Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wasn't this discussion dissected enough here?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
      Wasn't this discussion dissected enough here?
      Yeah... this is going a wee bit sideways. But I guess it's inevitable, considering the subject. So let's try to get this back on track.

      For me, the F-18 (specially the E) is a jack-of-all-trades: good at both AA and AG, decent range, 2 engines for safety/survivability... with an extra 10,000 pounds max TOW and 11 hardpoints, it beats the F-16. So, if you can aford it, got for the F-18E. (I won't go into systems; you could cram a Learjet with systems and it would still not be a fighter) I'm sure the USN would have like a greater mix of planes but, when you can only cram 50-60 combat planes (too much/little?) on a deck, and you're on a budget, you have to get the maximum of what you can get. And in the west, for carriers, that's the F-18 and the Rafale. (no, am not comparing, just stating)

      Comment


      • How does this Oscar locate and identify a carrier 200nm away?


        http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/nav...tml#post146822

        Follow the thread from
        post 107 on
        Last edited by 1979; 11 Oct 10,, 10:56.
        J'ai en marre.

        Comment


        • I have one question :

          According to the folowing pdf FA -18e/f DESIGN LOAD FACTOR is 7.6 G
          http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...F_overview.pdf

          Is that with full external stores ? I expect the hornet to have at least +9 g in clean configuration .
          J'ai en marre.

          Comment


          • The Su-33 operates from Russia's only aircraft carrier. Again, like I said, the only purpose of it and the task force surrounding that carrier is to protect the fleet from ASW assets.

            AFAIK ALCM is now no longer in use. There are a lot of 'new toys' on the block for B-52's to use.

            As for the hornet's load factor, it is 7.6 at all times due to the folding wing. You can override this and pull 9, but that is noted as an over-g condition.

            Comment


            • 7.6 G vs 9.0 G is not that much of an issue. Modern, all-aspect, short-ranged missiles has altered how the game is played, and hyper-maneuverability is probably no longer the critical bench-mark of a competent fighter as it once was. IMO, sensors & weapons > acceleration > maneuverability.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                Yeah... this is going a wee bit sideways. But I guess it's inevitable, considering the subject. So let's try to get this back on track.

                For me, the F-18 (specially the E) is a jack-of-all-trades: good at both AA and AG, decent range, 2 engines for safety/survivability... with an extra 10,000 pounds max TOW and 11 hardpoints, it beats the F-16. So, if you can aford it, got for the F-18E. (I won't go into systems; you could cram a Learjet with systems and it would still not be a fighter) I'm sure the USN would have like a greater mix of planes but, when you can only cram 50-60 combat planes (too much/little?) on a deck, and you're on a budget, you have to get the maximum of what you can get. And in the west, for carriers, that's the F-18 and the Rafale. (no, am not comparing, just stating)
                It's inevitible for this discussion to turn into a debate on fleet air defense. That's part of the F-18 E/F's job as the replacement for the legendary F-14. As such, it will encounter likely threats from Soviet style tactics to overwhelm the carrier group. Then we get into the other aspects of fleet air defense, and then the tactics developed to counter that. And so on and so forth.

                This just proves that we at WAB do not look at a single weapon system, ie the "vs threads" that populate other forums but get locked here quickly. We look at the integrated defense network, including logistics. It's a lot more interesting than compare numbers like speed, climb rate, and turn rate. Don't you think so? ;)
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • lol MiG 25 foxbot had another unofficial name in USSR, flying supermarket, cuz it had about 100l of alcohol on board for deicing, that fact would bring no attention if it was in USAF, but in USSR alcohol had special place, lol.
                  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gunnut View Post

                    This just proves that we at WAB do not look at a single weapon system, ie the "vs threads" that populate other forums but get locked here quickly. We look at the integrated defense network, including logistics. It's a lot more interesting than compare numbers like speed, climb rate, and turn rate. Don't you think so? ;)
                    A vs B discussions are pretty much useless. Even when it really is just 1 A vs 1 B, they are still useless. History is full of such examples (David anyone?...) . Otherwise, Napoleon's Imperial Guard would have conquered all single handedly, Hitler's panzer's would have reached the Urals, etc etc etc...

                    One of my favourites is a fight between a flight of old, subsonic, radarless, Jordanian Hawker Hunter vs supersonic top of line Israeli Mirage III. Score? 1 Mirage III down, 3 damaged.

                    And Skyraiders shotdown Mig-17s in Vienam... anyone willing to take bets on that fight?...

                    The men/women using the system count for far more than the system itself. Hell, even an armchair general like me, who never served, knows this!

                    As for the F-18, the USN did a great deal with them: replaced 3 planes (F-14, A-7, A-6) with just one. I'll be willing to be that the sheer increase in availability from improved logistics and simplified procedures is worth a small drop in individual plane quality for any one specific mission (and I'm an F-14 nut...).

                    Comment


                    • Pretty much the conclusion is the F-18 E/F is much better than people give credit for. It is a 4.5 gen fighter before many others that came into service later like the Eurofighter and the Rafale. A near contemporary is the Gripen, a stealthy 4.5 gen multi-role fighter that can supercruise with external stores, and was in service before many other, more famous models.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
                        AFAIK ALCM is now no longer in use. There are a lot of 'new toys' on the block for B-52's to use.
                        Correct; the munition of choice these days for stand-off engagements is the AGM-158 JASSM and the Storm Shadow.
                        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          This just proves that we at WAB do not look at a single weapon system, ie the "vs threads" that populate other forums but get locked here quickly. We look at the integrated defense network, including logistics. It's a lot more interesting than compare numbers like speed, climb rate, and turn rate. Don't you think so? ;)
                          Exactly. Much more interesting, and much more realistic. The SH is and will be a very effective weapon system in the system in which it is used.
                          No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                            How does this Oscar locate and identify a carrier 200nm away?


                            http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/nav...tml#post146822

                            Follow the thread from
                            post 107 on
                            One of the most ridiculously ineffective weapons ever.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Andrey Egorov View Post
                              A carrier group isn't that small target, Tu-95 cruising at 11000m can track it long enough to make a direction to the submarine. Once launched, P-700's aim themselves or even define and redefine targets themselves. That's the idea. P-800's are even more sophisticated though much shorter-handed. Though Hawkeye can decrease chances of attack's success dramatically if it can detect the entire salvo from above and let AEGIS time to prepare.



                              You launch a salvo against a small object that travels subsonic at 100 nm away? Are you able to identify the type of the missile? Once you take it down and another P-700 lifts up, or another two dozens appear on the horizon 20-30 nm away you must fire everything you have in 40 to 60 seconds to try to put 5-ton, 2-mach fireballs off their course.
                              what i was trying to say is not about technical aspect but about operational one. You seem to indicate that by using quantity (salvo) one can overcome the fleet defense. so I reminded you that USN has much higher number of both platforms and weapons, both offensive and defensive, against russian fleet.

                              The fact that the leading missile lifts up makes little sense coz they still need midcourse update anyway, the onboard radars only work in the final phase no matter how high it flies.

                              Yes, carriers are physically big, but it doesnt necessarily mean they will stand out clearly, especially from hundred miles away. When the Argentine hit the Atlantic Conveyor, they first thought they got one of the british carriers.

                              After all, its all about system vs. system.

                              Comment


                              • . F-4 was the ugliest fighter in USN service...EVER!!!

                                Disagree the F-4 Phantom was a beautiful aircraft. I can think of others that would fit the ugly label but thats not one of them IMO.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X