Navy Details New Super Hornet Capabilities

Aviation Week ^ | Feb 25, 2007 | David A. Fulghum

[skeptoid]

" Not really.

Battle of the SuperFighters: F-14D Tomcat v. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet "

Oh..... . ...it's slower and comes back sooner....??
I know'd that Wikipedia was no dang good!
So... what about the 'carefree flying qualities'?

[uglybiker]

Why, do we feel the need to publish our capabilities to our enemies?

When the Brass starts talking about a weapon, that's usually means that it's battle ready (or very nearly so).

It's just as much psyops to our adversaries as anything else.

[NRA2BFree]

When the Brass starts talking about a weapon, that's usually means that it's battle ready (or very nearly so).

It's just as much psyops to our adversaries as anything else.

You're probably right, but I wonder what ever happened to "loose lips, sink ships?" It seemed to be important for a while.

[miliantnutcase]

The Rino is a freaking bomb truck. The engine upgrades gave that thing so much more power man...What a horse.

[SampleMan]

I am still not convinced the Hornet can carry the jockstrap of a Tomcat.

Why not just put your money on the F6F Hellcat? It was a world beater in its day too.

Out of morbid curiosity, what exactly do you find superior about the Tomcat to the F/A-18E?

[SampleMan]

Good article, wonder why they say NAS Fallon is in California.

Probably because they wrote the article sitting in Tahoe. Speaking of Fallon, that base has the best wind cock in the world. Its an A-4.

[SampleMan]

Missed your screen name. You of course know all about Fallon. Had a steak at Stockman's lately?

[SampleMan]

Oops. #47 was intended for you.

[Yo-Yo]

Oh please. Try to find a part of the X-35 that is interchangeable with the F-35A, B, or C. Then tell me that the X-35 is nothing like the F-35A.

Find one part of the YF-22 that is interchangeable with the F-22A, then tell me that they are nothing alike.

I did not say the YF-17 was identical to the F/A-18E/F, but they are certainly are more alike than "nothing." By your criteria, an F-15A and an F-15E are "nothing alike."

An F/A-18D and an F-15E are nothing alike.

I understand the Super Hornet is stretched, re-engined, and outfitted with newer avionics, including AESA APG-79 radar, compared to the Hornets that came before. I understand the E/F carries more internal fuel and a larger payload.

However, the RAAF seem to think that the F/A-18A/Bs that they currently fly are enough like the F/A-18F in terms of aircrew and ground crew familiarity that they used the similarity to justify purchasing several Fs as a stopgap to replace their F-111s until the F-35 comes online.

Now, whether the F/A-18F is an appropriate replacement for the F-111, or for that matter if the F-35A is an appropriate replacement, is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I think that any casual observer would find more than "nothing" alike with the YF-17 and the F/A-18E/F.

And I would have used the analogies of the F-84E and the F-84F to make a point, rather than the F-86 and the F-100.

[DesScorp]

"Nothing like it? They do bear a family resemblance."

Today's Mustangs look like the ones from the 60's. Now try to swap the parts and see how well they work.

[SampleMan]

However, the RAAF seem to think that the F/A-18A/Bs that they currently fly are enough like the F/A-18F in terms of aircrew and ground crew familiarity that they used the similarity to justify purchasing several Fs as a stopgap to replace their F-111s until the F-35 comes online.

So now you are saying they are the same because the cockpit layout and displays are very similar, and products from the same company share systems and diagnostics? That would make the 757 and 767 the same too I suspect. Well in that way they are, and were highly marketed to take advantage of it.

So your argument is that the YF-17 and the F/A-18E are the same except for the thrust class of engine, the wing and control surface design, the radar, the landing gear, the hard point stations, the internal fuel capacity, the intake design and the all around size. Yea I can agree with that. Just as the F-100 was similar to the F-86, which was similar to the FJ-4, which was similar to the FJ-1. Still, no one that knows anything about aircraft would characterize the F-100 as the loser to the F9F Cougar.

[SampleMan]

I did not say the YF-17 was identical to the F/A-18E/F, but they are certainly are more alike than "nothing."

You said the F/A-18E/F was the loser to the F-16. That is not correct in any way.

I can show my wife a B-17 and a B-24 and they look identical to her, so I suppose similarity is in the eye of the beholder.

The Grumman family of fighters had a distinctive family resemblance running from the F2F to the F8F, yet the F4F and F8F were as different as night and day. The P-35, P-43, and P-47 also shared a distinctive design family resemblance.

[Yo-Yo]

You said the F/A-18E/F was the loser to the F-16. That is not correct in any way.

No, sir. I did not state such an obvious fallacy. Your beef is with quadrant for that statment.

All I was responding to was the assertion that the YF-17 was "nothing like" an F/A-18-E/F.

Is an EA-6B "nothing like" an A6-E? If so, then you and I use different criteria for "likeness," nothing more.

[SampleMan]

Is an EA-6B "nothing like" an A6-E? If so, then you and I use different criteria for "likeness," nothing more.

Its a modification of the same airframe. The F/A-18E really wasn't. It shouldn't have even been called an F/A-18, but it was thought that it would have an easier time getting past congress if it was.

But I will retract my statement that the YF-17 and F/A-18E are "nothing" alike. They do have an aesthetic family resemblance.

[VaBthang4]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. The F-18 and all of it's variants....suck.

[MARKUSPRIME]

I disagree.

[MrB]

So, when they disclose the capabilities of a piece of military equipment,

that means that it is already "obsolete" in terms of the unleashed capabilities of our military.

I would count on the true capability being 1 order of magnitude greater, with prototypes that are 2 orders greater.

[VaBthang4]

I never would've guessed it.

[EagleUSA]

I would count on the true capability being 1 order of magnitude greater, with prototypes that are 2 orders greater.
-----
Yes, the full monty never gets disclosed -- except for liberal rats in the Pentagon, of which there are many...but what gets sold to "allies"...is less than the full monty, especially the fire-control and radar systems. This was the case with many F-16s (another great plane) that have been sold to "allies"... :-)

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

Is that chase plane an F-9? Pretty airplane.

Michael Frazier