Question about the F-18E/F Super Hornet.

I think both Navy and Del should stop with the childish rants of you two.

Really, i wasn't here to be comparing the C vs E/F.

Like Navy said the past is the past, so what?

The Super Hornet may have some wing flaws or design issues, but the engineers can fix it. The Super Hornet doesn't need to have the same thing as the Hornet did with the wing improvements. Dropping ordinance and gain better speed, that's no concern over the Super. It's how well and how good it does with these improvements.

Just face it the Super is more better armed in a dogfight, while the Hormet is better fighting clean just guns.

Neither the Hornet or Super Hornet are good bomb trucks beacuse they aren't designed to do bombing only, they both excell especially the Super Hornet and Hornet in A2A engagments and Ground Attack, but the Hornets are CAS platforms to just take the A-6 role.

Originally posted by Navy2001

The Super Hornet isn't a bomb truck and isn't that great of a Ground Attack aircraft. It's only used to fulfill the A-6's role until the F-35 comes in. But what does the C have to do with better enhancements than the E/F? If the C was better than why did they choose the E/F?

Because they wanted it to replace the forty year old A-6 and the Super is a better bomb truck than the C.... That's how they got congress to fund an entirely new airplane under the guise of improving the Hornet. But at least you admit it has not lived up to the goal.

I've heard many statements about the C being better in 2000-2006, but it turns out that the E/F are better fighters for now. The past was the past, the Block III upgrades will come and improve the Supers acceleration and aerodynamics and many of the flaws the Super had.

Well, the C models are 15 yrs old and the upgrades are understandably going to the new underperforming Supers as they pass the C/D's to the Marines. All the avionics upgrades available to the E could have easily been given to the C, as well as the uprated engine. In hindsight, it was arguably the wrong decision.

It has bringed more better fuel, and many things.

Fuel and cost. What am I missing..?

Originally posted by Ribox12
I think both Navy and Del should stop with the childish rants of you two.

We're just having fun.

Just face it the Super is more better armed in a dogfight, while the Hormet is better fighting clean just guns.

I don't know that this is true. That was the point.

Originally posted by _Del_Because they wanted it to replace the forty year old A-6 and the Super is a better bomb truck than the C.... That's how they got congress to fund an entirely new airplane under the guise of improving the Hornet. But at least you admit it has not lived up to the goal.

I don't see were the Super Hornet is great at being a bomb truck. It just carries bombs and come back . Many Aircraft doing well at the Ground Attack role like the F-35 F-15E or any other plane that does ground attack, outclass the Super Hornet in the Ground Attack role. The Super isn't the ground attack plane you'll want to go to war in. The Super Hornet is just doing what it's asked to do in Ground Attack. Not a great plane in that role.

The Super Hornet does a little bit better at A2A. I call it the "Missile Truck"

Originally posted by Navy2001

Originally posted by _Del_Because they wanted it to replace the forty year old A-6 and the Super is a better bomb truck than the C.... That's how they got congress to fund an entirely new airplane under the guise of improving the Hornet. But at least you admit it has not lived up to the goal.

I don't see were the Super Hornet is great at being a bomb truck. It just carries bombs and come back

.

It's better than the C in that role. I still think the "Super" Hornet is just a clunky compromise that under delivered. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none. It's not a bad airplane, it's just not what it was sold as and there were probably better options on the table.

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Navy2001

Originally posted by _Del_Because they wanted it to replace the forty year old A-6 and the Super is a better bomb truck than the C.... That's how they got congress to fund an entirely new airplane under the guise of improving the Hornet. But at least you admit it has not lived up to the goal.

I don't see were the Super Hornet is great at being a bomb truck. It just carries bombs and come back

.

It's better than the C in that role. I still think the "Super" Hornet is just a clunky compromise that under delivered. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

It's not a bad airplane, it's just not what it was sold as and there were probably better options on the table.

Probobly other fighters are better Bomb Trucks than the Super Hornet. But Super Hornet is still a capable A2A fighter in its secondary role.

But in Ground Attack Super Hornet isn't master of none in that role.

I guess you just made up your opinion once you got in the thread. But the Super Hornet is the best we've got now

Originally posted by Navy2001
Your starting to make such funny quotes, because if it isn't viable in A2A than why did Australia or Navy selected this plane to be a great A2A fighter (Secondary Role)?

They didn't. Australia selected it to replace the FB-111s in their fleet (Link) and the Navy selected it as a multirole. It was never made to excel at Air-to-Air combat as its performance will reflect that.

Originally posted by Ribox12
I couldn't understand either, but i think he means if it's against stealthy platforms, than its a no?

This is what I was saying. The F-18E/F is a Gen 4+ aircraft without stealth. It has certain RCS-reducing measures incorporated, but the fact will always be that it has nothing on the stealth of Gen 5 platforms. The result is that any of the Gen 5 Air Superiority platforms (F-22, PAK-FA, J-20) will be able to see and engage the Super Hornet long before the opposite is true. Even the F-35 as a multirole fighter would be more capable in a direct fight against Super Hornets because of its stealth. We learned this as Gen 4 fighters began to test against the F-22: If you can't detect it, you can't kill it. The future will only get worse for Super Hornets as stealth becomes the only thing on the battlefield.

Originally posted by Darkpr0It was never made to excel at Air-to-Air combat as its performance will reflect that.

Your saying that it's not a great fighter in that role?

Originally posted by Navy2001
Your saying that it's not a great fighter in that role?

Let us compare its performance to a great fighter: The F-15C

The Super Hornet is heavier at 32 000 lbs stripped as compared to 28 000 lbs.
It is capable of carrying 6000 lbs less ordinance weight at 66 000 lbs MTOW as compared to 68 000 lbs.
It has significantly higher wing loading at 94 lb/ft^2 as compared to 73.1.
It has inferior thrust-to-weight at 0.93 (loaded) as compared to 1.12.
It has significantly inferior combat radius at 390 nm as compared to 1061.

The differences you see are largely the result of sacrifices made for the purpose of allowing the aircraft to operate from a carrier, and to take on the A2G parts of being a multirole jet. The F-15C,held by pretty much every aviation expert ever to be a great fighter, is not required to do those tasks and, therefore, doesn't need to make the sacrifices.

Unfortunately for the Super Hornet, the F-15 is not a modern fighter anymore. The Eagle is outmatched significantly by the dawn of F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, and J-20. Pitting the Super Hornet those planes in air superiority, a task which it was never specifically designed for, is simply unfair.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

It is capable of carrying 6000 lbs less ordinance weight at 66 000 lbs MTOW as compared to 68 000 lbs.

Now I might not be the greatest at math, but those figgers just don't seem right.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Now I might not be the greatest at math, but those figgers just don't seem right.

Super Hornet: Empty 32 000 lbs, MTOW is 66 000. It can carry 34 000 lbs
Eagle: Empty 28 000 lbs, MTOW is 68 000. It can carry 40 000 lbs

Eagle can carry 6 000 more lbs.

reply to post by Darkpr0


See what I mean? I muffed up my Eagle MTOW weights. That'll learn me to go from memory and not look it up. God I miss my reference books.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Let us compare its performance to a great fighter: The F-15C

The Super Hornet is heavier at 32 000 lbs stripped as compared to 28 000 lbs.
It is capable of carrying 6000 lbs less ordinance weight at 66 000 lbs MTOW as compared to 68 000 lbs.
It has significantly higher wing loading at 94 lb/ft^2 as compared to 73.1.
It has inferior thrust-to-weight at 0.93 (loaded) as compared to 1.12.
It has significantly inferior combat radius at 390 nm as compared to 1061.

The differences you see are largely the result of sacrifices made for the purpose of allowing the aircraft to operate from a carrier, and to take on the A2G parts of being a multirole jet. The F-15C,held by pretty much every aviation expert ever to be a great fighter, is not required to do those tasks and, therefore, doesn't need to make the sacrifices.

Unfortunately for the Super Hornet, the F-15 is not a modern fighter anymore. The Eagle is outmatched significantly by the dawn of F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, and J-20. Pitting the Super Hornet those planes in air superiority, a task which it was never specifically designed for, is simply unfair.

You have significantly funny quotes, basically false, you don't even know nothing about this plane in A2A combat and neither no nothing super about it. First i think your scrolling around Air Power Australia or Gripen4Canada. Or trolling to criticize the jet easily.

If the Super Hornet is heavier at 32,000lbs it's fine, that's why it's a carrier fighter. In A2A configuration it has 47,000lbs of weight creating the Rhino manuverable but adds significant drag. Theres nothing you can do to release the weight armed, it's the same as the F-15. To get rid of the heavy weight, you need to fire the missile.

T/W Ratio which is 0.93 isn't inferior that means the Rhino has trouble in performance which is aerodynamic and acceleration performance. Same as carrying weapons, nothing inferior about that. Nothing about manuverablility go learn more about T/W Ratio before you say it's inferior. It's reciving the EPE Engines to get far better A2A performance against faster high flying targets, and regain better acceleration.

It doesn't have any inferior combat raduis, the 390mi is for an interdiction mission raduis. If you want more combat radius, you need CFT's to gain more MI of range. It's nothing bad about it. CFT's are getting tested next month. Only a critic can judge its combat radius.

The only thing the Super Hornet operators are concerned is it's top speed and acceleration.
The airframe can't be changed, you can add more capability if you want or select some enhancements to give the Rhino better performance.

First the Super Bug is designed to have the capabilites the Hornet had, but the bigger airframe costed alot so they didn't quite put everything the Hornet had. If i can redict what the Bug replaced.

A-6: Ground Attack
F-14: Air To Air role
S-3: Tanker
F-18: A2A and A2G

It's designed to all the roles in the Navy inventory. It's a great A2A fighter in today's role. Nothing bad except top speed and acceleration. I don't see where it's not a A2A fighter, it is as its secondary mission. It's a Multirole fighter able to do air superiorty and ground attack.

If it never recived those Block III upgrades now, it would be outclassed right now if there wouldn't been any new upgrades to the Rhino. It's new and it's going to get very capable. I also doubt that any naval aviator would say this plane is inferior in any role or in performance.

The Naval Aviatiors have alot of faith performing great in A2A combat as i said many times, it still counts as a air superiority fighter in the list of A2A fighters.

Originally posted by Navy2001
The only thing the Super Hornet operators are concerned is it's top speed and acceleration.

Would you consider pilots operators? Because the Rhino pilots I've spoken to have all said that range was still a problem. Transonic acceleration has always been a problem with the Hornet.

That combat radius figure might be for interdiction, but for fighter escort with two Sidewinders and two AMRAAMs it's only 410 nm. Maritime air superiority (six AAMs, three external tanks) has a slightly over 2 hour loiter time, if they're 150 nms from ship.

Originally posted by Zaphod58Would you consider pilots operators? Because the Rhino pilots I've spoken to have all said that range was still a problem. Transonic acceleration has always been a problem with the Hornet.

That combat radius figure might be for interdiction, but for fighter escort with two Sidewinders and two AMRAAMs it's only 410 nm. Maritime air superiority (six AAMs, three external tanks) has a slightly over 2 hour loiter time, if they're 150 nms from ship.

Yea pilot operators. Well i guess range is a problem while carrying EFT's. Carrying CFT's gives you more range.

Yea i said 390mi is for interdiction missions.

Combat Radius for Combat Air Patrol mission:
2.3 Hours at 229nm= 370km

Fighter Escort Mission
Carrying 2+ AIM-9
Carrying 4+ AIM-120
Carrying 2+ Fuel Tanks=
805nm=1,490km
Or 2.9 hours loiter at 130nm=240km

Those CFT's aren't going to be jettisonable and are going to wreck havoc with your area ruling, which severely affects your transonic performance, which just so happens to be a pitfall of the design already... They'll be great for air-to-mud missions and buddy-tanking, I suspect, but they aren't a magic bullet.

Originally posted by _Del_
Those CFT's aren't going to be jettisonable and are going to wreck havoc with your area ruling, which severely affects your transonic performance, which just so happens to be a pitfall of the design already... They'll be great for air-to-mud missions and buddy-tanking, I suspect, but they aren't a magic bullet.

100% correct. That said CFT's are almost to get more range in an A2G mission, not a A2A mission for the Rhino.

March 26, 2013:

Boeing engineers are quite proud of the tanks. Their shaping is said to add lift, creating almost zero net drag at cruising speeds. If tests bear that out, it means that almost all 3,000 pounds of extra fuel could be used to extend range. With that said, nothing in physics comes without a cost. The conformal tanks add weight and some transonic drag, reducing the Super Hornet’s already marginal transonic acceleration during missions that add them. This isn’t a fatal problem if the goal is long-range strike, but it could be an issue for air superiority missions like Combat Air Patrol. The logical solution would be to remove the conformal tanks for those kinds of missions, and accept the extra cruising drag inherent in multiple drop tanks.

Originally posted by Navy2001
You have significantly funny quotes, basically false, you don't even know nothing about this plane in A2A combat and neither no nothing super about it. First i think your scrolling around Air Power Australia or Gripen4Canada. Or trolling to criticize the jet easily.

Wikipedia, actually.

If the Super Hornet is heavier at 32,000lbs it's fine, that's why it's a carrier fighter.

You have that backwards: the Super Hornet is heavier because it is a carrier fighter. It needs larger wings, larger control surfaces, and strengthened structure for carrier operations. Unfortunately, being able to operate from carrier does not make you any more effective in engaging enemy aircraft.

In A2A configuration it has 47,000lbs of weight creating the Rhino manuverable but adds significant drag.

Maneuverability is best demonstrated by wing loading and thrust to weight ratio. The overall weight is not so much the issue so much as how well you can move it around. The F-15 has lower wing loading and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio which both indicate higher maneuverability.

Theres nothing you can do to release the weight armed, it's the same as the F-15. To get rid of the heavy weight, you need to fire the missile.

I am not quite sure what is going on in this sentence. Weight problems arise when using drop tanks and heavy ordinance, not A2A missiles.

T/W Ratio which is 0.93 isn't inferior that means the Rhino has trouble in performance which is aerodynamic and acceleration performance.

We seem to disagree on what the word 'inferior' means. 0.93 is not as good as 1.12, ergo the F-15 will have better performance where acceleration and energy retention are required (ie A2A combat)

Same as carrying weapons, nothing inferior about that.

F-15C and F-18E both possess 11 hard points, and therefore neither gains an advantage.

It's receiving the EPE Engines to get far better A2A performance against faster high flying targets, and regain better acceleration.

The EPE engines have not been fielded, nor have any contracts been signed for them AFAIK.

It doesn't have any inferior combat raduis, the 390mi is for an interdiction mission raduis. If you want more combat radius, you need CFT's to gain more MI of range. It's nothing bad about it. CFT's are getting tested next month. Only a critic can judge its combat radius.

You get nothing for free in aerospace design. Operating an aircraft with CFTs increases its available range, but at the cost of weight. If you want fuel, you have to haul it. This means that when the aircraft gets to the fight it will still be carrying all the fuel it needs to get home from its farther position, and you will see a performance hit because of it.

The only thing the Super Hornet operators are concerned is it's top speed and acceleration.
The airframe can't be changed, you can add more capability if you want or select some enhancements to give the Rhino better performance.

Why would an aircraft with top speed and acceleration issues be a great fighter when compared to those fighters that don't have those problems?

It's designed to all the roles in the Navy inventory. It's a great A2A fighter in today's role. Nothing bad except top speed and acceleration. I don't see where it's not a A2A fighter, it is as its secondary mission. It's a Multirole fighter able to do air superiorty and ground attack.

It was never a great air to air fighter. It was not great even compared to the F-15 before it, and it has absolutely no chance against the great Gen 5 fighters. A multirole fighter is just that: A decent everything, but a great nothing.

If it never recived those Block III upgrades now, it would be outclassed right now if there wouldn't been any new upgrades to the Rhino. It's new and it's going to get very capable. I also doubt that any naval aviator would say this plane is inferior in any role or in performance.

The F-18 has not received the Block III upgrades. The aircraft has only just begun testing, if at all (Link). By your own words, it is outclassed.

The Naval Aviatiors have alot of faith performing great in A2A combat as i said many times, it still counts as a air superiority fighter in the list of A2A fighters.

As far as I know the Super Hornet has no air-to-air kills in combat. Claiming that is has performed great in A2A combat as compared to aircraft such as the F-15 (well over 100 combat kills, no combat losses) is gonna be a tough position to take.

Originally posted by Darkpr0It was never a great air to air fighter. It was not great even compared to the F-15 before it, and it has absolutely no chance against the great Gen 5 fighters. A multirole fighter is just that: A decent everything, but a great nothing.

The F-18 has not received the Block III upgrades. The aircraft has only just begun testing, if at all (Link). By your own words, it is outclassed.

It isn't outclassed, i said without the upgrades it's outclassed, read carefully next time.

Yea Critic that never proves its great in A2A. This means you know absolutley don't know anything about the Super Hornet nor don't have anytime experiencing the capabilites. It's a great A2A fighter and take my word, move on to another thread beacuse your going to troll critizing the jet. It's personally Ribox12's thread. Hey im telling you that it's good A2A fighter.

i've talked to a Rhino Pilot on a forum and he said that

"It's Avionics and Systems work apart Great in the Air-to-Air role, if the pilot doesn't recive training well, the pilot in a situational dogfight may well be shot down but thanks to the two seater, it's going to give you far better situational awareness in a Within Visual Range Engagment." he said its very capable in A2A if you have the right things in the Super Hornet a Aim-9x, JHMCS as well as you. The Super Hornet will do great in A2A in that role it excels with its advanced avionics and sensors as well as its missiles.

you'll get the idea that it's not always about the platform (that being the Super Hornet in this case) but the system of which it is. And a answer like "It's Never Been Good in A2A" is sort of like answering "how long is this plane going to last?", there's many other variables outside of simply the aircraft's specifications that will determine its effectiveness in combat. Aircraft don't engage in mano e mano gladiatorial combat, they operate as part of a multi-platform warfighting system. Within one such system, the primary operators of the Super Hornet, the US Navy, appear to have faith in the Super Hornet's ability to perform in air to air missions.