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.

 

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

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


As the Super Hornets capability in A2A is just magnificent. Nothing wrong except the Kinetic performance (Only Current Block II).

The Block II never changed anything in terms of acceleration and speed. It only enhanced avionics and systems. I think they never considered to put EPE's on the bug mainly beacuse of the cost on the Block II.

Navy isn't exactly saying it lacks speed. He means it's slower than other fighters which is Mach 1.8. But fighters even baraley reach their maximum top speed.

But i would consider the Navy to purchase epe engines on the super Hornet. It's giving better acceleration, better a2a performance and 20% increase in thrust. EpE's would just get the rhino on the spot light with those kinetic performance improvements. Just need that for the rhino for now.


edit on 6-7-2013 by Ribox12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ribox12
 


Speed in WVR has nothing to do with top speed. It's all about cornering speed. The longer you can keep your speed near cornering speed, the better your chances in a fight. In a WVR fight the Hornet, Block I, II, or III, sheds speed quickly. And it doesn't accelerate to regain that speed very well. Without those two critical things, all an opponent like the Su-35 has to do is keep the Hornet turning, and he'll rule the fight.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Ribox12
 


Speed in WVR has nothing to do with top speed. It's all about cornering speed. The longer you can keep your speed near cornering speed, the better your chances in a fight. In a WVR fight the Hornet, Block I, II, or III, sheds speed quickly. And it doesn't accelerate to regain that speed very well. Without those two critical things, all an opponent like the Su-35 has to do is keep the Hornet turning, and he'll rule the fight.


Speed isn't really the factor in the game. You'd only need speed to get away from the target or at worst come back to find your target and kill. Well, acceleration needs to be improved from the EPE's.

My money will be on the Super Hornet and the pilot to work with the aircraft well.

The Flanker doesn't always need to be the winner at everything.

Besides the Super Hornet is very agile and close to the flankers manuverablility (Armmed). It's got high AOA manuverablility to perform many manuvers in the ACM or WVR spectrum.

The Flanker isn't even as close with the nose point ability as what the Rhino has. Pretty another factor for the Rhino in WVR, pointing the nose which the Rhino does well in WVR.

But some aircraft don't even need speed and acceleration to be the all round winner of the game. It's currently the pilot tactics and how well he's trained.
edit on 6-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


You talk about us not understanding ACM, and with this post, you prove that you know absolutely nothing about it. Not even basics.

Speed is EVERYTHING in combat. Your corner speed is how long you stay alive. If you can keep your aircraft close to your corner speed longer, you burn off less energy, which means you can maneuver more. If you are too high over your corner speed, your turns are going to be much wider, which means you have to pull harder, which means you burn off more speed.

If you are below your corner speed, you can't maneuver as much until you stall, which means you're a sitting duck. You might get a couple of turns before you're approaching stall, and once that happens, you might as well pull the ejection handle if you can't accelerate.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001
Besides the Super Hornet is very agile and close to the flankers manuverablility (Armmed). It's got high AOA manuverablility to perform many manuvers in the ACM or WVR spectrum.


Betting on the Super Hornet to best any Flanker in a high AOA maneuvers game is a lost cause. There are gigabytes upon gigabytes of documentation on the Flanker's tolerance for high angles of attack on YouTube alone.

Also, high AOAs are more or less useless in anything but guns only combat which, itself, is largely useless. You can search Above Top Secret for any number of threads debating the usefulness of maneuvers like Cobra and Kulbit. They are definitely around.


The Flanker isn't even as close with the nose point ability as what the Rhino has. Pretty another factor for the Rhino in WVR, pointing the nose which the Rhino does well in WVR. ]


Flanker has 2D asymmetric thrust vectoring and can point the nose in any direction regardless of actual direction of motion. It even has sufficient thrust to maintain some of the massive speed bleed it will encounter. Super Hornet has no thrust vectoring, and will encounter acceleration problems because it has problems accelerating. You are claiming things as fact when they are somewhere between dubious and blatantly false.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0Flanker has 2D asymmetric thrust vectoring and can point the nose in any direction regardless of actual direction of motion. It even has sufficient thrust to maintain some of the massive speed bleed it will encounter. Super Hornet has no thrust vectoring, and will encounter acceleration problems because it has problems accelerating. You are claiming things as fact when they are somewhere between dubious and blatantly false.


The Flanker can use TVC when he's in a trouble position. I said TVC isn't about dogfighting, why would such a pilot need TVC to manuver around a fighter against a non TVC platform? Really the TVC platform only needs it to doge a missile. TVC is usless in a WVR enagagment, beacuse you need it to doge a missile or pull the limits.

The Flanker has never been mentioned for good nose point ability in some how. The Rhino has great nose ability in a dogfight, (Of Course Another Thing Brought back from the original Hornet in A2A combat). It's been mentioned several times on the rhino having great nose to point it on the enemy plane.

Just let what the Navy decides on the EPE engines, if they want it..... Good, but if they don't want better acceleration and performance...... Than something's wrong.

But dogfights are pretty rare now days. Mabye we should focus on BVR. But there's many factors of WVR combat on the platform itself, not just performance on the machine.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001
But dogfights are pretty rare now days. Mabye we should focus on BVR. But there's many factors of WVR combat on the platform.


Wow that sounds familiar.....Where have I heard that before..... Oh yeah! When they took the gun away from the F-4 design because dogfights were a thing of the past, and all kills would be with missiles from now on.

Why WOULDN'T a pilot use TVC against a non-TVC opponent? You're showing how little you really know about ACM with every post. You'd be stupid to not use every advantage you have against an opponent, regardless of what kind of plane it was.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Todays most maneuverable fighters use thrust vectoring, which can make a jet turn faster and more tightly. I think that's why thrust vectoring must be important in a dogfiht.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Ribox12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ribox12
 


It also allows them to maneuver with less energy loss.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


didn know that, thanks for the other advantage of thrust Vectoring. But thrust Vectoring is also entertaining in airshows too. Even an aircraft that can slightly manuver without thrust Vectoring is awesome too.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Ribox12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ribox12
Todays most maneuverable fighters use thrust vectoring, which can make a jet turn faster and more tightly. I think that's why thrust vectoring must be important in a dogfiht.


When using the thrust for pitch control, it also frees up the horizontal stabilizers to be used for roll control, which gives TVC aircraft amazing roll-rates through much of the envelope.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001\ TVC is usless in a WVR enagagment,






But dogfights are pretty rare now days. Mabye we should focus on BVR.


It's been rare in the last few engagements between NATO and third-world nations. That's because against a third-world nation you have the option of engaging on your terms or avoiding an engagement. What happens when matched against an opponent where these advantages are not secured?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001
I said TVC isn't about dogfighting


And you would be wrong. TVC allows the pilot control authority wherever the engines are producing thrust. Most importantly, it still works even if the usual control surfaces start losing effectiveness (say, near or past stall). That is, in fact, what 'supermaneuverable' means: being able to control the aircraft past what the usual aerodynamic devices can provide. In a dogfight, more control is generally a good thing.


The Flanker has never been mentioned for good nose point ability in some how. The Rhino has great nose ability in a dogfight, (Of Course Another Thing Brought back from the original Hornet in A2A combat). It's been mentioned several times on the rhino having great nose to point it on the enemy plane.


Hmmm...
Hmmm...

Versus

Hmmm...

The F-18, in that portion of the flight envelope, is at the very edge of stall and has very little control authority aside from pitching down. It will have almost no roll or yaw as the airflow along its control surfaces is almost nonexistent. The Flanker variants, however, can enter stall where their aerodynamic devices are no longer useful but still control all aspects of their flight: pitch, roll, and yaw. This is a feat that even the F-22 cannot yet match.


But dogfights are pretty rare now days.


This is something that may change in the future of aircraft past Gen 5. As stealth improves on all sides of any conflict, the engagement range for aircraft should close up. If radar designs do not improve similarly during that time, you may end up with WVR engagements being a very real possibility.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0Hmmm...
Hmmm...

Versus

Hmmm...


A fair one would be both of them armmed.


SU-35UB armmed.
www.youtube.com...


Super Hornet armmed with 4 A2A missiles.
www.youtube.com...

Super Hornet armmed with 8 A2A missiles.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 7-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001A fair one would be both of them armmed.


SU-35UB armmed.
www.youtube.com...

Super Hornet armmed with 4 A2A missiles.
www.youtube.com...

Super Hornet armmed with 8 A2A missiles.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 7-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)


Wow, the super hornet impresses me more than the Sukhoi. The super hornet with those aim-120's sure give it a great pitch of nose, full control, Multi axis flaps. It's magnificent, but in the piruette manuver he pulls the plane backwards and gives it a 70° of AOA. It's impressive for a close in combat fighter. But the Super seems to have better nose ability than the flanker beacuse if you watch the hornets nose it's pointing up and down anywhere he wants to point it. as i see from the flanker video he pulls the hawk and goes down to gain speed (Which is the same Piruette manuver).
Overall both videos are impressive.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Ribox12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navy2001
SU-35UB armmed.
www.youtube.com...


The Su-35UB was a tech demonstrator in the 90s for an upgraded Su-27 variant, it is not the modern Flanker the thread is going on about. The Su-35S (AKA Su-35BM) came many years later.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by Navy2001
SU-35UB armmed.
www.youtube.com...


The Su-35UB was a tech demonstrator in the 90s for an upgraded Su-27 variant, it is not the modern Flanker the thread is going on about. The Su-35S (AKA Su-35BM) came many years later.


Yeah i know it was a technology demonstrator. But it's still a variant of the SU-35. But i was talking about the both planes armed with A2A missiles.


See i knew you were a critic

edit on 7-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


You can't compare a technology demonstrator with a production model. A tech demonstrator doesn't have the same equipment as a production aircraft, and has a few things that the production doesn't. So if you're going to compare an Su to an F-18, you have to compare production models.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I wasn't comparing the Tech models over the F-18

edit on 7-7-2013 by Navy2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Navy2001
 


You just compared the Su-35UB to the F-18. The Su-35UB was a tech demonstrator, so yes you did.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join