Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 352

Thread: F/A-18 Super Hornet

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    Something to consider when using the difficulties in achieving kills against the Syrian Mig-25's is that those were unarmed recon versions. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 attempting to kill an AWACs would have/would be using big Russian missiles like the AA-6, AA-9 or AA-13. That reduces the speed and altitude of the aircraft a lot, so the interceptions aren't going to be as hard as the Syrian ones were.
    True on the lower top speed, but don't forget, if it's carrying something like an AA-13, it will be able to fire from a long way off...

  2. #62
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Just to point out - a Fleet Defence fighter in the F-14's role relies largely on already being on station. If it's on the deck the Kinematic advantage is a rather Moot point. With AEGIS & SM's on board DD's, in reality being just as good as any tomcat ready to go is.

    I'd wager it'd be hard to find a CAG that wouldn't trade in the destructive firepower of 2 Squadrons or F-14's, and the remainder in A6's & A7's, for the destructive firepower of an air wing dominant with Hornets with high reliability rates.

    The foxbat analogy is disingenuous. It has to know where the awacs is (no.1) and it has to use it's very limited range (if one is hypothesising the thing being at maximum speed for a pure intercept) (no 2). Like Most aircraft, of soviet origin, it actually has to have the mission availability rate. (no3.) Not discounting the potential of the platforms, But Jorn can see aircraft in the Landing Pattern at Hong Kong.... from Australia.
    SH is only considered a bridging fighter for the RAAF at present, but then again, the versatility it brings to the line is supposed to be pretty good. Half of the order is being wired for Growler conversion. Better sensors on adversaries don't mean much if you can't use them at their peak, or the enemy is avoiding them, or they arn't even fighting where you want them to fight. Thats the picture the Hornet is trying to define with it's interoperability.

    Regards
    Ego Numquam

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 08
    Location
    New Delhi, India, India
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    Just to point out - a Fleet Defence fighter in the F-14's role relies largely on already being on station. If it's on the deck the Kinematic advantage is a rather Moot point. With AEGIS & SM's on board DD's, in reality being just as good as any tomcat ready to go is.

    I'd wager it'd be hard to find a CAG that wouldn't trade in the destructive firepower of 2 Squadrons or F-14's, and the remainder in A6's & A7's, for the destructive firepower of an air wing dominant with Hornets with high reliability rates.
    What if the attacking planes fire off their anti ship missiles outside the anti air missiles range/horizon and run for home?
    cheers

  4. #64
    Contributor NUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 08
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    Something to consider when using the difficulties in achieving kills against the Syrian Mig-25's is that those were unarmed recon versions. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 attempting to kill an AWACs would have/would be using big Russian missiles like the AA-6, AA-9 or AA-13. That reduces the speed and altitude of the aircraft a lot, so the interceptions aren't going to be as hard as the Syrian ones were.
    There is another opinion:
    Russian Aviation Page: Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbat
    MiG-25 Speed Limit -

    Thomas said that the Foxbat can carry its full weapons load to Mach 2.8, while a clean recon version can do Mach 3+. Actually, the recon versions have the same limit as the interceptors: Mach 2.83. This is not a thrust limit. You might note that the RB versions of the Foxbat can carry four bombs(!) to Mach 2.83. The Mach 2.83 is a theoretical stability limit on the airframe (which has been safely exceeded on numerous occasions by test pilots). At speeds greater than Mach 2.6 however, throttle control must be precise to keep the engines from overspeeding.
    Winter is coming.

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,935
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post
    Yeah... about that 3+, read half way down in this:
    Bye bye engines
    On 6 November 1971, an Egyptian MiG-25 flying at Mach 2.5 was met by Israeli F-4Es and fired upon unsuccessfully. A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 during this period. The MiG-25 oversped its engines, which led to their destruction. Unit Det 63 was sent back home in 1972, though reconnaissance Foxbats were sent back to Egypt in 19-20 October 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Unit Det 154 remained there until late 1974.
    Besides, a clean recon version doesn't pose much of a threat (yes, I know about "knowing your enemy")... which lasted only till the -15 got there anyway.

  6. #66
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    03 Nov 08
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post
    I wouldn't be putting too much stock in that article, some of the claims are just absurd. For instance, it claims that the F-15 has a practical speed limit of mach 1.78 when in fact it is able to operate comfortably at mach 2+. It also claims that the Eagles range is less than that of an F-16 (!). Finally it miss attributes Riconni's efforts as being directed towards the F-15, when in fact he was an F-16 advocate.
    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

  7. #67
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    03 Nov 08
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by kuku View Post
    What if the attacking planes fire off their anti ship missiles outside the anti air missiles range/horizon and run for home?
    The USN's new SM-6 will be able to be networked with AWACS to hit targets at all levels out to 200nm, about the same range as the biggest Russian ASMs - the AS-4 and AS-6. The F-18Es would be patrolling beyond that range, so it is going to be hard for any aircraft approaching a US CBG to get within ASM firing range and even if it does, the missiles are likely to be intercepted at long range from the CBG by SM-6s.
    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 08
    Location
    New Delhi, India, India
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    The USN's new SM-6 will be able to be networked with AWACS to hit targets at all levels out to 200nm, about the same range as the biggest Russian ASMs - the AS-4 and AS-6. The F-18Es would be patrolling beyond that range, so it is going to be hard for any aircraft approaching a US CBG to get within ASM firing range and even if it does, the missiles are likely to be intercepted at long range from the CBG by SM-6s.
    So before the SM-6 (sounds like an amazing concept, should have been included with earlier generations) is operational there will be a gap in fleet defence?
    cheers

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Chogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Apr 09
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    "I cannot speak to personal experience with the Super Hornet, but the original hornet had some very impressive capabilities in the air to air mission. I can only imagine that this new bug has improved even more. I believe it is perfectly capable of effective fleet defense, on par with the F-14, which I always felt (sorry admirers) to be quite overrated. "

    Spoken like a true "Ego" Driver.

    Chogy, a question: What exactly is a "Wall of Eagles" and can you briefly explain it's concept for me?

    Sorry for the digression.
    Ego is hard to shed, even after many years!

    A wall of F-15's is a 4-ship line abreast, with about 1.5 to 2 nm between aircraft. Each aircraft has specific search areas, and the combined radar coverage can clean a corridor nicely. It is used mostly as a form of pre-strike sweep, and generally the idea is to NOT anchor and turn but to blow through, keep going. This also helps avoid fratricide.

    On the F-14 (just opinions, don't beat me up too badly) - the design was very maintenance intensive. The swing-wings telegraphed the Cat's energy state anytime it was within visual range, and (for example) you could execute a lead turn on a Tomcat when its wings were swept that would be suicidal with a hornet. And much of the range benefit counted on the AIM-54, which did not scare us or particularly impress us. The "end game" numbers weren't there for a maneuvering target. We would hear "Fox -3 kill the F-15 doing a 8 G orthoganol roll through the beam and puking chaff at 40 miles" and had a (justifiably, I think) doubt of the missile's ability to handle that.

    The early hornets always put up a tremendous fight... I can only imagine how improved it has become with the Super Hornet, and upgraded technology. And I think it looks cool - all business.

  10. #70
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,094
    Thanks, chogy.

  11. #71
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Posts
    104
    Hi Chogy, your response corresponds with that of other pilots at ARC forums, one of them being a Raptor pilot. Whenever they find 'Tomcat worship' on forums, they (in effect) roll their eyes and give a derisive snort. I think the effect of Tom Cruise, theoretically long range of the AIM-54 and the admittably pleasing lines of the Tomcat just seem to make people think the Tomcat is everlasting. Less visible things like advanced avionics and mission availability of the Superhornet which make for that much more effectiveness just don't factor among the Tomcat fanboys.

  12. #72
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,795
    I don't see anyone mention the fact that the F-18 E/F has been in service for what...15 years? And we're comparing them to the new Russian designs that are just coming online? Let's compare them with Russian designs that are in service for 15 years. Compare the new designs with Raptors and F-35 and see how they fare.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I don't see anyone mention the fact that the F-18 E/F has been in service for what...15 years?
    Are you talking about the E/F? Or the C/D? IIRC, the E/F just entered fleetwide service a few years ago, five max; I don't think it's been any 15 years, or they would've been flying in ODF and OIF.
    "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

  14. #74
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    ^^^ September 2001 IOC. First operational deployment July 2002 VFA-115 (OIF)
    Last edited by highsea; 06 Oct 10, at 19:40.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    ^^^ September 2001 IOC. First operational deployment July 2002 VFA-115 (OIF)
    10/4, tx; I didn't realize it had been so long already! Time flies when you get old . . . . .
    "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

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
  •