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.

 

Understanding a misunderstood fighter, the Super Hornet.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Hi all,

The Super Hornet is an evolution of the Hornet. To understand it, you need to0 understand where the F/A-18 Hornet came from. The F/A-18 was concieved as the VFAX (Carrier-Based Fighter and Attack Experimental). the goal was to build one aircraft to replace both the F-4 as a fighter, and the A-7 as an attack aircraft. Origionally, it was going to be a family of aircraft that would be made up of the F-18 Fighter version and the A-18 Attack version. At some point, someone desided to combine the two design into one aircraft. This new plane became the F/A-18 (Fighter/Attack.

The Super Hornet was an expansion of the origional Hornet. After the A-12 Avenger was cancelled, along with planned A-6 upgrades. The Navy decided to expand the Hornet's attack capibilities. The F/A-18 design was enlarged and payload and range were increased. The Avionics were upgraded, and some improvement were made to survivability.

Tim




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Yes... it's just an upgraded Hornet... One of the original Hornets weaknesses was that it couldn't take much fuel... The Super Horent can take a bit more... And it gots much better electronics...



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
The F14 is not as adanced as the F35. However im sure the Tomcat 21 would be better than a JSF.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
ch1466 why do yiou have to rubbish everyones ideas and insult anybody and everybody who doesnt agree exactly with you. you do it on every single post and usually your facts are either wrong or "questionable".

A us carrier needs to be able to attack as well as defend. The f/a-18 and the f35 have the attack section well covered and can partially fill the defence role but they cant fully cover it. The us navy needs a defence fighter even if it only has 10 figthers to a carrier. The f-14 fulfilled this role perfectly however age and new needs are pushing it oput of service. However i still think that and upgraded super tomcat would be perfect as a fleet defence/interceptor. Fast, long range, a bit of stealth, reasonable dogfighting capabilities and lots of long range deadly aam. Also it looks far better than the f/a-18 and the f-35.

Justin



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
New recon version of the F-14. LOL





posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
JB3,

>>
ch1466 why do yiou have to rubbish everyones ideas

...

Also it looks far better than the f/a-18 and the f-35.
>>

'Nuf said.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Yes... it's just an upgraded Hornet... One of the original Hornets weaknesses was that it couldn't take much fuel... The Super Horent can take a bit more... And it gots much better electronics...


That stemmed from the intial competion for the USAF light fighter comp which the YF-16 won. The YF-17 (One of which can be seen at the western museum of flight in Hawthorn, CA) of which the F/A-18 was derived had a very small fuel fraction as was typical for flight demonstrators. When revamped to the F-18 someone forgot to increase the fuel load. That is why you almost always see the F-18's with external fuel tanks.

The E/F models help to bring the fuel fraction to a more acceptable level.

The Super Hornet is much more indicative of the threats that the USN faces today. The Tomcat (which remains one of my favorite planes) was old, the electrocnics were dated, yes even in the "D" models and while I do not have specifics, maintenence was becoming a chore. Its design was based on the cold war requirment to fight Soviet bombers in the outer fringes of a CBG's defence zone. The AIM-54 was part of that package. Once the threat of sub and supersonic bombers in massive raids subsided, the Navy needed a air superiority fighter that also had more flexability than the Tomcat. Hence the F-18E/F/G

I agree with Waynos, it has a reduced RCS, but is no stealt fighter. The Navy has had multiple chances to buy into the technology and have botched all three (The F-117, the Avenger II, and the F-22). Although the F-22 collapse was due in part to the cancelation of the Avenger II. The JSF will be the first true stealth A/C in thier inventory



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
The US Navy & the evolution of a CBG into a CSF. Carriers in the early days were used to protect a fleet from enemy aircraft.

The F-14 was designed to be a carrier based swing wing fleet defense fighter. As Carriers are now used in many different missions, a multi-mission fighter was needed. Hence the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet".

Gentleman, the fact that the Navy keeps buying more, means the F-18s will be around for along time. The F-35 will not be replacing the F-18 outright. You will see a mixture of F-18s & F-35s for many years to come.

I mean it's not really that complicated. The F-14 was created in a time where the USN was preparing for another battle of the Atlantic and had to keep the SLOC open during WWIII. Massive waves of Soviet Bombers and missiles were going to challenge this and the F-14 was designed to beat that threat as well as lower level threats in general. So in a way it could be said that the F-14 was defensive in nature as a platform all things considered.

The F/A-18E was created in the post cold war as a primarily offensive platform that was made to take the fight to the enemy whether it be in the air land or sea and replace muliple platforms with a common airframe. The F/A-18E was intended to serve along side the F-35 well into the 21st century which is why it incorporates features such as Stealth and AESA ect. Again an emphasis on offense for this fighter.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Hockeyguy567]

NOTE TO Hockeyguy567

Next time, don't just copy and paste someone's elses post...credit the work they did in putting the original post together.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Well I am astonished to see that not only is the first post an amalgam of two posts on there but even the reply posted to my own response is a copy and paste job! What gives?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Actually the F14 is very versatile. The prob is the dated airframe and now high maintenance(SP?) costs.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Actually the F14 is very versatile. The prob is the dated airframe and now high maintenance(SP?) costs.


In no doubt due to the old design of the components.

For comparison, how easy is it to maintain a brand new modern car compared to a 1970s vintage?


The F-14/F-18 decision is pure dirty politics.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join