Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    can and does being quite different. There are a lot of air frames that are no longer used and multi-role aircraft with vastly more efficient weapons have taken over. I think right now its 1 fighter and 3 strike squadrons + EW, tanker and rotary wing compliments with about 70 aircraft total.
    There are no "Fighter" squadrons anymore. F-18 squadrons are all designated Strike Fighter squadrons (VFA).

    With the retirement of the S-3 many years ago there is no dedicated tanker support.

    Now your looking at around 48-50 fixed wing and 6-8 helos.

    Compare that to a early 80s Air wing when you normally had around 80-90 fixed wing.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    can and does being quite different. There are a lot of air frames that are no longer used and multi-role aircraft with vastly more efficient weapons have taken over. I think right now its 1 fighter and 3 strike squadrons + EW, tanker and rotary wing compliments with about 70 aircraft total.
    I should have specified that I was answering the first (more hypothetical) question "What's the realistic maximum number of aircraft a US super carrier can embark?"

    Realistically these days, as you pointed out, you no longer need an aircraft with a dozen or more pieces of ordnance hanging on the racks. A fraction of that, of the PGM persuasion, will do just fine. Thus, less planes overall can do the job.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    My Google-fu has turned up answers ranging from 90-94, so your recollection of 92 is right down the center.

    At those numbers though, the carrier likely becomes a bit less efficient in plane handling and logistics.
    can and does being quite different. There are a lot of air frames that are no longer used and multi-role aircraft with vastly more efficient weapons have taken over. I think right now its 1 fighter and 3 strike squadrons + EW, tanker and rotary wing compliments with about 70 aircraft total.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Here's a question. In the modern era (Cold War - present), what's the realistic maximum number of aircraft a US super carrier can embark. I remember hearing the number 92 thrown around often in the 90's. Obviously they don't deploy with near that number currently, but what was the maximum operational number employed?
    My Google-fu has turned up answers ranging from 90-94, so your recollection of 92 is right down the center.

    At those numbers though, the carrier likely becomes a bit less efficient in plane handling and logistics.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Here's a question. In the modern era (Cold War - present), what's the realistic maximum number of aircraft a US super carrier can embark. I remember hearing the number 92 thrown around often in the 90's. Obviously they don't deploy with near that number currently, but what was the maximum operational number employed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    I've always enjoyed the fact that the USN flew some of the oddest shaped fighters of WW2, yet their performance was superlative. Nobody can call the F6F or F4U graceful or sleek. Words like "effective" and "menacing" come to mind, but the lines compared to the European theater aircraft simply aren't there, aesthetically.

    Some of that is due to radial vs. inline engines, but there were many beautiful (IMO) radial fighters fielded, like the FW-190, and some of the Hawkers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The reason the F4U did not appear on the CVs until late in the war was they encountered major landing issues. The oleo legs had dampers which were very stiff, and the due to the enormous prop the Corsair had to have the gull wings so the landing gear would not be overly long and fragile.
    IIRC, the original oleos on the F4U were so stiff that the plane would literally bounce across the deck when landing, perversely missing all four of the arresting wires and ending up in the crash barrier most of the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Here's something interesting I noticed from the wiki article. There were more than 12k of each built. More Hellcats were built during the war than Corsairs because Corsair's production run went to 1953. I find it hard to believe that the navy had that many Corsairs for carrier use during the war when there are more Hellcats available and Corsairs went to the Marines first.
    The reason the F4U did not appear on the CVs until late in the war was they encountered major landing issues. The oleo legs had dampers which were very stiff, and the due to the enormous prop the Corsair had to have the gull wings so the landing gear would not be overly long and fragile. Thats okay because the F6F was more than capable of handling anything which they came across.

    Also, a bit of a misnomer on the numbers of F4Us aboard latewar. There were still a ton of SB2Cs squadrons right up to the end. And the CAG for the CVLs had 1 each F6F squadron and 1 each TBM squadron. A CVE had a composite squadron of 16 FM-2 Wildcats and 12 TBM Avengers.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    You forgot about the EA-6B's / EA-18G's!!!

    Here's a good summary of what a carrier air wing looked like throughout the years. Interesting indeed!

    Carrier Air Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Here's something interesting I noticed from the wiki article

    By the end of WWII, a typical Essex air group was over 100 aircraft, consisting of :
    1 squadron of 18 F6F fighters
    4 squadrons of 72 F4U fighter/bombers
    There were more than 12k of each built. More Hellcats were built during the war than Corsairs because Corsair's production run went to 1953. I find it hard to believe that the navy had that many Corsairs for carrier use during the war when there are more Hellcats available and Corsairs went to the Marines first.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
    You forgot about the EA-6B's / EA-18G's!!!

    Here's a good summary of what a carrier air wing looked like throughout the years. Interesting indeed!

    Carrier Air Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The EA-6B's are disappearing and the EA-18G is essentially a Super Hornet.

    Leave a comment:


  • JA Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    That is pretty amazing when you consider it. Circa 1965, a CVW had at least 6 different fixed-wing types.

    Now there is essentially 2 strike fighter types (Hornet and Super Hornet) that have a decent amount of commonality and of course the venerable Hawkeye for AEW.
    You forgot about the EA-6B's / EA-18G's!!!

    Here's a good summary of what a carrier air wing looked like throughout the years. Interesting indeed!

    Carrier Air Wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Chogy, as an acquisition logistician I can tell you what a smart move it was. GREATLY reduces life cycle costs and also decreases maintenance burden. Reduction of parts inventory also saves funding and reduces stocks onhand in the UNREP force...making more room for other things.

    Good move.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    Missile range is hugely overrated.
    I just read that in the voice of Otter talking with Mrs. Wermer in the vegetable section.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Yeah, well, what are you gonna do?

    We tried to raise him right and teach him how to walk softly through minefield correctly (which is what the first couple dozen posts in WAB is akin to) and he manages to step on every mine without missing any.......
    Not sure if those are mines or cow patties.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    IMO, what the Navy has done with their air arm in the last 20 years is wise... they have consolidated a number of different airframes with differing missions into basically a single type.
    That is pretty amazing when you consider it. Circa 1965, a CVW had at least 6 different fixed-wing types.

    Now there is essentially 2 strike fighter types (Hornet and Super Hornet) that have a decent amount of commonality and of course the venerable Hawkeye for AEW.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X