Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Oh come on, the superbug got nothing on the elelphant nose F4.
    Haha, yes, agreed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    It has plenty of value, but it still has the same problems as every jack-of-all-trades. And it's the ugliest fighter the US has used since the post-Korean War era.
    Oh come on, the superbug got nothing on the elelphant nose F4.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    It has plenty of value, but it still has the same problems as every jack-of-all-trades. And it's the ugliest fighter the US has used since the post-Korean War era.
    It has its angles but overall I have to agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • cr9527
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    It has plenty of value, but it still has the same problems as every jack-of-all-trades. And it's the ugliest fighter the US has used since the post-Korean War era.
    Hey.. I find the Super hornet quite sexy, including from the front.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimmy
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    It's nice to see that someone else here feels the SH has value. Not that it matters what any of use think anyway.
    It has plenty of value, but it still has the same problems as every jack-of-all-trades. And it's the ugliest fighter the US has used since the post-Korean War era.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    The fact of the matter is, the Shornet is not the interceptor the Tomcat is/was, nor is it the bomb truck the Intruder is/was.

    Does the latest technology compensate for some of it's short-fallings? Sure. But I'd like to see what the Tomcat would have turned out with the latest gizmo package the Shornet has.

    For fleet defense, you bet that speed advantage definitely matters.

    I can understand the Navy wanting to cut cost and dumping the F-14 and A-6, and having one platform for both offense and defense does make alot of sense but I can't help but feel we've lost some punch in both areas with the advant of the Shornet.

    As someone mentioned here before, the Shornet is the Honda Accord of fighters: Not exceedingly good in any area but good enough to get the job done for now.

    It is what it is...
    Excellent post, pretty much along the lines of my thoughts on the subject.

    For a somewhat dated but relevent article on the subject of F-14D vs F/A-18E/F read this:

    Battle of the Superfighters | Article Titles and Pages | Flight Journal Magazine

    For a decent summary of some of the F-14 Tomcat upgrade proposals that were considered read this:

    Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-14 Tomcat Replacement Proposals

    The F-14D Tomcat and F/A-18E/F are both great airplanes. The Super Hornet can never fulfill the fleet interception mission that the Tomcat was designed for, and the Tomcat is even better equipped to handle the long range strike/interdiction missions (a gap left due to the retirement of the A-6 Intruder) because of their superior range and payload. The Super Hornet has all of the latest gizmos and gadgets that make it a fantastic platform able to fulfill a wide area of missions.

    It's hard to compare the Tomcat to the Super Hornet, as the latter has all of the avionics of a 4.5 generation fighters that the Tomcat would have received had it been further upgraded from the F-14D configuration. But in my opinion, nothing will have touch the mighty F-14 Tomcat!

    You also have to keep in mind that the decision to end to service life of the Tomcat wasn't completely an operational decision. Sec Def Cheney cancelling the F-14D program while it was under budget and ahead of schedule pretty much put the nail in the coffin, ensuring F-14 operating costs would escalate throughout the 90's and 2000's to the point where the USN had no option but to retire the aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    The AIM-54 was designed to kill big, non-maneuvering targets. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore,
    While the threat of Soviet bomber regiments has receded, it has been replaced with AWACS, tankers, and longer ranged anti-ship missiles requiring a long range missile.

    much like the F-14's interceptor role. The Shornet doesn't NEED to be as awesome an interceptor/point defender as the Tomcat, so the degradation of that capability isn't that significant.
    The number of fast strike capable platforms like the Su-24, SU-30 etc is going up and with them the number of long range super sonic anti-ship missiles is going up as well. We need a fast fighter able to get to an intercept point asap so that it can nail incoming bombers and also any supersonic anti-ship missiles it fired.


    The multirole capability it brings to the fight overcomes that shorfall, just like it overcomes the minor loss of air-to-ground capability the Navy gave up with the retirement of the Intruder.
    agreed

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
    So what of the russian long range bvr missiles? Are they adequate to kill maneuvering targets?
    If you're refering to the Novator K-100/KS–172, this was designed as an AWACS killer. Not much manouvering there...

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    You missed my point completely. Of course speed in very important. My point was that kinematics are not everything. The Foxbat had a higher speed than the F-15 but I don't think any informed person would consider the F-15 "substandard" to the Foxbat because of that (I am not saying that you were implying such, just making a point).
    To add to this: don't forget the israelis shotdown multiple sirian recon Mig-25, a mission profile that required a delicate interception. As with many other situations, the pilot matters as much as (or, some times, even more...) than the machine. That iraqi pilot (probably a combat veteran of the Iraq/Iran war) is a great example of this: he used his plane's strenghts to the max, winning a fight vs a supposedly superior adversary.

    As for the F-18, as much as I loved the Tomcat, I have to admit the USN seems to have gotten a good deal. Unlike the F-14, the F-18 is a true multirole plane, which simplifies logistics and tactics imensely, specially considering how (relatively) few planes you can cram into a carrier.

    Leave a comment:


  • cr9527
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    The AIM-54 was designed to kill big, non-maneuvering targets. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore, much like the F-14's interceptor role. The Shornet doesn't NEED to be as awesome an interceptor/point defender as the Tomcat, so the degradation of that capability isn't that significant. The multirole capability it brings to the fight overcomes that shorfall, just like it overcomes the minor loss of air-to-ground capability the Navy gave up with the retirement of the Intruder.

    An F-15C armed with Phoenix missiles is less effective at its mission of air superiority than an F-15C armed with AMRAAMs, especially once the -D rolls out.
    So what of the russian long range bvr missiles? Are they adequate to kill maneuvering targets?
    Also, what IS the max range of the D model? It seem to range a lot depending on which site you go to...

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    It's nice to see that someone else here feels the SH has value. Not that it matters what any of use think anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimmy
    replied
    The AIM-54 was designed to kill big, non-maneuvering targets. It's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore, much like the F-14's interceptor role. The Shornet doesn't NEED to be as awesome an interceptor/point defender as the Tomcat, so the degradation of that capability isn't that significant. The multirole capability it brings to the fight overcomes that shorfall, just like it overcomes the minor loss of air-to-ground capability the Navy gave up with the retirement of the Intruder.

    An F-15C armed with Phoenix missiles is less effective at its mission of air superiority than an F-15C armed with AMRAAMs, especially once the -D rolls out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kilo 2-3
    replied
    Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
    Another nooby question, how difficult would it be to fit Aim-54s onto F-15s and F-18s? I know they are about the size of a mk-82, which all of these aircraft have no problems carrying...
    As far as I know (more knowledegable members will have to sound off on this), this issue isn't getting it to fit on a pylon/hardpoint, it's integrating it and making it compatible into the aircraft's avionics, radar, etc. systems. Until you can "talk" to the missile, you can't shoot it, and until you can shoot it, it's just dangling out there, causing drag and dirtying up your airframe.

    Integration is a long, expensive process. I doubt it'd be worth it for a missile which isn't in production, (probably) has low to nonexistant stocks, and was meant to meet a threat which has become somewhat less prerssing.

    Leave a comment:


  • cr9527
    replied
    Just a question, not entirely related, but there is a lot of debates going on about the Aim-120D's range (absolute maximum), wikipedia and other sources (possibly citing wikipedia) state it is 150km+ (50% higher than C model, also claimed at 100km).

    But now there is a switch of opinions and is now around 80km for D model, and 50km for C model.

    Which is more accurate in terms of maximum theoretical range. (I know effective range is much shorter, but still)

    Another nooby question, how difficult would it be to fit Aim-54s onto F-15s and F-18s? I know they are about the size of a mk-82, which all of these aircraft have no problems carrying...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimmy
    replied
    Nobody has the 120D yet.

    The KJ-2000 is far from a raging success at this point...but even if China irons it out and fields it effectively, their training is inadequate at best.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X