Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • Genosaurer
    replied
    I like the looks of the 'flying beer bottle' (Lentävä kaljapullo) F2A Buffalo much better than the later 'knock-kneed bumblebee' F4F Wildcat that replaced it.

    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    You mean F-32 Lewinsky?
    The X-32 looks like it's making a face like
    Last edited by Genosaurer; 06 Oct 10,, 01:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Also, why is the Raptor so beautiful but the JSF so butt ugly?
    You mean F-32 Lewinsky?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • sappersgt
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    I submit the F2A Buffalo as the ugliest, that or the F3F biplane
    I'm rather fond of the Buffalo, even built the model!;)

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    7 so far. But thats besides the Point.

    Also, why is the Raptor so beautiful but the JSF so butt ugly?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    What are you guys talking about????

    The Phantom is beautiful!
    How many beers have you had? :hammer:

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    I submit the F2A Buffalo as the ugliest, that or the F3F biplane
    Nah...they have this old timer's charm that I like.

    F-4, on the other hand, looked like the parts were stuck on in a late night garage project. The droopy tail, upslanted wing tips, engine intake that looked likethey were bolted on as an after thought, fat nose, engines that weren't placed all the way back like the designer ran out of something during the designing phase...etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    What are you guys talking about????

    The Phantom is beautiful!

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    3. F-4 was the ugliest fighter in USN service...EVER!!!
    I submit the F2A Buffalo as the ugliest, that or the F3F biplane

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    1. F-18 E/F is not just an enlarged F-18 A-D
    2. F-18 E/F is a better fighter than people give it credit for
    3. F-4 was the ugliest fighter in USN service...EVER!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy 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.
    The F-14 Tomcat's greater range, faster speed, greater radar range, and greater missile range over the F/A-18A/C Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ensured that incoming threats were engaged much farther away from the carrier then can be accomplished today. That alone reduced the threat to the carrier and her escorts and made the F-14 a better fleet defense fighter.

    I'm not saying the Super Hornet can't accomplish this mission, as its AESA radar and ability to carry a substantial number of AMRAAM's gives it the capability to engage a good number of targets, but the fact is, these engagments are happening closer to the carrier.
    Last edited by JA Boomer; 05 Oct 10,, 17:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    "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.
    Last edited by YellowFever; 05 Oct 10,, 17:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    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.

    Missile "maximum range" is, to me, one of the most overemphasized aspects, and gets debated to death on the internet, as if missile "A", with 50nm range, is somehow automatically better than missile "B", with a 46nm range. Max range is based upon an enormous number of factors, with the most important being the target aspect, and then altitude. For example, an AIM-9 might have an effective tail-chase range for a mach 1.2 target of 3 to 4 nm, but that is at 40,000 feet. Drop the engagement to the deck, and that range shrinks dramatically by perhaps a factor of 4.

    Any target maneuvering also shrinks effective missile max range enormously. It is simply one number among dozens relative to missile performance.

    Re: the Mig-25 "hi-fast flyer" intercept... years ago, the MiG-25 was the platform of choice for AWACS attack, and now of course the MiG-31 has supplanted it. A target at 65,000 feet and mach 2.5 is an exceptionally challenging intercept, and at the first sign of an inbound Foxbat by AWACS, F-15C's on CAP had to begin a specialized flight profile designed to "loft" the AIM-7M. We practiced this in the simulator often, and if the profile is not flown correctly, the missile will be kinematically defeated.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    The Indonesian Airforce does not have nearly enough SU-XXs to run 16 simultaneous CAPs around Java either, so it is obviously a hypothetical future scenario based on possible acquisitions by both airforces.
    I should have said 4 CAPs totalling 16 aircraft, but they don't even have enough for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    The Indonesian Airforce does not have nearly enough SU-XXs to run 16 simultaneous CAPs around Java either, so it is obviously a hypothetical future scenario based on possible acquisitions by both airforces.
    Exactly. After all it calls out 2012. The author is simply providing an example of why the SH will remain relevant against a variety of emerging threats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    That article has one major flaw, the RAAF does not have the 120D
    The Indonesian Airforce does not have nearly enough SU-XXs to run 16 simultaneous CAPs around Java either, so it is obviously a hypothetical future scenario based on possible acquisitions by both airforces.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X