It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-18, The best fighter today...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
OK, I know that you all hate to see these kind of threads but i still think that this is worth to be written. We all know the Hornet as a good fighter, it has for instance served during "operation Sandstorm" "operation iraqi freedom" and many other operations with exellent grades. The plane is well-known, but many still think that the Hornet isn't a match for "super fighters". But I think that the Hornets adavntage is that it's simple, no "overdoing" with the aerodynamics and the computers, just simple and stylish.

History

The Hornet has a long and interesting history. In 1972 it made it first flight under NASA. The planes name was YF-17 and it was designed to be the next fighter in the "Lightweight Fighter Program". But that wasn't' good enough, the USAAF demanded a new "top-fighter" to it's carriers, because the well-known "Northop" F-5 had became wery old and it's top-speed wasn't good enough in dogfights. Because the success with the YF-17 the NAVY demanded that the "Northop" should team up with "McDonnell Douglas" company so that the next plane (of the YF-17 project) would be made by the best engineers in the country. The engineers had one main idea to follow. The next fighter shold be a cheap lightweight strike fighter to the expensive and complex F-14 Tomcat.

The resultat was the Hornet A (with one seat) and B modell (for two persons). The Hornet mad it''s first flight in 1978 and entered service in 1983. It became wery soon clear that the modell was a success and the improoved modell became active in 1987. The next modell had a greter fuselage witch was the first models weakness. At this time the NAVY and the AF posessed 371 fighters of the Hornet model. The C/D models came shortly after, and they had an even greter fuselage and better maneuverability.

Because the F-14 was coming to it's "end" (still not retired
), The NAVY/AF decided not to make an improoved model of the F/A-18 C/D but rather to make a whole new fighter. Because of the sucess with the Hornet, McDonnell Douglas still decided to keep the Hornets "base" models, and improve it with the best sides of the old models. ANd that's were the history ends, The best Hornet model today in service is the E/F models, and they will surely not be the las ones.

Design

The F/A-18 base design is same in all the models, just small changes in the plane can tell you that it isn't about an "a model" and not a "C model" for instance.

The F/A 18 is a twin engine, mid-wing multi mission tactical aircraft, (direct copy
). The Hornet's advantages are it's superbe maneuverability and it's thrust. The plane is therefore well-known for its maneuverability. An other advantage is the Hornets multi-fuctional display. 4 displays taht tell you about position, planes weapons etc. etc. Many pilots and engineers think that the plane is designed with maintenance in mind. The Hornets General electrics produce 17,700 lbf, (79 kN) thrust each. And the engines are also easy to maintain.

Hornet today

The "old" Hornet models, A, B are used primarly for training. And the C/D models are being used as an all weaather strike aircraft. The Hornet's have made good success abroad. Already 7 countrys posess Hornet in their fleets including Canada, Australia, Finland (Go Finland
), Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain and Switzerland.

Weaponry

The Hornet is a multi functional air craft. It's main weapon are the "samrt bombs" wich make much damage even thoug they have a small size. The Hornet contains only one weapon " directly from the shop". A 20 mm gattling gun or M61 vulcan. The machine guns are often used in dog fights or in preamting strikes, (before the missiles are fired).

Air-to-air

AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow

Air-to-ground

AGM-45_Shrike, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, SLAM-ER, JSOW

Anti-ships

AGM-84 Harpoon

Bombs

CBU-87 cluster, CBU-89 gator mine, CBU-97, Paveway, JDAM, Mk 80 series, nuclear bombs

General characteristics
Crew: 1(A/C) 2(B/D)
Unit Cost: $39.5 Million
Contractor
rime: McDonnell Douglas; Major Subcontractor: Northrop
First flight:
November 1978
November 1995 (E/F models)
Operational:
October 1983 (A/B models)
September 1987 (C/D models)
September 2001 (E/F models)
[edit]
Dimensions
Length: 56 ft 4 in (17.1 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft (12.3 m)
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.7 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
[edit]
Weights
Empty: 12,500 lb (5,700 kg)
Loaded: lb ( kg)
Maximum Takeoff: 29,750 lb (13,400 kg)
[edit]
Powerplant
Engine: 2x General Electric F404-GE-402 enhance performance turbofans
Thrust: 17,700 lbf per engine (79 kN) thrust
[edit]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Thrust/weight: >1[url=http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/video/ckpt05.htm]
external image

www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/video/ckpt05.htm
external image


Apart from the US Navy, US Marine Corps and NASA (which received 1048 aircraft), the F/A-18 is used by the armed forces of:

Australia (Royal Australian Air Force)
Canada (Canadian Armed Forces, designation CF-188 and CF-188B, a/k/a CF-18 Hornet) 138 aircraft
Finland (Suomen Ilmavoimat, F-18C/D interceptor variant) 64 Aircraft
Kuwait (Al Quwwat Aj Jawwaiya Al Kuwaitiya) 40 Aircraft
Malaysia (Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia [F-18D]) 8 Aircraft
Spain (Ejército del Aire, designation C.15/EF-18) 72 EF-18 and an additional 24 F/A-18 from the US inventory
Switzerland (Kommando der Flieger und Fliegeabwehrtruppen) 34 Aircraft


EDIT:Mod edit of oversized images/pictures.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Hmmm, a few errors need correcting here.

First the YF-17 and the F-18 are not the same aircraft. The F-18 was a derivative of the YF-17 design but emerged as an altogether bigger and more capable aircraft, it was not simply an update or conversion of the original but a new design to the same formula.

Also the first flight date is utterly wrong whichever of the two aircraft you are talking about.

The YF-17 first flew in 1974 and the F-18 in 1978.

The USAAF has not existed since 1947 and so played no part in this aircrafts existance, at all. USAF maybe? But no, you mentioned carriers so that is wrong too.

The Northrop F-5 had no bearing on the F-18's creation, it was never a carrier based aircraft.


I gave up at this point as this looks like a work of fiction



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Ok, i don't know if you read wrong or if I didn't explain myself... But i really mean that the Hornet and the Y/F 17 are different planes...

And BTW... The thing about the F-5 not being a navy plane, check te picture under...




[edit on 9-7-2005 by Figher Master FIN]

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Hey.. you're talking minimal computers but still stylish..Half the armanent shown in that pic up there works mostly on computers!!


My simple but stylish a/c would be the Mirage 2000 series..



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
OK, I get your point... What I meant was taht it has less computer thatn the Raptor for instace...
Do you get my point...? So you like the frech plaens eh...?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I like the F/A-18 I think its a good support plane or a good multi role plane its not a good fighter. The F/A-18 worked well with e F-14, the Tomcat cleared the sky of enemy jets the threatened our ship and the F/A-18 took care of the ground work. Now to have the F/A-18 take over the role of the F-14 is crazy IMO, I don't think the F/A-18 can handle the new types of plans that would be used to attack our navy. The F/A-18 should stick to what it was designed for, multi role its not an air superiority fighter.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
ok, maybe your phrasing wasn't quite right due to English not being your first language, I can understand that.

However you do quite clearly state that the Navy wanted the F-18 because the F-5 was too old and not good enough in certain areas.

This imples that the F-5 was an operational fighter with the USN, which it never was. The F-5 was only used for aggressor training whereas the F-18 is and was a front line type. There is a huge difference there.

However I take back my 'work of fiction' comment and will put it down to a simple error, anyone can make a mistake.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The YF-17 was a competitor against the F-16 for the USAF lightweight fighter competition. The Hornet was built for the Navy based on information they discovered from that competition. The Navy needed it to replace the A-6 Intruders among other things.

The really big problem with the Hornet is the fact that unrefueled it has NO range to it. Until the E/Fs came along you could keep a Hornet up for about 45 minutes unless you hit a tanker, and took on some fuel. That's the biggest reason the carriers didn't like to use them as the primary defense fighter, as opposed to the Tomcats. No, it's not because the Tomcat carried the Pheonix, because the Pheonix was retired several years ago. It's because the Hornet has extremely short legs. That's one reason the Super Hornet has a longer wing and fuselage, so they could add more fuel to it.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I feel that the F/A-18C/D was used to replace A-7 Corsair not A-6 Invader. As you can see the F/A-18C/D and A-6 are both in service simultaneously for a long time.
You could correct me if I said wrong.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by emile]

[edit on 9-7-2005 by emile]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Actually, it replaced the F-4, A-7, and later the A-6. They didn't start replacing the A-6 until the C/D was built in enough numbers. That was when they had the night and precision attack changes made to them.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
OK, I get your point... What I meant was taht it has less computer thatn the Raptor for instace...
Do you get my point...? So you like the frech plaens eh...?



Oh.. definitely "less computerised" than the raptor..Also less computerised than the Typhoon, and all 3d/2d TVC capable aircraft..
e.g: Su-30 TVC series etc etc.
TVC requires a LOT of direction+thrust control computers!!


Well I'm not partial to "French Planes" :

I like:

Sea Harrier FRC
F-16( blk 50+)
Grippen



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
First the YF-17 and the F-18 are not the same aircraft. The F-18 was a derivative of the YF-17 design but emerged as an altogether bigger and more capable aircraft,


One interesting tidbit of the YF-17 and F/A-18 was that when they reworked to fit the Navy's spects they forgot to increase its fuel load. So the F-18 A/B/C/D have a pretty poor fuel fraction compared to other fighters. Thats why they almost always are seen sporting fuel tanks. They did improve on it in the E/F model but its still not as good as some.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Oh, and just for a bit of a nitpick, it's the A-6 Intruder, not Invader. hehe The Invader was a twin engine attack/bomber built in WWII. It was originally the B-26, but during Vietnam I think it was they redesignated it the A-26, so that they could honestly say that there were no US bombers in theater. It was supposed to be someting of a widowmaker according to what was said about it in WWII, but I heard from others that it was the only reason they were still alive. It could take a beating and keep flying.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
In responce to the intial post: No the best fighter flying today is the Typhoon soon the be eclipsed by the Raptor



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
ok, maybe your phrasing wasn't quite right due to English not being your first language, I can understand that.

However you do quite clearly state that the Navy wanted the F-18 because the F-5 was too old and not good enough in certain areas.

This imples that the F-5 was an operational fighter with the USN, which it never was. The F-5 was only used for aggressor training whereas the F-18 is and was a front line type. There is a huge difference there.

However I take back my 'work of fiction' comment and will put it down to a simple error, anyone can make a mistake.


Thank you, you don't know how much that means to me... English isn't my first language... And the thing about presenting wrong facts are going to the internet-page from were i took the information...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Don't worry Fighter Master, most of us won't jump all over you for making mistakes. We understand, and I'm sure most of us have done it before.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Cool, thank's for being understanding...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
In responce to the intial post: No the best fighter flying today is the Typhoon soon the be eclipsed by the Raptor


Lol, even though it has never seen combat.

The best fighter today is the F-15C Eagle.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
[Lol, even though it has never seen combat.

The best fighter today is the F-15C Eagle.


Hmmm yes, but people have no poblem considering the F-22 Raptor as the best but its combat record is also the same as the Typhoon. Based on technology and performance, the Typhoon is the current king of the hill in Squadron service.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Here's an important question to settle this. Hey Fightermaster, did you mean it's the best ACTIVE fighter, or the best fighter including ones just coming into service?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join