Talk:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet\Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
F Super Hornet\Archive 1

Contents

EA-18G "Growler"

The U.S. Navy is working on replacing its EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare platform with an F/A-18F aircraft modified to carry the Prowler's jammer pods. Aerodyamic compatibility tests have been completed at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, California, and work on the aircraft modifications, including RF receivers, mission computers, and communications cabling, continues. --MWS 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Fine. We already mention it here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


VX-23 at NAS Pax has two F models already converted to Growler specs.--NavyAO2(AW) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have started an article for the Growler at Talk:EA-18 Growler. Any assistance would be welcome, especially if you have a photo of the actual aircraft. Thanks. --BillCJ 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

Should the article not be F/A-18 Super Hornet as opposed to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Much tidier and closer to MOS? The related article isn't titled F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet! Mark83 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The naming scheme is a mess. The F/A-18 refers to the Hornet A/B/C/D version. Only the E/F versions are designated Super Hornet, so I believe the current scheme is correct. Moreover, it's also what the Navy calls it. [1] --Mmx1 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. Its clear from what I wrote that A/B/C/D=Hornet & E/F=Super Hornet. The point I was trying to raise is that the F/A-18 Hornet article doesn't include the designators while the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article does. What I'm proposing is consistency, either
  • "F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet" & "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet" — which is a trainwreck or
  • "F/A-18 Hornet" & "F/A-18 Super Hornet" Mark83 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The title comes from the forumula "Designation Popular Name". The designation for the vanilla Hornet is just F-18, so the title is "F-18 Hornet". The base designation for the Super Hornet not F-18, but the clunky F-18E/F, to distinguish it from the F-18. In Navy literature it is referred to as the F-18E/F where the vanilla Hornet would be referred to as F-18.
Is it consistent? No. Is it clearer? Yes. Here, clarity and official nomenclature trumps consistency. Blame the idiots who decided it was worth continuing the A/B/C/D designation series for a wholly new airframe. --Mmx1 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair comments Mark83 12:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Reportedly the correct designation for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was F-24A/B (or F/A-24A/B). The old designation was kept to simplify the procedures in Congress and Pentagon (requirements being more strict for the totally new aircraft than for new versions of existing ones). Jacek Z. Poland 10:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I work on both, we refer to them as Super Hornets and when referring to F/A-18A/D we say "Legacy" --NavyAO2(AW) 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I fly the Rhino. When we refer to the F/A-18 A/D we say "JV Hornet" :)

"JV"? That's just disrepectful. ;) The E+'s weren't even a glint in the Navy's eye when I worked on 18's. When we heard about a squadron somewhere else flying 18's, it was commonly qualified with "A" or "C". For example, "We're sending 4 planes to CAX and we'll be sharing space with VMFA-???. They just got some brand new 'C's, so don't count on sharing too many parts." I don't recall ever hearing them referred to as "Hornet", except by pilots, or when talking to pilots to avoid confusing them. ;) --JJLatWiki 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article title is consistent with F-15E Strike Eagle. Iceberg3k 14:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

JV Hornet Eh? Is that why the Super flies around with it's pylon's canted outward like a girl walking? Wonder how much less drag you could be flying around with if the Navy had been willing to pay to correct that little engineering mistake?Stanleywinthrop 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Misinformation.[2] Canting the pylons a few degrees helps space the ordnance better, which should help with drag. -Fnlayson 14:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What your article fails to mention is the fact that Boeing engineers later found another fix to the weapons seperation problem other than the cant, and they could have redesigned the airplane with straight pylons, but the Navy didn't want to spend the money for the redisign. And the article doesn't debunk the fact that the cant creates alot of extra drag which is, in effect, needless because Boeing found another fix. You've misinterpreted the article because the problem was not with weapons carriage, but with release. The Super is good airplane, and is an improvement over the legacy Hornet in the key areas of Avionics, Payload, Range, and Endurance, but is not a signifigant improvement in performance. There is no doubt the Navy needed it to replace the tomcat.Stanleywinthrop 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 4 degrees is small angle, but I guess I'll have to take your word on the extra drag.. -Fnlayson 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
4 degrees on 2 or more 330 gallon fuel tanks or 2000lb MK 84s will add a lot of extra drag.Stanleywinthrop 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes for only like a 3/8 inch distance outboard. -Fnlayson 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you an aerodynamics engineer? Your 3/8's of an inch can make quite a bit of difference in a 600 knot airstream. The cant creates uneven airflow around the tank or bomb, which creates a corresponding low pressure area on the outer portion, which creates an increased drag.Stanleywinthrop 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Engineer. I haven't said it won't make a difference, just not "alot". Your example is not possible as the outboard pylons are not plumbed for tanks and have a lower load capability. -Fnlayson 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The super can carry tanks on the 2 inner wing pylons and the centerline pylon, therefore it can carry 5 tanks total. The four possible wing tanks/and or any combination of bombs it might carry are where the extra drag comes from Stanleywinthrop 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Continue like this, and in 1.000.000 years we might find out who's smarter...--Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

max speed

haha, ok, who's the joker that put the max speed at mach 2.5?

even an official website (http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/superhornet/superhornet.html) only claims mach 1.8+

NOTHING on the web supports M2.5

the superbug MIGHT hit M2.5 . . . if it's in a dive . . . while firing JATO units

I've seen hud tape showing over 2.2 with a relatively clean bird in a shallow dive. I bet a totally clean Blue Angel (glossy paint) in a steeper dive could do 2.5. Then again, a combat loaded 18 probably can't do 1.8 straight and level. --JJLatWiki 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Without variable intakes "naturally aspirated" speeds above mach 2 are largely impossible for the hornet. That is, straight and level in any configuration. The engines simply can't handle all that airflow. I'm certain there's some expert on the subject around here who can explain better. JaderVason 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Boeing specs ( see ref # 37 ) show max mach at 1.6 ELPusa 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why am I not allowed to add an image of a Super Bug from VFA-115?

Feel free to add a new image if it's proper sourced and licensed. Please check Commons first, maybe there's already an image for your purpose. --Denniss 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

More nicknames

Ok folks, where do these go??

SUPER HORNET NICKNAMES 15th June 2004, 02:34 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PkOaZlX-nOcJ:forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php%3Ft-27005.html+kress+tomcat+hornet&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a AFAIF F-14 will be kept till 2008 before it is replaced by all Sewer Hornets Super Borenet anyone? Be the best damn tanker in the fleet too someday... well the only tanker anyway. I bet the Subpar Hornet is better than the 1950's F3D-2 :)

--matador300 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo of EA-18G

Does anyone have a public domain photo of the 'EA-18G Growler that we can use? Thanks. -- BillCJ 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that work? Found unattributed on a US Congressman's web page. --JJLatWiki 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It works for me. If we find an aerial shot, that would be good also. I still need to expand the text, but with this pic, the EA-18G Growler article is almost ready! Then all I'll need is a consensus to post it, and take out most of the EA-18 info here. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

EA-18G article

I have finished the basic work on the EA-18G Growler article. Please take a look here, and give any suggestions you may have, or make changes where necessary. The text is still fairly basic at this time, but we now have two pics. (Thanks!) I plan on replacing the Growler portion of this article with the short paragraph from the F/A-18 Hornet article, and leaving one pic here also. I'm not planning to move it to the full page without some sort of review and consensus first. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added Split-section tags to the article, in preparation for the move, and for comments on the EA-18G article itself. - BillCJ 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I say split it off, the new article looks fine to me. Probably better than my EF-111A Raven split. My only question is that the armament and specs section looks like it was copied and maybe needs to be trimmed down or adjusted. I have no specifics but I would assume the weaponry would be limited to ARM type weapons and the wingtip sidewinders probably won't work with the pods. It might be advisable to note where the specs came from, if they were copied from E/F Super Hornet or if they are adjusted specifically for the EA-18. --Dual Freq 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the specs were copied from the E/F, Though I did remember to remove the gun. I'm still trying to nail down specifics on what it will carry. One of the selling points used by MD/Boeing for the aircraft was that it could still perform most of the E/F-type combat missions, especially air-to-air self-escorting. Whether the Navy has bought all that capability remains to be seen. For now, I'll cut it down to ARMs and Sidewinders (not on the tips) till we find something more conclusive. - BillCJ 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is from GlobalSecurity.org's website on the EA-18G:

The EA-18 was the only alternative to the EA-6B based on a derivative from an in-production, aircraft carrier adept aircraft. It has the basic tactical capabilities of the F/A-18F Super Hornet coupled with the enhanced electronic attack capability of the ICAP III Prowler. The EA-18 will eliminate the type model series airplane off the flight deck. The configuration of the airplane in terms of capability will be equivalent to what is anticipated in the EA-6B with ICAP III installed, and a concentration on the LR-700 receiver, which will allow tracking of threats. Instead of pre-emptive jamming it will provide selective reactive jamming.
The airplane, though dedicated to the electronic attack mission, can be changed from an EA back to an 'F' with relative ease and vice versa. It allows flexibility on the flight deck. You can use up a certain portion of the life of the airplane flying it as an electronic attack airplane, and then shift missions, and use another section as a fighter. There is certainly a big difference in fighting Iraq with a strong intergraded jamming system compared to fighting in Afghanistan.
The EA-18 will retain everything in it that the F/A-18F Super Hornet has today with two exceptions. The wing tip stations will have receiving antennas. The gun will be replaced with avionics boxes containing the LR-700 receiver and satellite communications, which interface with the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods. The EA-18 is based on the two-seat F/A-18F with the Block 2 avionics upgrades, including active-array radar and advanced rear crew station, already under development for the Super Hornet. [3]

But again, as to what it will actually carry, I don't know yet. - BillCJ 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the EA-18G section keeps getting added to (not a bad thing in and of itself), but that makes it harder to keep my proposed article updated. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, I am proceeding with posting the new article at EA-18 Growler. Don't worry, I'm keeping the new additions made today. - BillCJ 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Australian Possible Use

Does the possible/definate buying/hiring of the super hornet need to be included Noshpit 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of the Super Hornet being considered by the RAAF. DO you yave sources for this? Otherwise it's pure speculation, and can't go in the article. - BillCJ 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a done deal, but there is certain logic to it, with the RAAF still flying 30 year old F-111s, the JSF only just making its first flight:
DEFENCE Minister Brendan Nelson intends to ram through a $3 billion purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, amid concerns Australia may lack a fully deployable air combat capability early next decade.
Dr Nelson has accelerated plans to buy the upgraded Hornets through a US Defence Department purchase from the US navy.
[...]
The decision to buy an expensive interim fighter will generate a major rethink of the 2006-16 defence capability plan, with the prospect of a cut in the 100-strong Joint Strike Fighter fleet planned for the RAAF.
Senior defence sources said Dr Nelson wanted to run no risk of an air combat capability gap, with the F-111 strike force due to retire in 2010.
A key concern is that the Joint Strike Fighter, destined to become the RAAF's new frontline combat aircraft, may be subject to congressional budget cuts, leading to production delays.
On current plans, the first JSF squadron will enter operational service in Australia in 2014-15.
Acquiring a full squadron of Super Hornets from 2009-10 will enable the RAAF to retire its 22 operational F-111s in 2010 without the need for a further costly extension of their service life. It would also mean the air force could reduce to 42 the number of aircraft taking part in the full $1.5 billion Hornet upgrade program.[4]
I note that there is quite a big difference in payload between the "Pig" and the "Rhino" however. Maybe it doesn't matter so much with newer munitions(?) Grant65 | Talk 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would thing there's quite a bit of difference between the F-111's and the F-35's payload/range also. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if that of the Super Hornet is greater than the F-35's also. - BillCJ 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
F-111 can carry 14,300 kg of ordnance, FA-18C = 6,215 kg, Super Hornet = 8,050 kg, F-35 = ? Grant65 | Talk 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Govt has confirmed the purchase: http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21334330-31037,00.html

  • Thanks. Someone updated the article to cover the purchase. -Fnlayson 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


The report retired Air Vice Marshal Criss refers to in his editoral (currently Reference 29) is here: F/A-18E/F & F-22 review to Senate Armed Services Committee. -Fnlayson 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Text from Hornet Article

I edited down the following text from the F/A-18 Hornet article to make room for the F-18L merger. I placed here incase there is info not in this article. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The newest models, the single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets, carry over the name and design concept of the original F/A-18, but are extensively redesigned, with a new, 25% larger airframe. The Super Hornet has a stretched fuselage and larger wings with leading-edge extensions; more powerful GE F414 engines based on F/A-18's F404; upgraded avionics suite. The E/F began when McDonnell Douglas proposed an enlarged Hornet to replace the cancelled expensive A-12 stealth attack aircraft program. Congress was unwilling to fund a "new" aircraft, however the proposed F/A-18E could be represented as a mere upgrade. A development contract for the Super Hornet worth $3.8 billion was signed in December 1992. The first new aircraft was rolled out of McDonnell Douglas on September 17, 1995. The Super Hornet's first cruise was with Strike Fighter Squadron 115 (VFA-115) flying the F/A-18E in July 2002. The squadron flew 214 combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Southern Watch. The aircraft is currently in production and will eventually equip 22 squadrons.