F/A-18 Super Hornet

[jlvfr]

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...).

[omon]

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.

[gunnut]

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? ;)

[Chogy]

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.

[GGTharos]

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.

[1979]

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 .

[1979]

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

[jlvfr]

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)

[YellowFever]

Wasn't this discussion dissected enough here?

[Aussiegunner]

Pretty impressive weapon. The attacked will need dense network of radars and various missile complexes, from S-300 to Tor's and Buk's

Its a pretty small target and there would be a lot of them, as well as TLAMS and JASSM, the later which can be used by B-1B's once the long range SAMS have been destroyed by ALCMs and B-2's. The US cruise missiles and stealth fighters didn't have any trouble butchering the Iraqi defences in downtown Bagdad, which were described as some of the densist in the World. There may be more modern SAMs available now but they would have to provide an exponential improvement in performance to beat the increased US capabilities.

[Andrey Egorov]

B-52s carry 20 conventionally armed ALCM nowdays. They can be fired from well outside the range of the S-300/S-400. That is even before the impact of the B-2s are considered.

AGM-86 ALCM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty impressive weapon. The attacked will need dense network of radars and various missile complexes, from S-300 to Tor's and Buk's

[Aussiegunner]

Once launched P-700 gets no midcource update. A single missile in salvo lifts up to provide the guidance.

Interesting, that would work.

Extensive cover by Su-33's will be needed in that big-scale conflict. Though B-52's bombing the airfields can be handled by S-300 and S-400.

B-52s carry 20 conventionally armed ALCM nowdays. They can be fired from well outside the range of the S-300/S-400. That is even before the impact of the B-2s are considered.

AGM-86 ALCM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Andrey Egorov]

The TU-95 has to survive long enough against the carrier's F-18's to get a location and bearing on the ships and to provide a midcourse update. In the absense of air superiority I don't think that any TU-95 can reasonably be expected to do that. That is even before considering the likelyhood that the TU-95's base will probably have been bombed well before the carrier gets into range.

Once launched P-700 gets no midcource update. A single missile in salvo lifts up to provide the guidance.
Extensive cover by Su-33's will be needed in that big-scale conflict. Though B-52's bombing the airfields can be handled by S-300 and S-400.

[Aussiegunner]

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.

The TU-95 has to survive long enough against the carrier's F-18's to get a location and bearing on the ships and to provide a midcourse update. In the absense of air superiority I don't think that any TU-95 can reasonably be expected to do that. That is even before considering the likelyhood that the TU-95's base will probably have been bombed well before the carrier gets into range.

[Andrey Egorov]

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

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.

Russian surface warships and subs can launch missile salvo, but carriers can launch 'salvo' of aircrafts too, each aircrafts can launch 'salvo' of missile itself, AEGIS ships also can launch 'salvo' of missiles, carriers themselves can launch 'salvo' of self-defense missiles too, etc. So I dont see a big deal here. Besides, missile launch from subs and surface ships would almost need midcourse update from other sources. And even if somehow the missile get through and hit something, they must make sure that it's the real carrier, not another 'Atlantic Conveyor'.

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.