 
Spoon04
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:15 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:26 am

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
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:51 am

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
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:46 am

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
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:28 am

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.
 
Spoon04
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:15 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 9:40 am

Let's do this... Putting credibility, personal agendas and subjectivity aside, let's look at the allegations of Kress and Gillcrist and attempt to ascertain if those allegations are valid or not.

True or False: "The un-refueled radius of an F-14 carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 pound LGB's, two HARM missiles, and two Sidewinders, plus 675 rounds of 20 mm and two 280 gallon external tanks is at least 500 statute miles. F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have only a 350 statute mile radius carrying about half the bomb load."

True or False: "The F/A-18E only possesses 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target."

True or False: "The F/A-18E/F is significantly poorer in acceleration than the F/A-18A. Also, its combat ceiling is substantially lower, and its transonic drag rise is very high."

True or False: "The F/A-18E/F in maximum afterburner thrust cannot exceed Mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet even when it is is the clean configuration. At 10,000 feet, the F-14D can exceed Mach 1.6."


This is data provided by the authors. Actually, I have an open mind with respect to this subject. Either the author's allegations are true or false - fact or fiction. Does anyone have any information or data CONTRARY to what Kress and Gillcrist put forth? I'm curious.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:45 am

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 missiles, and two Sidewinders, plus 675 rounds of 20 mm and two 280 gallon external tanks is at least 500 statute miles.

For one, the author of that statement is full of the brown stinky stuff considering F-14s aren't rated to carry HARMs. Secondly, he mentions a "normal strike load" ok, I'll bite on everything in that load, save the AGM-88s. But what profile is the F-14 flying? A Hi-Med-Hi? A Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi? It makes a difference..let's take a hi-lo-lo-hi, since I have the figures on that readily available from FAS. An F-14 in that profile has an unrefueled range of 380 NM. An F/A-18E/F, loaded with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders,
and two 480 gallon external tanks (AKA an identical bomb load in terms of amount of HE put on target) has an unrefuelled range of 390 NM.

Point 2: ""The F/A-18E only possesses 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target."

I don't quite understand what the author means by the capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. An F/A-18E can carry more weight in external stores than an F-14 can and, while it may not be able to lug two Mk-84s, it can lug up an equivalent (in weight) of Mk-83s.

Point 3: "The F/A-18E/F is significantly poorer in acceleration than the F/A-18A. Also, its combat ceiling is substantially lower, and its transonic drag rise is very high."

Let's go point by point
Significantly poorer in acceleration: According to Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1997/dot-e/navy/97fa18ef.html - "Of note, acceleration of the F/A-18E/F is comparable to both basic and enhance engined F/A-18C aircraft in subsonic and negative G regimes. However, the F/A-18E/F is slower to accelerate to supersonic speeds, in one G flight, compared to the F/A-18C." In general the article is correct here, though, but whether it's a "significant" difference or not is debatable, as I've read one test pilot describe the difference as being "slight"

Substantially lower combat ceiling: F/A-18C has a combat ceiling of 15,240 m, an F/A-18E has one at 13,865 m, about a 1,375 m difference, meaning the F/A-18E has about 91% of the ceiling that an F/A-18C has. Is that substantially lower? You decide.

Transonic drag rise - Again true, due to the Super Hornet's moldline changes.

In general, I encourage you to check out http://www.hq.navy.mil/airwarfare/Programs/ARTSuper%20Hornet.htm where one of the F/A-18E/F test pilots addresses some of the myths regarding the F/A-18E/F
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
Spoon04
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:15 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:37 pm

Garnetpalmetto, very good job in bringing additional information to the table! I just have one observation. When utilizing the word "super" to describe the E/F models, ignorant folk like myself envision the "new and improved" version as absolutely flying RINGS around the older models they're to replace. I guess my ignorance is manifesting, but despite Cdr. Niewoehner's well-written treatise, nothing of real significance really grabs my attention re the new E/F models. The one thing though that really bothers me is what I've read in Aviation Week from time to time re GE having to rework the power plants in order to increase thrust to desired levels. I just can't imagine a project such as the Super Hornet having to modify a component as primary as the engines at this stage of development. But, that's me....... Now if we could just get some fleet pilots who have experience in BOTH the D model F-14 AND the Super Hornet to come on board and enlighten us......
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:31 pm

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
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
Spoon04
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:15 am

RE: US Navy Orders 210 F-18 Hornets Worth 9.6B!

Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:38 pm

Thanks for the additional info Garnet!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: par13del and 11 guests