Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 352

Thread: F/A-18 Super Hornet

  1. #16
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D
    The USN does :-). RAAF, or any other Super Hornet customer, can purchase the 120D at a later time. The point made is that with the right CONOPS the SH can indeed be effective in A2A
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  2. #17
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The USN does :-). RAAF, or any other Super Hornet customer, can purchase the 120D at a later time. The point made is that with the right CONOPS the SH can indeed be effective in A2A
    the USN does not have the wedgetail, does the RAAF even have it yet?

  3. #18
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    the USN does not have the wedgetail, does the RAAF even have it yet?
    Now you're just stretching! The USN has the E-2C and soon the E-2D. Again, the point is that when you place the SH in an itegrated battle network it is more than potent. Not all aircraft are intended for this type of fight or have been allocated the resources to fight this way. The SH has the tools that many a/c do not. THIS is how the US will fight in the 21st century.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  4. #19
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    Now you're just stretching! The USN has the E-2C and soon the E-2D. Again, the point is that when you place the SH in an itegrated battle network it is more than potent. Not all aircraft are intended for this type of fight or have been allocated the resources to fight this way. The SH has the tools that many a/c do not. THIS is how the US will fight in the 21st century.
    No I am not, for the USN, the superbugs most likely flanker foe is the PLAAF which is equipped with the KJ2000/KJ200 class AESA AWCS so the LPI advantage goes to the them. The PLAAF also has the YJ-12/SD-10 AAM uses a licence built version of the R-77 Ameranski/Vympel missile seeker. The USN will also likely be fighting outnumbered unless its a multi-carrier task force beycase it will ahve to leave fighters behind to protect the carriers if it wants to conduct any strikes on the mainland. The only other option is to remain east of Taiwan, which will drastically cut the US' ability to stop PRC missile strikes on the RoC.

  5. #20
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,094
    The fact of the matter is, the Shornet is not the interceptor the Tomcat is/was, nor is it the bomb truck the Intruder is/was.

    Does the latest technology compensate for some of it's short-fallings? Sure. But I'd like to see what the Tomcat would have turned out with the latest gizmo package the Shornet has.

    For fleet defense, you bet that speed advantage definitely matters.

    I can understand the Navy wanting to cut cost and dumping the F-14 and A-6, and having one platform for both offense and defense does make alot of sense but I can't help but feel we've lost some punch in both areas with the advant of the Shornet.

    As someone mentioned here before, the Shornet is the Honda Accord of fighters: Not exceedingly good in any area but good enough to get the job done for now.

    It is what it is...

  6. #21
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No I am not, for the USN, the superbugs most likely flanker foe is the PLAAF which is equipped with the KJ2000/KJ200 class AESA AWCS so the LPI advantage goes to the them. The PLAAF also has the YJ-12/SD-10 AAM uses a licence built version of the R-77 Ameranski/Vympel missile seeker. The USN will also likely be fighting outnumbered unless its a multi-carrier task force beycase it will ahve to leave fighters behind to protect the carriers if it wants to conduct any strikes on the mainland. The only other option is to remain east of Taiwan, which will drastically cut the US' ability to stop PRC missile strikes on the RoC.
    The E-2d is an AESA with LPI. the Chinese have serious catching up to do in LPI and integrated warfare. Not all LPIs are created equal. The US has been fielding AESAs for years and no one question their lead in this area, especially in LPI.

    See how the debate has turned to system vs system. This is EXACTLY my point.

    I'm obviously making no headway here so I will leave you the last word. I've enjoyed the discussion.
    Last edited by Phoenix10; 03 Oct 10, at 23:00.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  7. #22
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    The fact of the matter is, the Shornet is not the interceptor the Tomcat is/was, nor is it the bomb truck the Intruder is/was.

    Does the latest technology compensate for some of it's short-fallings? Sure. But I'd like to see what the Tomcat would have turned out with the latest gizmo package the Shornet has.

    For fleet defense, you bet that speed advantage definitely matters.

    I can understand the Navy wanting to cut cost and dumping the F-14 and A-6, and having one platform for both offense and defense does make alot of sense but I can't help but feel we've lost some punch in both areas with the advant of the Shornet.

    As someone mentioned here before, the Shornet is the Honda Accord of fighters: Not exceedingly good in any area but good enough to get the job done for now.

    It is what it is...
    Well said.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D
    Even if it has but 150km,...... ... really?

  9. #24
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The E-2d is an AESA with LPI. the Chinese have serious catching up to do in LPI and integrated warfare. Not all LPIs are created equal. The US has been fielding AESAs for years and no one question their lead in this area, especially in LPI.
    The problem is the US does not have a lead in this area, The US might establish a lead here, once we are in the game. The E-2D is not yet fielded, the E-3 is not AESA etc. The US leads in fighter sized AESA platforms. While this is a huge edge, it is offset to a high degree by enemy AESA platforms on AWCS aircraft. The Chinese claim that the KJ2000 system is superior to the Israeli Phalcon.

    See how the debate has turned to system vs system. This is EXACTLY my point.

    I'm obviously making no headway here so I will leave you the last word. I've enjoyed the discussion.
    A point of note, I am trying to compare what is not what might be. In the context of the super bug and its most likely foe- Chinese Flankers, the F/A-18 does not stack up well at all when the total picture is considered. (mission vs actual capabilities vs enemy assets)
    In one on one fighter on fighter combat with no support the F/A-18 with the AIM-120D owns the BVR fight. However if the fight moves WVR the Flanker has more power, more agility, better sensors and only a slight trailing in IR-AAM missile capabilities more than offset with helmet mounted cueing the USN does not have.

    If the total package is involved, then the short comings in US AWAC aircraft is telling. Chinese KJ-2000 can operate from behind a HQ-9/ fighter screen and still see into the likely combat area while the USN Hawkeyes will be behind an SM-2 screen/Figher. This is going to make it very hard on USN strike fighters to complete any missions other than local air defense of the carrier or Taiwan. While Chines fighters will also be limited to the Chinese coast or Taiwan, being over Taiwan is where they want to be as they can conduct offensive missions there.

    Over Taiwan where each side is about even in technology, the Chines lead in numbers, at least until multiple carrier groups can arrive is worth noting. Unless the US has enough Tomahawks at see to seriously attrit the PLAAF the numbers game does not look good. If the PLAAF disperses the mission gets harder.

  10. #25
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    Nobody has the 120D yet.

    The KJ-2000 is far from a raging success at this point...but even if China irons it out and fields it effectively, their training is inadequate at best.

  11. #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Mar 09
    Posts
    517
    Just a question, not entirely related, but there is a lot of debates going on about the Aim-120D's range (absolute maximum), wikipedia and other sources (possibly citing wikipedia) state it is 150km+ (50% higher than C model, also claimed at 100km).

    But now there is a switch of opinions and is now around 80km for D model, and 50km for C model.

    Which is more accurate in terms of maximum theoretical range. (I know effective range is much shorter, but still)

    Another nooby question, how difficult would it be to fit Aim-54s onto F-15s and F-18s? I know they are about the size of a mk-82, which all of these aircraft have no problems carrying...

  12. #27
    Regular Kilo 2-3's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Jan 10
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by cr9527 View Post
    Another nooby question, how difficult would it be to fit Aim-54s onto F-15s and F-18s? I know they are about the size of a mk-82, which all of these aircraft have no problems carrying...
    As far as I know (more knowledegable members will have to sound off on this), this issue isn't getting it to fit on a pylon/hardpoint, it's integrating it and making it compatible into the aircraft's avionics, radar, etc. systems. Until you can "talk" to the missile, you can't shoot it, and until you can shoot it, it's just dangling out there, causing drag and dirtying up your airframe.

    Integration is a long, expensive process. I doubt it'd be worth it for a missile which isn't in production, (probably) has low to nonexistant stocks, and was meant to meet a threat which has become somewhat less prerssing.
    USNA 2014?

  13. #28
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    The AIM-54 was designed to kill big, non-maneuvering targets. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore, much like the F-14's interceptor role. The Shornet doesn't NEED to be as awesome an interceptor/point defender as the Tomcat, so the degradation of that capability isn't that significant. The multirole capability it brings to the fight overcomes that shorfall, just like it overcomes the minor loss of air-to-ground capability the Navy gave up with the retirement of the Intruder.

    An F-15C armed with Phoenix missiles is less effective at its mission of air superiority than an F-15C armed with AMRAAMs, especially once the -D rolls out.

  14. #29
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    257
    It's nice to see that someone else here feels the SH has value. Not that it matters what any of use think anyway.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  15. #30
    Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Mar 09
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    The AIM-54 was designed to kill big, non-maneuvering targets. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore, much like the F-14's interceptor role. The Shornet doesn't NEED to be as awesome an interceptor/point defender as the Tomcat, so the degradation of that capability isn't that significant. The multirole capability it brings to the fight overcomes that shorfall, just like it overcomes the minor loss of air-to-ground capability the Navy gave up with the retirement of the Intruder.

    An F-15C armed with Phoenix missiles is less effective at its mission of air superiority than an F-15C armed with AMRAAMs, especially once the -D rolls out.
    So what of the russian long range bvr missiles? Are they adequate to kill maneuvering targets?
    Also, what IS the max range of the D model? It seem to range a lot depending on which site you go to...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. F/A-18E Super Hornet vs. Rafale M
    By SloMax in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jan 11,, 04:04
  2. There is nothing super about this Hornet
    By bengalraider in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 26 Aug 08,, 03:42
  3. RAAF Super Hornet
    By The Wrecker in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19 Jun 08,, 05:24
  4. Super Hornet
    By furkensturker in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 12 Nov 07,, 12:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •