Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by highsea View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kuku
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    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 . . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    ^^^ September 2001 IOC. First operational deployment July 2002 VFA-115 (OIF)
    Last edited by highsea; 06 Oct 10,, 19:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Transient
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    Thanks, chogy. :)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X