Talk:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Munitions capability

The article sez:

"The U.S. Navy's F-14 squadrons have converted to the Super Hornet, which is also taking on the missions of the retired A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D." (emphasis mine)

...so are they going to start hanging Mark 50s on Super Bugs? - Aerobird 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, S-3s have not performed ASW missions for awhile now. That was taken over completely by the SH-60s several years ago. - BillCJ 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"Since 1998, when the S-3B Viking Community changed its primary mission from ASW to surface warfare operations..."[1] Mark 50's barely made it out of testing in the '90s, I'm not sure if they ever reached full operational capability.[2] [3] The APS-137 ISAR that the S-3 carries sounds pretty impressive, I don't know how that compares to the Super Hornet's radar in surface search mode. Certainly all of the previously discussed range and pilot workload issues would apply. --Dual Freq 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks folks, guess I need to catch up a bit. ;-) Seems rather dumb to rely soley on rotary-wing ASW, but... - Aerobird 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also... looking at the page... Since the jet is currently only USN fleet use, Shouldn't the armament page better reflect this? Does the USN still even deploy with Shrike... Walleye... Sparrow for use in Super Hornet squadrons???? I would be suprised if those were even used in real world Super Hornet ops. Also mentioned "Blu series napalm.... " First it isn't called napalm anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb Second while it is possible I am wrong, M77 isn't napalm but kerosene based, even though it performs like napalm. More: M77 is only used by the USMC and there are no USMC Super Hornet Squadrons. Yes you can hang a huge variety of weapons on the Super Hornet if you wanted too and had the correct certification and kit/software on the jet. However I would like an opinion from the real world users out there. Shouldn't the armament page better reflect what the aircraft deploys with for real world ops? --Elpusa 12:18 ( UTC ) Jan 16, 2007.

I think you are right as for Shrike (some Shrike propulsions were used for AGM-123A Skipper rocket-propelled guided bombs, but those were also retired IIRC) and Walleye (even the newest ER/DL version must have been retired, though some guidance pod remains in use for AGM-84E SLAM). But not as far as we talk about Sparrow. I've seen some official Navy photos of Super Hornets (VFA-2 birds among them) carrying AIM-7. I cannot be sure if this is the live version or only a training one, but certainly they were seen on F/A-18E/F. Jacek Z. Poland 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking about Mk 77 fire bombs, I would be careful. Nowadays, when the "Blue Ops" days are gone, USN and USMC Hornets tend to share the same mission profiles more often, e.g. FAC(A) may be performed by either USMC F/A-18Ds or USN F/A-18Fs. So when we speak about the real ops, Mk 77 might also be used on F/A-18E/F. The main barriers to use such weapons today are humanitarian, but they could be used for instance for destroying minefields, or to achieve specific psychological effects on enemy troops. Jacek Z. Poland 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Combat ops on the page. While I am sure F-18E/F is certified for the newer 500lb JDAM GBU-38. Some clarification needs to be made here. The page shows a Sep 8 drop on Taliban by a Super Hornet using a GBU-12 and GBU-38. According to this press release: Operation Medusa, It shows a C Hornet dropping the GBU-38 and a GBU-12 and a Super only doing a GBU-12 that day. So a citation needs to be made on the first combat drop of the relatively new GBU-38 by the Super Hornet. http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2006/161.html --Elpusa 05:13 (UTC) Jan 22, 2007

IMO, if a reliable source can be found that says the Super Hornet will be taking on the missions of the retired Presidential Limosines (ok, maybe more than one reliable source for that one), it could be included. If the source included the Viking missions but you think it's unlikely that they meant ASW, maybe you should try note that Vikings once performed missions for ASW, surface warfare, and ferrying animals for the shipboard zoo, but as of date, Vikings performed only the surface warfare role, so it's unclear exactly what missions once carried out by the Viking will now be done by the Super Hornet. I think the same is true for any particular munition. If a reliable source says the Super Hornet can carry the GBU-43, it could be included. Conversely, if an editor says it without citation, another editor should be supported for removing it. --JJLatWiki 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that additional combat use reference footnote #10 which brings to light that combat history event I was asking about. --Elpusa 02:00 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes. The Super Hornet has not been certified to carry SLAM or SLAM-ER yet (though that will be coming) it's currently a JV Hornet-only weapon, although the Rhino can carry the AWW-13 guidance pod. B-61? That has to be a joke. Above poster is correct, the Rhino can carry AIM-7s. LordKadghar 18:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The F/A-18 Hornet book by Jenkins says although not talked about much, nuclear bombs can be carried on Hornets. I beleive the Navy fact file lists all the others in the Specs section. -Fnlayson 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go with the fact that I have more flight hours by at least a few hundred in the Super Hornet than whoever wrote Janes or the Navy Fact file. I promise you, SLAM-ER and Harpoon are not yet cleared for the Rhino (a source of great frustration to us). It's a projected capability to be sure, but it isn't there yet. Try this link http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/03/12/2407802.htm LordKadghar 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think this is a better format version of that. Ultra Hornet -Fnlayson 05:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is armament info supposed be in those articles? I only see avionics stuff (radars, sensors, etc). -Fnlayson 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Third paragraph from the bottom, bro. SLAM-ER will complete carriage testing next year on the Rhino. Until then, it remains JV Hornets with the missile and Rhinos with the pods. There's several other clearances (combined loads are a big one) that are also pending. Thanks for the help with the links. LordKadghar 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah there it is. Thanks! -Fnlayson 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Help me out with the editing (again, not good with this). ALQ-165 ASPJ is the baseline jammer for the Rhino, though it's being upgraded with the new IDECM to ALQ-214 in the more recent lots. I made a note of ALQ-214 in the "upgrades" section but not good at linking it to other sites and such.. try globalsecurity et al... LordKadghar 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable Aircraft

Need to get some opinions from naval aviation experts. It is my opinion that the comparable aircraft list should be changed. Only current/recent multi-role carrier capable aircraft should be listed. Example: The F-15 should not be on the list as it can not perform carrier aircraft operations. Also the specific naval carrier versions of the MiG-29 and SU-3x should be listed, not just the generic family name. ELPusa 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MiG-29 should be removed as it's half the size of the Super Hornet. --Dual Freq 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---Hmmm I was thinking.If anything MiG-29 should stay as India is in the process of getting some naval MiG-29's for their aircraft carrier project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier At least this is comparing carrier capable multi-mission aircraft where some of the others in that list aren't even carrier capable. ELPusa 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue should probably be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, as it concerns more aircraft than just the Super Hornet. Until now, the pattern has been to included carrier- and non-carrier-capable aircraft in the same lists, and you would need to get a consesnus from the Project to change it. - BillCJ 17:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Some specific guidelines would really help. -Fnlayson 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand wanting to add in the MiG-29, but the other types should not have been taken out when the consensus here was against it. Again, the pattern in Aircraft articles has been not to differentiate between carrier-based and non-carrier aircraft. If you would like to get this changed, please go the the WP:AIR talk pages, and discuss it there. Wikipedia is goverend by consensus, and you wwere asked to discuss changes before implementing them. If you did not know where to go to discuss this, you could have asked. But changing it unilaterally is not the way to go here. - BillCJ 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I should have left the MiG-29 link in there. I'll add that back. -Fnlayson 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
MiG-29 is comparable to the F-16 and F/A-18, but not very comparable to the super hornet. Carrier capability doesn't equal comparability. The numerous aircraft are carrier capable too, but not comparable in size. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Related_content has a brief description of comparable. I would say the MiG-29 fails era and capability. --Dual Freq 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that. But size isn't mentioned on that page. Similar size should probably be added. -Fnlayson 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked about Comparable Aircraft guidelines on WP:Aircraft talk. Direct link: WP:Aircraft talk - Comparable Aircraft - Fnlayson 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also think that reciprocity should be considered, if the MiG-29 can be listed comparable to the Super Hornet on this page, then it should fit with those listed on the MiG-29 page. It's not listed there, a/c like F-16 and F/A-18 are already there, those seem much more comparable than the super hornet. F-4 Phantom II is similar in weight, was multi-role and carrier based, does that mean we need to add it here too? Quite different in era and capability so I would say no. --Dual Freq 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In addtition, the F/A-18C/D is still in US naval service. That would be the place to list the MiG-29 carrier variant (and the Rafael M), not here. - BillCJ 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added MiG-29 and others in this edit, it seems there is enough consensus here to remove it. Based on the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Related content (role, era, and capability), the MiG-29 fails the era and capability criteria when compared to the Super Hornet. --Dual Freq 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point about era and capability. I'd say similar capability can cover similar size in a general sense. -Fnlayson 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F/A-18E/F Operators

I wonder why VFA-15 Valions is still on the future Super Hornet squadrons list. Wasn't it replaced in the transition plans by VFA-136 Knighthawks? Also, I've seen an interview on the official Navy site, where VFA-147 Argonauts transition to F/A-18E was referred to as "imminent". Could anybody put some light on this subject? Jacek Z. Poland 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I see the operators' list is now updated according to April 2007 issue of Air Forces Monthly. However, there was a small mistake in the article itself, so I am correcting it.Jacek Z. Poland 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RCS

With the overall increase in size, has the RCS of the E/D really been reduced from that of the C/D? Seems a bit counterintuitive. Thoughts?--Jonashart 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RCS has fairly little to do with size. It's mostly about shape and angles of observation, secondly about reflectivity. Size is a factor in the RCS - especially with complex shapes and isometric scattering - but it is not the most important one. A right angle shape is a perfect reflector and will have a huge RCS, even when very small in size. A shape that deflects emissions rather than reflecting them have a low RCS, even if being very large in size.
So.... with appropriate changes in shape and reduced reflectivity of the surfaces, the RCS can indeed be made smaller even though the overall net change in size may be in the opposite direction. --J-Star 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Ah, I see the issue. Boeing claims the the new intakes reduce RS. I guess that can translate into less RS overall. However, since the plane is significantly bigger, are they claiming a lower RCS than the C/D or lower than it would be with the older style intakes?--Jonashart 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read elsewhere, the've made other improvements too, such as serated edges on the landing gear door, use of RCS materials, etc. I'll see if I can find a source the details all this for you. - BillCJ 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ, that'd be great. And that would support the argument better. J-Star, I understand all those applications of reduced RCS, but the article is making a claim that is apparently substantiated only by Boeing's website, which says nothing about RCS materials, serrated edges, etc. My concern is that article posits a "reality" that is really not able to be proven...unless the DoD or someone else releases some report that we can trust. If anything, the article should say that the manufacturer (or Navy/Marines) claims a RCS. But suggesting that the E/F definitly HAS a RCS does not seem to meet the standard for "fact". Now, I understand that it's completely possible that the RCS has been reduced as J-Star has suggested. I'm not arguing against the possibility, but rather, the proof.--Jonashart 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a book on the F/A-18 but it does not mention stealth or RCS. But it's mainly an illustrated book and it cost me very little. The Jenkins book would probably have something on that though. -Fnlayson 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the claim really in doubt? It's quite common for modern fighter aircraft to incorporate RCS reductions. Here, Admiral Nathman briefs the DoD and says "We are building it in with a shaped -- a reduced-radar cross-section of the airplane that allows it to penetrate." [4] --Mmx1 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Any claim of a relatively esoteric science without proof should doubted. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide proven fact, not claimed fact. So, if there are articles that support the claim (as you have provided), they should be included. The only way to prove a RCS is to TEST it. And unless we're manning a radar to see if the changes have made a difference, we have to rely on published reports. That Boeing claims it does not exactly make it fact.
Now, can't the same thing be said about things like range, engine thrust, etc.? Sure. However, those sort of things are generally less sensitive. There's a better chance of an outsider being able to substantiate that kind of data. But RCS? I would guess our folks keep a slightly tighter lid on that kind of data. So, when the article states that the E/F has a RCS, why should anyone believe it? Yes, I know, this is slippery slope for alot of claims made via Wikipedia. But, if there is data/proof, I think it's better to include it, rather than to assume it.--Jonashart 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


It's not esoteric - it's fairly common practice for 4.5th generation fighters - everybody's doing it these days. Besides, it's not as though development of the SH takes place in a vacuum. The Navy does have some say in development, you know. And they might have noticed at some point if the RCS was bunk. Skepticism is healthy but blind skepticism without putting it through the sniff test is just a waste of time. --Mmx1 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's esoteric in the sense that an encyclopedia for the general public, not just aircraft/military people. Yes, RCS-design is common place. But the understanding of what it is and what it does is NOT common place. That it makes sense to you, me, and the 15 other guys who read this isn't the point. It's an encyclopedia, for everyone.--Jonashart 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Jonashart. I'm glad atleast one person has the right idea of what an encyclopedia is/should be. 58.165.170.7 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I have the April 2007 edition of the Airforces Monthly magazine, which contains a 32 page super hornet supplement. I did read it carefully and nobody says anything about stealth or RCS. As this magazine is well-documented and quite updated , I don't really think that this aircraft has stealth or RCS capabilities. Eurocopter tigre 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oy. I just provided a quote from an Admiral. I think that trumps some conclusion drawn from the absence of a mention in a popular magazine. --Mmx1 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The book I mentioned previously is from Airforces Monthly magazine. It does not have a lot of details. Omission of something may not mean anything. -Fnlayson 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it the April edition? Eurocopter tigre 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I said it was a book. It is dated 2003. Again omission of data may not mean anything.. -Fnlayson 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the april 2007 edition has a lot of details about development, system and sensors, powerplant, deployment,etc. The omission is quite improbably because stealth is a quite important thing. I mean, when you are making a 30-pages article about a version of an aircraft, you would write in it if it's stealth or not; I think that's a basic thing. Eurocopter tigre 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My source

“

Increasing overall survivability was another chief concern of the of the Super Hornet's design team, and it has been placed by some analysts at more than five times that of the original -C/D. Interestingly, the increase was obtained not by stealth, but by a combination of factors that include incorporation of radar cross-section [RCS] reduction techniques, improved electronic countermeasures, reduced system vulnerability and improved stand-off weapons delivery tactics. While not depending on F-117 stealth design techniques, a significant radar cross-section reduction was obtained by a combination of radar-absorbing materials (RAM) and redesign of the panels and engine inlets. Some 154 lb (70 kg) of RAM is used throughout the aircraft, most notably on the leading-edge surfaces, the pivot point of the tail-hook and the aileron actuator fairings and hinges.

Access panels and landing gear doors now feature jagged or saw-tooth edges to redeflect radar waves. The formerly D-shaped engine [inlets] of the -C/D were reconfigured to an angled box (similar to those of the F/A-22 [sic]). These inlets not only help to deflect radar waves, they permit greater airflow to the engines. Other measures included tightening tolerances and better aligning platforms. Boeing also looked at ways of hiding the tailhook, but ultimately declined to vary from proven practice. Although figures are classified, radar signature has been reduced by an order of magnitude.

 ”

From Donald, David: Warplanes of the Fleet, pages 50-51. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-81-1. Article by Brad Elward. The book is a reprint of articles in World Air Power Journal and International Air Power Review (exact issues not mentioned in the book).

So, while not a "stealth" aircraft per se, the RCS HAS been reduced greatly over that of the F/A-18C/D. I hope this source suffices to settle the issue. - BillCJ 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, that's great! Now, that should just be referenced in the article. I cleaned up some of the quote, hope you don't' mind. Thanks!--Jonashart 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just added that reference. -Fnlayson 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Definitely better. Thanks to all for entertaining the discussion.--Jonashart 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EA-18G image removal

What was the problem with this EA-18G image: Image:Cobrachen Ea-18g.jpg ? It was removed without any explaination. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mouse was faster than my keyboard. I've removed photo because there is very little text in Growler section and any image posted there will exceed line generated by the next header. We have separate article and this photo is posted there so there is no real loss. Piotr Mikołajski 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Figured there was a reason. I don't see the problem with the next section header. It wasn't causing any white space in that section when viewed in Firefox & IE. But it doesn't add much. If the article was short on images, I'd say keep it but that's not the case. -Fnlayson 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur. Wasn't the world's greatest image anyway! - BillCJ 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally I'm damn sure we get a bunch of new excellent photos as soon as EF-18G became fully operational. US Navy website has thousands of photos. Piotr Mikołajski 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prototypes?

I don't quite understand how someone can say there was no Super Hornet prototype as stated in this article [5]. MDC built a handful of pre-production Super Hornets for flight testing before low rate production started. Are these not considered prototypes? Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the superhornet "prototypes" were actually converted hornets. Is that posible? Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not possible with the size difference. A lot of the avionics systems were shared with the C/D Hornets though. They built pre-production Super Hornets for testing. -Fnlayson 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climb rate & max speed

Does anybody have data on the Super Hornet's climb rate? From its test and operational evaluation, it is supposed to be less than the F/A-18C. None of the main Super Hornet web pages and my F/A-18 books lists that. Also, I'm not sure where the climb rate of 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s) on the F/A-18 page comes from. Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is MACH 1,6 the real max speed of the Super Hornet? The source says MACH 1,6 without mentioning max speed or cruise speed. --Eurocopter tigre 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't know. I guessed it was max speed. Everything I've seen is max speed of Mach 1.8 or higher for the Super Hornet. I'm not sure if Mach 1.6 is an error or due to carrying extra ordnance for land-based use. -Fnlayson 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fastest I've ever seen was with a single centerline (no pylons), in full burner, about 5 degrees nose low at Mach 1.2. I think 1.6 is doable if you really wanted to unload in a dive, but getting in a discussion about real tactical airspeeds in digging into classified material (much like the asinine discussion of "proof" that the Rhino has reduced RCS. Durrr.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKadghar (talk • contribs)
    • The speeds data we're discussing come from public sources, such as U.S. Navy fact file, so no reason to go there.. -Fnlayson 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The RCS discussion was using public sources too. I do note in your rant on max speed that you didn't specify what altitude. Even a non-pilot fanboy like me knows that makes a difference. Even Mach 2.5 fighters like the F-15 can't do more than Mach 1.3 at sea level, if that much for the F-15. Besides, the max speeds at altitude are always for clean configuration, are they not? If you want to take on someone for leaking classified info, try the Democratic Party, the State Department, or the New York TImes. We ain't them! - BillCJ 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • True. The F/A-18 and B-1 books by Jenkins have normal specs and some RCS info as well. -Fnlayson 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft" Editors: Paul Eden & Soph Moeng, 2002, ISBN 0-7607-3432-1, has specs. I could either toss them into the article as extras, or replace the specs web-reference with the book's, or I could just drop the information here any y'all can figure it out. It shows this for Maximum speed, "more than 1,190 mph (1915 km/h) or Mach 1.80 at high altitude". It has no time to climb information. I also noticed it states that the Wingspan dimension includes the wingtip AAMs and is the same number as in the article. --Colputt 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fighters of the 20th Century" by Jim Winchester, 2002, ISBN 1 84037 388 1, says, "max. speed over Mach 1.8 climb not known". It also says the span is over the wingtip AAMs at same dimensions. --Colputt 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Book of Modern Warplanes" Ed. Mike Spick, 2000, 2003, ISBN 1 84065 156 3, has a huge section on the Hornets from Concept to Super. The specs for the F/A-18E are listed the same as above, VmaxHI Mach 1.8+, VmaxLO Mach 1.01, Climb Rate listed as N/A. It listed the F/A-18C as Mach 1.6 --Colputt 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work Colputt! Clearly the max. speed of the Super Hornet is MACH 1,8+. I don't know what to say about the rest of the specs. --Eurocopter tigre 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think was any question that many sources list the SH's max speed as Mach 1.8 or Mach 1.8+. -Fnlayson 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Boeing source (Ref#37) shows Mach 1.6, I would not use the Navy fact sheet as it has munitions on there that aren't even qualified on the jet yet. Elpusa 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved in this revert war, but that Boeing PDF looks like an advertisement to me, not a "reliable, third-party published source[s] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" I handed y'all three published sources that won't vanish in the average 45 days from the Internet. This same type of argument is on the F-16 page. This is one reason I stay away from modern aircraft articles. The other reason is, I know the answer, but all I can do is point to "published" sources. Ever wonder why all Carriers and Submarines have a "published" top speed of 33 knots?" I'm gonna un-watch this and get back to my To-Do list. Have fun. --Colputt 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points. Basically don't assume the manufacturer is always right. Guess I or someone needs to contact the people on the Boeing backgrounder sheet and ask about the speed change. Take care.. -Fnlayson 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree that older sources state Mach 1.8. Also of interest the really really old basic flight manual for the aircraft which you can buy online, puts limits clean above 35k ft at Mach 2.0 all the way up to it's ceiling. Of course that isn't much value over time with various updates and tactical manuals that we are not privy too that mention additional limits. I would also think and unfortunately on this point I am going from memory, that the Boeing page did at one time state Mach 1.8. What happened? I don't know. A guess with no fact to back it up is that over time they learned things about the aircraft and how they wanted to use it including that the aircraft is now up for more conspicuous foreign sales. Did Boeing after a while publish the limit based out of more recent information based on use of the aircraft? You tell me. I don't know. Fnlayson may have a good point about asking Boeing. ELPusa 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E model image

Could we get an image of the single seat version? If it's not too much trouble. RaptorR3d 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There's not much difference, but I'll see what I can find on dodmedia.osd.mil. -Fnlayson 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a refueling image with both F and E models. :) -Fnlayson 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-flight Infobox image

Here's some image links on DVIC (dodmedia.osd.mil)

F/A-18E in flight over desert

F/A-18E landing on carrier, front left view

F/A-18E landing on carrier, front right view

F/A-18E launching from carrier, right side view

Which seems like the best to you? I like the desert one, but it has a shadow. The last landing image is good too, I think. I can upload the one picked and so forth. -Fnlayson 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Since no one gave me any feedback, I went with the last one here. -Fnlayson 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radar Signature Reduction

Kopp is not a really good reference! I see re-entrant triangles at the Rafale. [6][7] Or what Journal of Electronic Defence wrote: "Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials, Dassault engineers have said. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM." So nothing unusual.--90.186.9.86 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The Super Hornet's reduced CS is already mentioned in the article and properly referenced. Topic discussed on talk above too. -Fnlayson 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's mentioned in the "Airframe changes" section, btw. It could use a sentence or two explaining how they did that though. The angled rectangular engine intakes and serrated edges in places are two main things. -Fnlayson 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you and I think that the APA citations where as good as any since they are independent and while you may not always agree with Kopp he does have first hand accounts and he does cite his sources. Given the poisonous atmosphere around here I have no interest in making the change though.141.155.118.180 —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a reliable reference [8] for the Radar signature reduction. 20 db lower as the Hornet, that is the factor 100! --HDP (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool. There's a couple book references and articles in use here. One difficult thing is shielding the front fan blades from radar waves. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F/A-18 Super Hornet Gold game?

I'm aware that there's a game that goes by this name... should I write it or it is not worth the mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It doesn't seem to have a Wiki article. Doesn't appear to be that important or notable. So I don't think that'd be needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australai???

um........ i think thats AUSTRIA!!! ill change it now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.180.9 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope. Australia is correct. Read the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that this editor has numerous vandalism warnings on their talk page... --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[Removed attack on Australia by] 58.107.180.9 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F/A-18 Intercept Tu-95

Earlier this month (February) F/A-18s from Nimitz intercepted an Tu-95. On the pictures released you can clearly see that on the first pic that's a two seater (F/A-18F/VFA-41) and on the other pic the distinct fuselage of an Super Hornet. So atleast one Super Hornet was involved.

Here are the pictures and you need to see the Hi-res version of it. Can we use this as a source (for operational history) that at least one Super Hornet (VFA-41) was involved in the interception?

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55192

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55193 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagman1983 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bids

I updated and shortened the section about offering of F/A-18E/F for Denmark's fighter competition and added references. Renamed it "Potential operators" as well. I partially think early discussions such as these should not be mentioned in the article as they are minor. If they turn in a proposal for it, that seems OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Both citations are 6 weeks old. We should be able to find some updated info on the Danish proposal at least. - BillCJ (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)