F/A-18 Super Hornet

[gunnut]

Designed and initially produced by McDonnell Douglas, the Super Hornet first flew in 1995. Full-rate production began in September 1997, after the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing the previous month. The Super Hornet entered service with the United States Navy in 1999, replacing the F-14 Tomcat since 2006, and serves alongside the original Hornet. The Royal Australian Air Force ordered F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2007 to replace its aging F-111 fleet and began receiving aircraft in March 2010.

I was pretty close. First flight was 15 years ago and entered service 11 years ago; first combat 8 years ago.

Still...we're comparing something that has been in production for more than 10 years to prototypes that are just coming online.

According to wiki:
Russia: 445 Su-27
China: 69 Su-27 + 102 J-11

Su-27 is really a 4th gen fighter with little emphasis on low observability.

China also operates around 150 Su-30.
Russia operates a few dozen Su-33.
Russia has 48 Su-35 on order.

The USN operates nearly 400 F-18 E/F, with 124 on order.

Volume is also important.

[Stitch]

I was pretty close. First flight was 15 years ago and entered service 11 years ago; first combat 8 years ago.

A lot closer than me, apparently!

[gunnut]

A lot closer than me, apparently!

And chew on these facts:

HMMWV has been in service for more than 25 years.

UH-60 first flew more than 35 years ago, and has been in service for more than 30 years, twice as long as the helo it replaced in front line service.

[Aussiegunner]

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?

Not really.

If one of the three nations that operates 300km class ASMs (India, China, Russia) gets into a fight with the US and has any airbases left after B-2 and cruise missile attacks by the time it decides to attack US carriers, the launching aircraft still has to get by the F-18Es on CAP. If it manages that and fires its missiles it faces the current SM-2ER's which can still intercept multiple missiles at closer range than the SM-6s, even if they can't hit the launching aircraft. Those missiles that get by that would face the USN's ESSMs and those that get by that have to avoid being diverted by chaff or Nulka decoys. Those that managed to stay on target face USN CIWS's and those that finally get through have to find the ship that matters the most, the carrier, rather than just hitting an escort (the escorts job being to stop the missile, even if it is with its own hull).

Do those sound like good odds for the USN to you? They do to me.

[kuku]

Not really.

If one of the three nations that operates 300km class ASMs (India, China, Russia) gets into a fight with the US and has any airbases left after B-2 and cruise missile attacks by the time it decides to attack US carriers, the launching aircraft still has to get by the F-18Es on CAP. If it manages that and fires its missiles it faces the current SM-2ER's which can still intercept multiple missiles at closer range than the SM-6s, even if they can't hit the launching aircraft. Those missiles that get by that would face the USN's ESSMs and those that get by that have to avoid being diverted by chaff or Nulka decoys. Those that managed to stay on target face USN CIWS's and those that finally get through have to find the ship that matters the most, the carrier, rather than just hitting an escort (the escorts job being to stop the missile, even if it is with its own hull).

Do those sound like good odds for the USN to you? They do to me.

Well those are good odds, and even if the carrier is hit, its war, things happen, that is why they have 11 of them.

So basically the super hornet functions in a system where the role of launching air superiority aircrafts from the USN carrier strike groups in not required anymore, i suppose that is why speed/acceleration/maneuverability is not a criteria in the F-35 program like it was with the F-22 for USAF.

[Aussiegunner]

Well those are good odds, and even if the carrier is hit, its war, things happen, that is why they have 11 of them..

Exactly, though I would add that it would take several hits to incapacitate or destroy a target the size of a carrier anyway.

So basically the super hornet functions in a system where the role of launching air superiority aircrafts from the USN carrier strike groups in not required anymore, i suppose that is why speed/acceleration/maneuverability is not a criteria in the F-35 program like it was with the F-22 for USAF.

I suspect that may have been the case. Since the advent of AEGIS and the decline of the Soviet Union confidence that USN CGBs could handle any likely threat must have increased dramantically. Tying up two from a possible five squadrons of fast jets in a carrier with high end air superiority types that have no secondary ground attack use (until the advent of the Bombcat) is probably considered to be a waste of space for the types of conflicts the USN is generally involved in.

I

[Stitch]

Well those are good odds, and even if the carrier is hit, its war, things happen, that is why they have 11 of them.

And even if a carrier IS hit, it's a pretty big ship. During GQ, most of the watertight doors are sealed, and DC teams are on alert; one missle probably wouldn't do enough damage to put a carrier out of action, let alone sink it, unless they get a lucky hit on the magazine. As someone once stated on this forum (can't remember who, might've been Dreadnought), USN DC teams are probably the best trained in the world.

[highsea]

I was pretty close. First flight was 15 years ago and entered service 11 years ago; first combat 8 years ago.

Just to clarify gunnut- the production in 1997 was LRIP, not full rate. Full rate production didn't begin until 2000 after OPEVAL concluded, the first FRP frame was delivered in 2001.

The Super Hornets delivered to the Navy in 1999 were OPEVAL frames used for sea trials and training, etc. APG-79 wasn't even in development yet.

So it had "entered service", but it wouldn't be operational for 2 more years.

[gunnut]

Just to clarify gunnut- the production in 1997 was LRIP, not full rate. Full rate production didn't begin until 2000 after OPEVAL concluded, the first FRP frame was delivered in 2001.

The Super Hornets delivered to the Navy in 1999 were OPEVAL frames used for sea trials and training, etc. APG-79 wasn't even in development yet.

So it had "entered service", but it wouldn't be operational for 2 more years.

Ah ok. But still...the Super Hornets have been in full scale service for nearly a decade already while other comparable jets are just coming online. That's pretty impressive.

[kuku]

This might be too late to ask this (84 posts)
Any links on what makes Hornet and Super Hornet a good strike plane (avionics and aerodynamics)? What are the design strengths of a fast attack plane?

Exactly, though I would add that it would take several hits to incapacitate or destroy a target the size of a carrier anyway.

And even if a carrier IS hit, it's a pretty big ship. During GQ, most of the watertight doors are sealed, and DC teams are on alert; one missle probably wouldn't do enough damage to put a carrier out of action, let alone sink it, unless they get a lucky hit on the magazine. As someone once stated on this forum (can't remember who, might've been Dreadnought), USN DC teams are probably the best trained in the world.

I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.

[Stitch]

I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.

I suppose it depends on the situation; if they're still in imminent danger of attack from an external source, I would think they would still try and launch a CAP, unless another carrier's in the area and can provide covering fire. But your right, a carrier with a hole in it (no matter how small) would be better off making a tactical exit from the theater, rather than risk another crippling strike.

[GGTharos]

Actually that fact is correct. A missile armed F-15 with no fuel tanks is structurally (IIRC, from the diagram for a nominally loaded F-15C with 4 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9) limited to about M1.8, so that is its practical speed limit.

The rest I don't really know about.

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.

[Aussiegunner]

Actually that fact is correct. A missile armed F-15 with no fuel tanks is structurally (IIRC, from the diagram for a nominally loaded F-15C with 4 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9) limited to about M1.8, so that is its practical speed limit.

The rest I don't really know about.

I have read otherwise in an article by a EE Lightning pilot who flew F-15's on exchange, but I am happy to be corrected if a relevant source is provided.

[Chunder]

This might be too late to ask this (84 posts)
Any links on what makes Hornet and Super Hornet a good strike plane (avionics and aerodynamics)? What are the design strengths of a fast attack plane?




I would hope a carrier with a hole in it would be taken to the dock for repairs (even if she sails on her own power), no point risking operations with such a complicated vessel. Then again if the flight operations can continue it could wait for a replacement.

Well, the last report commissioned by Congress, was the GAO's into Operation Desert Storm (With all the cruise missile data & effectiveness blacked out), and well, to put it bluntly, the F-16 was the workhorse of the war. In 1991, they were pretty basic compared to F-15's, F-111's etc.

It's not just the Hornets on Cap you have to get past, or the SM's, it's also the Shorter Range missiles, and any other aircraft that are launched in addition. In addition to the CIWS, counter measures other ships, and increasingly likely, target specific electronic attack.

I know DD's are not decked out with a lot of SM's, but in wartime with the number of cells available to it, (and lets not forget picket ships) You have a shit load of firepower available.

[gunnut]

Well, the last report commissioned by Congress, was the GAO's into Operation Desert Storm (With all the cruise missile data & effectiveness blacked out), and well, to put it bluntly, the F-16 was the workhorse of the war. In 1991, they were pretty basic compared to F-15's, F-111's etc.

It's not just the Hornets on Cap you have to get past, or the SM's, it's also the Shorter Range missiles, and any other aircraft that are launched in addition. In addition to the CIWS, counter measures other ships, and increasingly likely, target specific electronic attack.

I know DD's are not decked out with a lot of SM's, but in wartime with the number of cells available to it, (and lets not forget picket ships) You have a shit load of firepower available.

Here's another thing people overlook. Aegis system doesn't fight as a single ship. Ships fight as a part of an integrated air defense system. All ships can see what all other ships see. This is a system designed to defeat Soviet style saturation attacks. People think in terms of a destroyer countering a saturation attack. That's not the case. It's an entire fleet defending against a few dozens missiles and bombers.