Talk:F/A-18 Hornet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Naming convention?

Isn't there an aircraft naming convention that suggests the name of this article get changed to "Boeing F/A-18"? --JJLatWiki 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The Boeing name really only applies to the Super Hornets. That's all I have on this now... -Fnlayson 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with layson here. Boeing, though the major contractor for the hornet now, had nothing to do with the design or manufacturing of the legacy hornet. If you want to add a company name it should be the defunct McDonald DouglasStanleywinthrop 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The manufacturer doesn't matter for the article name anyway. For US military aircraft, the policy is not to include the manufacturer's name if there is a popular name, e.g. Hornet, Super Hornet. -Fnlayson 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia Version

I removed the dubious claim that HUG 2.2 upgrades Aussie hornets to "beyond E standards". Not only is this not true, it just doesn't make sense. Anyone who wants to revert to this claim will need to provide a source.Stanleywinthrop 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combat History: MiG-25 Foxbat shooting down an F/A-18

Why is there no mention of the MiG-25 shooting down an F/A-18? As far as I know, this is a confirmed kill that even the USAF admits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.239.184 (talk • contribs)

When/Where? Can you provide documented sources of this? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That happened on the Gulf War. The article already covers that in the Combat service section but does not mention MiG-25. -Fnlayson 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the MiG-25 article. Why not here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.243.123 (talk) 13:20:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there is a reference, then please include it. If not, it is an unsourced claim and does not meet the qualifications of being included in Wikipedia (for the love of all that is holy, please don't use Wikipedia as a source. Use something far more reliable [/sarcasm]). But in all seriousness, just get a reliable reference and include it. I'm perfectly happy to put it in and I'm a military aviator. — BQZip01 — talk 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt on what downed the F/A-18 in question. An USAF report says it was downed by a MiG-25, but a Navy report says it was a surface to air missile. I don't think it's significant enough to mention what downed the Hornet in this article anyway. -Fnlayson 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Navy wants to make it sound better and the Air Force is trying to be realistic.

A surface to air missile seems far more likely, the Mig-25s deployed by Iraq rarely had effective air to air armaments equipped, if they had any at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.91.54 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

The words below were the following things in the Popular Culture section.

Hornets make frequent appearances in action movies and military novels. The Hornet was featured in the film Independence Day.

Yet again please read before adding something involves with popular culture. Those were fiction and video game appearances and I don't see it notable.(TougHHead 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

FLight Sims are usually permittable, but games are usually not. THe Hornet plays a notable, if exaggerated, role in ID4. While not quite on par with the F-14 and Top Gun, it's been accepted as notable here for some time. There's no problem questioning the appearances tho, and if you get a consensus here to remove them, then it will be done. - BillCJ 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't put the F-22 Raptor as appeared in the Fighters Anthology means neither the F-18 Hornet.(TougHHead 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Woo, not that simple. One could have a major role in that and the other a minor one. The minor one probably would not be notable enough to list. The F-22 was still in development in '97 as well. -Fnlayson 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Export info

What about moving this export info to either the Operators section or maybe Operational history section? I like the way similar info is presented in the C-17 Globemaster III article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish Air Force is mentioned as a user of the F/A-18 in the "Non-US users" section but is missing from the "Operators" list. --Death Bredon (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I split off the section, but didn't get Finlad added to the new list. Sorry about that! - BillCJ (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea. I added that earlier. Thanks for bringing that up. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landplane?

I've noticed pictures of Swiss F/A-18's with tailhooks extended, which struck me as odd. I don't think Switzerland operates aircraft carriers. Aren't export versions intended for land-based use stripped of their carrier-specific features? Drutt (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of the exported ones are land-based. Tailhooks are for emergency landings for land-based aircraft. The first entry at F-15 Eagle#Notable accidents and incidents describes a use of tailhook. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Partially correct. All export versions are land based, but they retain carrier capability. That is, the US could buy back a Kuwaiti, Ausi, or Swiss (etc.) Hornet and put it to carrier use without structural modification. Avionics and other mods might be required. Bottom line: the tailhook on a Swiss FA-18 would do just fine trapping on a carrier. An F15 hook/trap would finish that bird...E2a2j (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting information here. Drutt (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backseater controls

I had this question after seeing this in the F-15E Strike Eagle article:

Unlike earlier two-place jets (like the F-4 Phantom II and Navy's F-14 Tomcat), whose "backseater" lacked flying controls, the back seat of the F-15E cockpit is equipped with its own stick and throttle so the WSO can take over flying if necessary, albeit with reduced visibility.

Can the backseater on a F-18 take flight controls as well? I've also asked this question at Talk:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hornet was designed without the need for a backseater's help. The 2 seat variants are generally trainers and should include back seat flight controls. This site says the B and D models have dual controls. Seems like night attack D model has some flight controls removed. Will have to check books on that and the F model. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)