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

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Is the Super Hornet still viable against emerging threats from the Mig-35 and Flanker Series?

Also is it still viable in the Air Superiority role as its secondary mission?

It has superior avionics, sensors, and systems.

The Super Hornet has JHMCS Aim-9x APG-79, AIM-120's.

It's survivable and it's got good dogfighting abilities and great manuverablility armed with A2A missiles.

Great WVR platform.




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Ribox12
 


It is a good platform, but it's overall fuel capacity leaves something to be desired. In my opinion the F-14D should have been extended and supported because it was far superior to the Super Hornet in many ways, except for maneuverability.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ribox12
Is the Super Hornet still viable against emerging threats from the Mig-35 and Flanker Series?

Also is it still viable in the Air Superiority role as its secondary mission?

It has superior avionics, sensors, and systems.

The Super Hornet has JHMCS Aim-9x APG-79, AIM-120's.

It's survivable and it's got good dogfighting abilities and great manuverablility armed with A2A missiles.

Great WVR platform.


The Super Hornet is a Multi mission platform able to perform many roles in the Navy inventory in the tactical spectrum. It does have great systems and avionics, able to work well with the systems. It's a very smart plane in the Hornet family.

The Super Hornet will do what it's asked for if its SEAD or an Air to air mission. It's a very capable platform, indeed, but many say this plane is inferior to Russian fighters, but it's superior to Russian fighters which is why Australia selected the Rhino to protect the Australian air space. I think that's why many Hornet lovers are concerned about the Hornets capabilites asking for "Is This Suited In The Role"? "It's like asking is this plane able to do anything"?

The Super Hornet does everything with a "Flick Of A Switch".

So the Rhino is capable in defeating Russian fighters either the Mig-35, SU-35 or other fighters in the Russian inventory. The Russians don't tend on focusing on systems and avionics, they focus apart on manuverablility which why the Russian Flanker and Mig series are very agile.

Here's a fact and fiction on Australia Flying Courps telling the truths and hoaxes about the Super Hornet and JSF against A2A combat engagments. www.williamsfoundation.org.au...

The Super Hornet is a effective and capable Air-to-air fighter in the air to air role, that's why great avionics and systems are in the Super. However, there's no such thing as dogfights or WVR engagments anymore. Its been dead since the Vietnam War. All A2A kills in Desert Storm occurred far away which is BVR.

BVR engagments occurr 93% while WVR engagments occur 7%. The Super Hornet is a great dogfighter or WVR fighter, but it's not able to get close beacuse it's all Beyond Visual Range now days. If the missile hits no target that's when within visual range battles occur, not occurring when you want to get close and try to do your skills in a dogfight.

Aim-9x and Helmet Cueing System help the Super Hornet be potent if it's getting engaged in a close in dogfight. Which is why those improvements where added.

But overall it's a very capable platform, which will stay with the military Services for many years to come.
edit on 4-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


You hit all the points that are used to sell the Rhino, and left out all the fun things, like combat radius. Depending on the mission, even the Rhino has crap for a combat radius. The sad part is that it's still better than the A-D. That's the one thing that every Hornet pilot, no matter what model, has said. No Hornet can carry enough fuel.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Navy2001
 


You hit all the points that are used to sell the Rhino, and left out all the fun things, like combat radius. Depending on the mission, even the Rhino has crap for a combat radius. The sad part is that it's still better than the A-D. That's the one thing that every Hornet pilot, no matter what model, has said. No Hornet can carry enough fuel.


Did he say give me the combat radius? Or anything in its performance? He wanted the answer in the topic.

The Rhino has 390 or 449mi for an interdiction mission. Rhinos combat radius has not been confirmed yet on other roles that it does. Reason why they want to select the CFT's on the next evolution upgrade.

It's only suited for strike missions not every role like air superiority which the CFT's will give lower performance and adds lift but adds extra drag. If they have enough money, they could fund in the EPE Engines and CFT's together. I guess EPE is for an air superiority mission. But the E/F carry more fuel than the A-D. But the Tomcat had. More fuel carried and better fuel preposition than the E/F, but the Rhino ain't bad in the fuel department.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


He also didn't ask if it could do SEAD, or several of the other things that you mentioned, such as "everything with the flip of a switch".

It's going to have problems when it comes up against the Su-35, and some of the later aircraft in WVR. A super maneuverable platform is going to be able to do things that it just can't do, no matter how bad they want to. BVR is always more equal, but it will depend on sensors and countermeasures, as well as maneuverability. Personally I think the Su-35 has a slight edge, but not much of one.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


Thanks, have wanted to ask beacuse i saw some things on the Internet on the Super Hornet. Like i saw some saying it was a good A2A fighter or something.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Ribox12
 


The Hornet has always been a good WVR platform, even in the A-D. But it's a fourth generation fighter, and fourth gen are starting to have problems with 4.5 and are owned by 5th gen fighters in the WVR field.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ribox12
 


Ok, but don't let the critics or Hornet haters let you down.
I'm sure many Hornet lovers have faith in the Super Hornet performing great in A2A combat.
It's always been great in A2A fighter as it's secondary role, following Ground Attack and Tanker. It's a great WVR fighter too. The thing is many people consider T/W Ratio as maneuverability which normally the Rhino's T/W is 0.93, but it isn't maneuverability. It's aerodynamic and performance of the machine. The Rhino is far more maneuverable than the A-D armed with A2A missiles. While the A-D Hornet is far maneuverable than the Super Hornet if it's clean.

Thrust-to-weight ratio is a ratio of thrust to weight of a rocket, jet engine, propeller engine, or a vehicle propelled by such an engine. It is a dimensionless quantity and is an indicator of the performance of the engine or vehicle.

The thrust-to-weight ratio based on initial thrust and weight is often published and used as a figure of merit for quantitative comparison of the initial performance of vehicles



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Ribox12
 


The Hornet has always been a good WVR platform, even in the A-D. But it's a fourth generation fighter, and fourth gen are starting to have problems with 4.5 and are owned by 5th gen fighters in the WVR field.


The A-D was better...



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Personally, i think both are equal WVR platforms both have great maneuverability, high payload and advanced systems. the Flankers ain't that agile armmed, i've seen a video of a flanker armed compared to the rhino armed and i knew for a second that the rhino is more agile armed with A2A missiles.

But i'd give the rhino to win, because the systems are advanced, has 2 seaters for situational awareness and carries larger payload. The Flanker isn't going to try to float in the air and wait for the rhino to pass by and shoot it. That's not what TVC is about or neither WVR dogfighting.

Dogfighting is to try and get the target by outmaneuvering out-turning and outrunning it and when that happens the opponent can fire the missile and got a kill. You need to go fast and slow to get a kill or follow the opponent.

Let's not forget the Rhino far shares great nose point ability which is another advantage to win against a Russian fighter in WVR. And Rhino has AIM-9x to be effective against a fighter. While the Flanker has SRAAM. But the Flanker has an advantage winning by acceleration and going faster.

Overall it's hard to choose the winner here they are both equally competitors in a WVR engagement
edit on 4-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


A-D Hornet= More maneuverable clean

Super Hornet= More Maneuverable armmed with missiles.

See the difference?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ribox12
Is the Super Hornet still viable against emerging threats from the Mig-35 and Flanker Series?


If we place one F/A-18E Super Hornet against one Su-35BM Flanker-E with equivalent armaments and sufficient fuel, then yes. I think you will see a fairly even fight. Unfortunately this answer is so ridiculously specific that it is of relatively little use to anyone, I'm afraid. Is the F-18 viable? Probably. Will we see the same phenomenal success that the F-15 had during its engagements? I very much doubt it.


Also is it still viable in the Air Superiority role as its secondary mission?


With the rise of unilaterally available stealth platforms, this is rapidly becoming a "no". As stealth becomes the norm I think you will see the F-18 forced out of air superiority to roles behind the front line such as CAP.



It has superior avionics, sensors, and systems.


Superior is perhaps not the most precise word to use here. It certainly has the most technologically advanced systems, but that is not the same as saying superior. The Russians have a past of compensating for less advanced systems by using more power, and they've done something similar with the Irbis-E radar in the Su-35 BM. Although a PESA radar (as opposed to the Super Hornet's AESA), it is chock full of vitamins and pure power (significantly more so than the Bars radars used in the Su-30 MKx series) which nonetheless makes it a force to be reckoned with.

Also of note (and Zaphod brought this up as wel) that in BVR combat you have to factor in the jamming systems on each aircraft. As far as I know, the F-18 can be fitted with jamming pods, but at the cost of payload. The Su-35BM is fitted with a pair of Khibiny-M units on each airframe's wingtip. Unfortunately I believe that judging the relative advantage this might gain will be difficult as I am not aware of any documentation on the effectiveness of the respective jammers in reducing missile kill probability.



The Super Hornet has JHMCS


The Russians have actually had helmet cueing systems since the MiG-29 in force. It came in really handy on what I'll bring up next.


Aim-9x


A direct response to the R-73 which was in Russian forces for years. Western forces got their hands on this missile from East Germany and were thoroughly terrified by it. The maneuverability of The R-73 plus the ergonomics of an operational helmet cueing system had significantly increased the threat zones of each airplane. In many ways this was the start of all-aspect missile warfare.


AIM-120's


The R-77 has certainly been no slouch over the years, although the AIM-120 has recently gotten an upgrade with the D series that takes it past what the Russians have fielded.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
although the AIM-120 has recently gotten an upgrade with the D series that takes it past what the Russians have fielded.


If the motor doesn't explode or fail to ignite (although with the new motor supplier they should see an end to those problems as soon as they can retrofit or replace the ones with the old motor).



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0With the rise of unilaterally available stealth platforms, this is rapidly becoming a "no". As stealth becomes the norm I think you will see the F-18 forced out of air superiority to roles behind the front line such as CAP.


What do you mean by this?

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)?

I think the Super Hornet could do A2A just fine. It's no 2006, today is 2013.
edit on 4-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


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



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001
reply to post by _Del_
 


A-D Hornet= More maneuverable clean

Super Hornet= More Maneuverable armmed with missiles.

See the difference?


I see what you're trying to say, and I'm still not buying it. With sidewinders on the rails and the conformal AMRAAMs, the C is still going to be better than the Super Hornet.
The E has better high-alpha qualities if you ignore the wing-drop problems. The improvement in thrust-weight ratio could have been added to stock Hornets with the new engines. It has slightly improved avionics based on the C, but that's to be expected when the last C model rolled off the lines nearly 15 yrs ago. It is slightly more attractive than the C, I'll give you that. And a marginally improved frontal RCS.
In return you "gained" significantly worse performance in the transonic regime, the inability to achieve supersonic flight below "angels ten" (even with full burner), and a slight improvement in endurance at the cost of lugging around 36% more fuel.
You can hang more under it. But, if you hang anything on it other than the conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, the canted pylons help sap any of your advantages. It's a better bomb truck (though not as good as the A-6 it replaced in that role) because of the slight range increase and the fact the C model has to use two tanks to equal the fuel load of the E with only a centerline. But the flipside to that is that as soon as the C model drops those tanks or ordinance, it becomes the better fighter again. And after the E drops its ordinance, it still has those damned pylons and extra structural weight it's carrying around as the trade off.
WVR continues to go to the earlier, more nimble Hornets.


Would have been better off with the 'Cat 21 or upengining and upgrading the C's (I love tweaking the noses of swabbies, so my post might have an agenda).



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

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)?


Because it's an interim type while they're waiting for the F-35 and they like the internal tankage better than other cheaper options, but aren't willing to pay up for the more expensive F-15 or eurocanard alternatives?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


That eventually non-stealthy aircraft are going to be forced out of the role of fighter. They'll eventually be in the position that the F-15 was in against the F-22 (that of being the baby seal being clubbed). Fourth generation fighters are reaching the end of usefulness with respect to both age, and maneuverability. The 4.5 and 5th generation are making improvements over them that they can't keep up with, without major changes to the aircraft.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_It's a better bomb truck (though not as good as the A-6 it replaced in that role) because of the slight range increase and the fact the C model has to use two tanks to equal the fuel load of the E with only a centerline. But the flipside to that is that as soon as the C model drops those tanks or ordinance, it becomes the better fighter again. And after the E drops its ordinance, it still has those damned pylons and extra structural weight it's carrying around as the trade off.
WVR continues to go to the earlier, more nimble Hornets.


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? E/F Is more survivable, more capable. It has bringed more better fuel, and many things. The C doesn't have to do with being a better fighter, it's just some thing the engineers had to do for the navy requirements. The McDonnell Douglas corporation was defunct, if they weren't they'd at least work on the aerodynamics and the things the C had better than the E/F.

This isn't 2006 it's 2013, 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.
edit on 4-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join