F/A-18 Super Hornet

[dundonrl]

Despite all the technology, speed is still a critical factor in how well a fighter can fight. In 91, an older Hornet with better missiles, better radar, more pilot hours, and AWACS support was gunned down by an Iraqi foxbat whose pilot used his aircrafts strengths- speed and height to control the fight. Lt Cmdr Spiecher was unable to disengage.

that's why the F-14, combined with the AIM-54 Phoenix (atleast on paper) was such a superior aircraft, while the Foxbat was faster (by far) than the F-14, there's no way they can out run the Phoenix (Mach 5 missile with 100+ mile range) and one of the reasons why the long range capability of the F-14 was SO much better than anything else out there..

[zraver]

This is the area that i contended in another thread ie missile effectiveness. I did not know about the incedent you cited Z, it confirms some of my suspicions with missiles, thanks.

Missiles are not wonder weapons, I am sure that modern designs like the AIM-120 are better than older designs like the AIM-7, but a missile has only so much energy. In Vietnam, the early use of the Sparrow was so restricted (WVR only) that missile was fought outside its design envelope and only achieved a 10% hit rate.

I doubt any modern missiles are really one shot, one kill systems. Although that is changing. The current trend is to develop higher energy rocket fuels and multi-pulse rocket motors. this way a missile can boost towards the target area at a higher rate of speed, then shut off until it enters the engagement zone where it refires to give the missile more energy.

Seeker capability is also improving. Close range WVR fights using IR missiles are also getting deadlier. Flares as an effective counter are much less effective than they were. IR imaging means the missile won;t be drawn towards a flare. At best a multiple flare discharge may blind the missile and let the target break outside the missile seekers field of view.

[Zinja]

In one engagement four F-15's fired 10 missiles at 2 Mig-25's and scored zero.

This is the area that i contended in another thread ie missile effectiveness. I did not know about the incedent you cited Z, it confirms some of my suspicions with missiles, thanks.

[shadow01]

Now that is what I call a complete answer! And I thank you for it.

This is what I love about this forum excellent, informed discussion from people that have well founded opinions.

[zraver]

The Super Hornet has better Situational Awareness, better ability to detect and engage on it's own terms,

Doubtful, at least not long term. The SH's sensor lead is rapidly running out as her competitors get better radars and their own RCS reduction technologies. She may already be out ranged in the missile envelope and she is not very agile compared to the latest flankers.

while Russian systems can add better sensors as they come online, you can't make the SH faster. Despite all the technology, speed is still a critical factor in how well a fighter can fight. In 91, an older Hornet with better missiles, better radar, more pilot hours, and AWACS support was gunned down by an Iraqi foxbat whose pilot used his aircrafts strengths- speed and height to control the fight. Lt Cmdr Spiecher was unable to disengage. Also during ODS, Iraqi Mig-25's were able to use their speed and height to fight effectively against superior numbers of F-15's. In one engagement four F-15's fired 10 missiles at 2 Mig-25's and scored zero.

The modern SU-27 is more than half a mach faster than the F/A-18 about the same edge enjoyed by the Foxbat over the F-15

[Phoenix10]

The F16 & the newer Soviet Fighters.

I have always understood that do to the carrier take off and landings that Naval/Marine aircraft had to compromise in some areas to endure the stress, but how does that effect the performance to these other aircraft?

Compromises for carrier operations include beefing up the structure to handle these stresses which can add weight to an airframe. Weight of course affects kinematics. It is true that the F-14 (maybe F-16) and newer Russian fighters hold a kinematic advantage over the Super Hornet (range, top speed, sustained supersonic rate of turn, etc). However kinematics are only 1 part of what makes a tactical aircraft effective. For example, fighter aircraft rarely operate at their top speed (acceleration is far more important than top speed). Remember that in modern warfare it is never as simple as F-18 versus Su-30 or F-18 versus F-14. Aircraft fight as part of a networked system and the F/A-18E/F is a FAR more effective platform than the F-14 or Su-30 series when considered in this regard.

The Super Hornet has a reduced radar cross section and some of the best sensors and systems in the world (including advanced AESA radar, datalinks, ATFLIR/electro optical sensor, integrated threat detection, EA/EW, etc). When you combine this with the AIM-120 (especially the 120D), the Super Hornet, in my opinion, has a far better ability to shoot first than the F-14 or newer Russian fighters. The Super Hornet also has excellent low speed handling. When you combine this with the JHMCS, electro-optical sensors, and the AIM-9X you have a VERY potent WXR combination.

The Super Hornet has better Situational Awareness, better ability to detect and engage on it's own terms, and better ability to share information with the integrated battle network. Also, unlike the F-14 (and many other fighters), the SH can perform almost every mission in the tactical aircraft spectrum - air superiority, SEAD, EA, fleet defense, ground attack, close air support, air refueling, battle field management, etc. There are few aircraft in the world that can do all of these things. On top of this the SH is far more maintainable than the F-14 (a large reason the F-14 was phased out).

When you consider the way in which the F/A-18E/F is used, you will find that the Super Hornet is any thing but a "substandard" aircraft compared to others. It's all about CONOPS and how effectively an aircraft can perform to those CONOPS. Kinematics are very important, but that is only 1 part of the game.

The strengths of the F-18E/F are very similar to the strengths of the latest Block F-16s.

[shadow01]

"Substandard" in what way, and for which missions? Please elaborate.

The F16 & the newer Soviet Fighters.

I have always understood that do to the carrier take off and landings that Naval/Marine aircraft had to compromise in some areas to endure the stress, but how does that effect the performance to these other aircraft?

[Phoenix10]

I have been reading some comments as of late about the F/A 18 SH and from the majority of opinions, it almost seems that the SH is considered "substandard" to the plane(s) it replaced, (F-14), to it's probable opponents.

I am not a pilot, but this subject does interest me. How about some feedback?

"Substandard" in what way, and for which missions? Please elaborate.

[shadow01]

I have been reading some comments as of late about the F/A 18 SH and from the majority of opinions, it almost seems that the SH is considered "substandard" to the plane(s) it replaced, (F-14), to it's probable opponents.

I am not a pilot, but this subject does interest me. How about some feedback?