It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Navy considering CFTs for Super Hornet fleet

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by boomer135

Do they? I didn't think they got any beyond the initial order that was curtailed. I know the ones that the Navy flies were originally destined for Pakistan but then the deal was stopped and the Navy got them.

I see they're talking about buying a bunch of 50/52s, MLUs for the older airframes, and putting them through the UP/STAR program as well as weapons, APG-68v9 radars and other electronics and EW systems.
edit on 3/27/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:15 AM
I looked up the (real) range of the Super hornet:

  • 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 1x external fuel tank, combat radius is 229 nm with 2.3 hour loiter.
  • 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 3x external fuel tank, combat radius is 805 nm
  • 2x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 2x AGM-84, 3x external fuel tank, combat radius is 810 nm.
  • 2x AIM-120, 2xAIM-9, 2x LGB, 2x JDAM, 1 external fuel tank, radius is 400 nm


The Super Hornet actually has a similar weight, external load, and fuel capacity as the F-15C. Of course it's more draggy especially since the pylons are canted 4 degrees outward (Aside: I believe this is caused by a weapons separation test with an exotic loadout) and if I recall correctly its SFC is a little bit higher due to lower bypass ratio engines, but overall it's impossible for its combat radius to be significantly different. And it isn't.

Note that those radius figures are not significantly different to either the F-14 or Eurofighter, which means its range isn't even close to being the least of any 4th generation allied fighter.

It might be one of the worst aerodynamically, but luckily it has the best avionics of almost any operational 4th gen fighter (equal with Tranche 3 Typhoon, Rafale with AESA). Wouldn't mind Australia flying them a bit longer if we got CFT's and upgraded engines.
edit on 28/3/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:20 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

And yet, the pilots say that the SH isn't much better than the Hornet, in the real world. On paper it's a good fighter, but in reality the pilots themselves that I spoke to weren't much more impressed with it than with the A-D.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

In terms of aerodynamic performance, it's similar to the Hornet.

In range and especially avionics, it's a significant improvement. AN/APG-79 is 2-3 times the range of AN/APG-73.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by C0bzz

Even in terms of range the pilots don't like it. Even on a straight fighter mission they're tied pretty closely to the tanker and/or carrier. They just don't like the legs it has. On paper it matches nicely with an F-16, but in reality they say the F-16 has better legs/loiter time than the SH does.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in