F/A-18 Super Hornet

[Chogy]

"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.

[kuku]

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?

[Aussiegunner]

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.

[Aussiegunner]

There is another opinion:
Russian Aviation Page: Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbat

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.

[jlvfr]

There is another opinion:
Russian Aviation Page: Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbat

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.

[NUS]

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.

[kuku]

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?

[Chunder]

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

[jlvfr]

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...

[jlvfr]

Sorry for the offtopic, but do you have any additional information about those interceptions? I've never heard about them before.

Mostly in books, but I found this on the net:
F-15 Eagle in Service with Israel
(mentions "zoom and climb" tactic")
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

[Aussiegunner]

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.

[NUS]

To add to this: don't forget the israelis shotdown multiple sirian recon Mig-25, a mission profile that required a delicate interception.

Sorry for the offtopic, but do you have any additional information about those interceptions? I've never heard about them before.

[Jimmy]

Oh come on, the superbug got nothing on the elelphant nose F4.

I love the F-4. The shining example that if you put big enough engines in something, it WILL fly. And do so pretty fast. But it only looks good in camo.

How the F-22 and the AIM-120 changes the "hi-fast flyer" challenge, I am not sure, but I would guess the vastly superior kinematic performance of the AIM-120 vs the AIM-7 makes the job much easier.

Same concepts, but the engagement envelope is more forgiving as you'd expect.

[gunnut]

Yeah.....it blows.

Really? I thought it sucked...

[YellowFever]

You mean F-32 Lewinsky?

Yeah.....it blows.