Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • YellowFever
    replied
    AFAIK = As Far As I Know

    And 20 percent more thrust will do what trick?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Jaime View Post
    What's AFAIK?
    As Far As I Know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Jaime
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Improvement of Super Hornet over the original is not in the airframe performance, but in stealth and sensor.

    Super Hornet is not a bigger Hornet. It's a completely new fighter that looks like the Hornet. It was designed with stealth in mind (but not to the extent of the F-22), and employing newer avionics.

    Sure, Hornets are excellent turning fighters. But just like the Zero, the trick is to NOT engage them in a turning fight in the first place. Off load the turn to missiles like we outsource manufacturing to China.
    It's a hornet but its considered a entirely a new aircraft. But more advanced carries larger payload and increased capabilities in air superiority and ground attack. But replaced 4 fighters. Lower RCS, but i'd want to see some EPE Engines to increase more power on the Super Hornet, 20% more thrust will do the trick. :Dancing-Banana: ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Jaime
    replied
    Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
    So far it's been a failure AFAIK ... of course they can be further enhanced for a nominal price :)
    What's AFAIK?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Jaime View Post
    Ahh, ok the Super Hornet had many improvements, like going into high AoA. Yes the Hornet virants have that drag problem but the conformal fuel tanks wil make the Super Hornet not draggy and create adding lift. But what do you mean underpowered?
    Improvement of Super Hornet over the original is not in the airframe performance, but in stealth and sensor.

    Super Hornet is not a bigger Hornet. It's a completely new fighter that looks like the Hornet. It was designed with stealth in mind (but not to the extent of the F-22), and employing newer avionics.

    Sure, Hornets are excellent turning fighters. But just like the Zero, the trick is to NOT engage them in a turning fight in the first place. Off load the turn to missiles like we outsource manufacturing to China.

    Leave a comment:


  • GGTharos
    replied
    So far it's been a failure AFAIK ... of course they can be further enhanced for a nominal price :)

    Originally posted by Steven Jaime View Post
    Ahhh the Enhanced Performance Engine should give the Super Hornet more power and trust. I want EPE Engines for the Super Hornet!

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Jaime
    replied
    Ahhh the Enhanced Performance Engine should give the Super Hornet more power and trust. I want EPE Engines for the Super Hornet!

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    I think one of the biggest reasons why the long-range interceptor capabilities of the Tomcat were allowed to lapse was a lack of mission. There wasn't any massed regiments of Backfire bombers standing by to pounce on the CVBG's anymore.

    Otherwise it's likely that the DoD would've chosen one of the myriad Tomcat upgrade proposals that Grumman put out.
    Good analysis.

    The F-14's primary mission and reason for being was "fleet defense": protect the Navy from any Soviet airborne threats, particularly the supersonic TU-22M/26 with it's "Kitchen" ASM; hence, it's employment of the long-range AIM-54. It was never really designed to be a "dogfighter", though it could definitely hold it's own agianst third-gen Soviet fighters (and even some fourth-gen fighters), but once the Soviet Union folded, and Russia stopped fielding fleets of supersonic bombers, the F-14 kind of lost it's raison d'Ítre. It was still a decent fighter, but the US Navy no longer needed a specialized interceptor anymore; it was more economical to build a multi-purpose aircraft that could occasionally chase off threatening aircraft when necessary, hence the F-18A-G. Underpowered, perhaps, but still more than a match for 90% of the aircraft flying right now, especially with the Navy's superior training and experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    OK, so both of you make valid points and the chance of a swarm of Backfires attacking is minimal.

    I guess I just wanted to see pimped out Tomcats whenever I go to airshows.

    But I guess I I have to begrudgingly admit that the Admirals know more about naval tactics than I do.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Seeing as how the bug (super or otherwise) isn' t nearly the interceptor the Tomcat was, how is the Navy compensating for it's shortcoming compared to the F14?
    I think one of the biggest reasons why the long-range interceptor capabilities of the Tomcat were allowed to lapse was a lack of mission. There wasn't any massed regiments of Backfire bombers standing by to pounce on the CVBG's anymore.

    Otherwise it's likely that the DoD would've chosen one of the myriad Tomcat upgrade proposals that Grumman put out.

    Leave a comment:


  • GGTharos
    replied
    The SM-6 is coming into play, which can deal with over-the-horizon threats. The superbug itself will be far more capable than the tomcat with the AIM-120D. No, it won't get there as fast, but F-14's already flew pre-positioned CAPs anyway. It's not as simple as talking about the speed of the airframe, although that is a factor. Of course, the tomcat also had a much larger radar dish - but the superhornet has a lot of sensor fusion/network capability that the tomcat didn't, and air to ground capability that the tomcat didn't. So the question probably came down to which fighter to equip with all this instead of updating both designs.

    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Which brings up a question that I had that wasn't hashed all the way when we discussed this earlier.

    Seeing as how the bug (super or otherwise) isn' t nearly the interceptor the Tomcat was, how is the Navy compensating for it's shortcoming compared to the F14?

    Tactics? (cap further out from the carriers? Positioning escorts further out? Etc....)

    Or did the advancement of technology (longer ranged radar and sam) pretty much negated the need for the Tom?

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    Which brings up a question that I had that wasn't hashed all the way when we discussed this earlier.

    Seeing as how the bug (super or otherwise) isn' t nearly the interceptor the Tomcat was, how is the Navy compensating for it's shortcoming compared to the F14?

    Tactics? (cap further out from the carriers? Positioning escorts further out? Etc....)

    Or did the advancement of technology (longer ranged sensors and sams) pretty much negated the need for the Tom?
    Last edited by YellowFever; 10 Jun 13,, 17:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    I did not fight the newer Hornet variant. The original excelled at high AOA, but was a bit draggy and underpowered. We simply avoided the slow fight with them, or let our missiles do the slow fighting instead. ;)
    The navy had the F-14 for interceptors duties then.

    Leave a comment:


  • GGTharos
    replied
    That's no improvement. The hornet was always capable of high AoA - it's quite a desireable feature for a carrier-based aircraft. The improvements are in avionics, communications, payload, and range as compared to older variants. Performance hasn't changed much otherwise.

    CFTs are neat, unfortunately superhornets don't need fuel tanks to lose .3-.4 mach ... they just need missiles and possibly a targetting pod. Add a fuel tank and they'll be lucky to break the sound barrier while lubed up and being pushed by another hornet down-hill. And that's what under-powered means.
    Underpowered also means not being able to hold sustained turns as at high a g as another, more powerful aircraft. It means not climbing as well and not accelerating as well. In other words, it is a classic low T/W fighter compared to most other fighters.

    Originally posted by Steven Jaime View Post
    Ahh, ok the Super Hornet had many improvements, like going into high AoA. Yes the Hornet virants have that drag problem but the conformal fuel tanks wil make the Super Hornet not draggy and create adding lift. But what do you mean underpowered?

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Jaime
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    I did not fight the newer Hornet variant. The original excelled at high AOA, but was a bit draggy and underpowered. We simply avoided the slow fight with them, or let our missiles do the slow fighting instead. ;)
    Ahh, ok the Super Hornet had many improvements, like going into high AoA. Yes the Hornet virants have that drag problem but the conformal fuel tanks wil make the Super Hornet not draggy and create adding lift. But what do you mean underpowered?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X