F-18 question

[USN_force]

Hello, i'm new here to the forum. So i had a question about the super hornet.
Since its a multirole platform able to do widely roles. Is the Super Hornet good in the air to air role?

I've figured out that its able to do the same agility as the flanker..... SH's foe and SH has the best variety role in a2a which performs alot of stunning maneuvers etc.

but there's some compact of the SH critized by eagerly tomcat fans out there that hate the SH. As of 2013 SH is not widely critized as a matter. But critized as a poor performer in kinematics like acceleration, top speed

But when the SH replaced the Tomcat, gave quite Tomcat drivers the agility in within visual range from the SH. But in beyon visual range it lacked the AIM-54 missile which tomcat pilot were urgley pissed that it lost the capability. So then if not the chance they might need to acquire a long range missile like Meteor.

in air to air combat, the super hornets has advantages of being good in air to air combat, but i want to know if it truly is a good performer in air to air. But that said aside, it's the SH primary second role, while the SH main task is to do CAS, but in CAS it's not really that stunning performer like the SH is in air superiority.

While that aside what happens if the SH recives EPE? How many want the EPE fitted to the super bug?

I'm certainly not pleased having nonsense in this thread. Also no being clowns here. This is a question

 

[USN_force]

So anybody willing to answer?

 

[USN_force]

Is ayone willing to answer?

 

[TheThreePashas]

Are you asking about its dogfighting capability? Aka within visual range A2A combat?

I wouldn't go out and make a statement that Close Air Support is it's primary role. Carrier fleet defense is its number one role.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Is ayone willing to answer?

@gambit would u help him!

 

[USN_force]

Are you asking about its dogfighting capability? Aka within visual range A2A combat?

I wouldn't go out and make a statement that Close Air Support is it's primary role. Carrier fleet defense is its number one role.

All A2A roles. BVR and WVR. Like is it a good A2A plane for the 21st century.

 

[TheThreePashas]

Good, yes. Great? no. In general US Air Doctrine is big on BVR combat, so the major factors of A2A combat of any USAF/USN fighter are avionics, counter-measures, and missiles.

-USA has the best avionics and missiles probably. It's not a stealth plane nor super-maneuverable but given the dominance of US aircraft, it usually isn't a problem.


Looking at the fa-18 and the future fleet fighter, the f-35, the USA doesn't seem to be concerned about air superiority so much. Neither are really air superiority fighters but even then, carrier based aircraft would have a tough time competing with comparable air-based aircraft, generally speaking.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Hello, i'm new here to the forum. So i had a question about the super hornet.
Since its a multirole platform able to do widely roles. Is the Super Hornet good in the air to air role?

I've figured out that its able to do the same agility as the flanker..... SH's foe and SH has the best variety role in a2a which performs alot of stunning maneuvers etc.

but there's some compact of the SH critized by eagerly tomcat fans out there that hate the SH. As of 2013 SH is not widely critized as a matter. But critized as a poor performer in kinematics like acceleration, top speed

But when the SH replaced the Tomcat, gave quite Tomcat drivers the agility in within visual range from the SH. But in beyon visual range it lacked the AIM-54 missile which tomcat pilot were urgley pissed that it lost the capability. So then if not the chance they might need to acquire a long range missile like Meteor.

in air to air combat, the super hornets has advantages of being good in air to air combat, but i want to know if it truly is a good performer in air to air. But that said aside, it's the SH primary second role, while the SH main task is to do CAS, but in CAS it's not really that stunning performer like the SH is in air superiority.

While that aside what happens if the SH recives EPE? How many want the EPE fitted to the super bug?

I'm certainly not pleased having nonsense in this thread. Also no being clowns here. This is a question

In air to air role-
3 parameters of ability are-
1]Agility and performance-
Most important factors are Thrust weight ratio ,second wing loading.
Other important factors-turn rate,angle of attack,speed,rate of climb.Thrust vector engine.

In thrust weight ratio in air to air mode.That is 505 fuel and 2000 lb of aerial AAM weaponry.Flanker largely ahead.
In wing loading super eslightly ahead.Advanced flankers have TVC so thats a major advantage.
''In terms of supersonic speed, supersonic and subsonic acceleration and climb performance, the Super Hornet cannot compete with any Flanker variant.

High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, also goes to the Flanker, as does supersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform.''

So as per aerodynamic performance or agility goes to the flanker.

2]AVIONICS-
The super hornets most powerful area,american avionics is best in the world.APG-79 AESA radar,better EW suite gives it major advantage over flankers in electronics and avoinic.That combined with much lesser RCS means super hornet will see flanker first .
3]Firepower-
Sukhoi has many more AAMs and larger payload ,but AMRAAM BVR of superhornet is slightly better than russian R-77.so hard to tell here.

Overall-Superhornet has advanatage beyond visual range,within visual range its in trouble.Superhornet better for SEAD missions due to lesser RCS.

 

[Cat12345]

Hello USN_Force

Relying to the question you want, the Rhino has good reputation in all of its roles. I mean what role did the Super Hornet take away to the Tomcat pilots? It was intercepting. Was the Super Hornet a good interceptor? No. But the Rhino doesn't need that role. It wasn't just designed in that regime.

But as i saw the comments, all of you are wrong.

But let's start.

Super Bug in the Within Visual Range arena.

It's far the role the Rhino is much loved or reputed in. But the Bug has clearly the helmet mounted display to have better situational awareness in a dogfight.
While any Flanker viarant doesn't have any advanced helmet systems.
Now aim-9x is where the Rhino is going to get better at.
The aim-9x let's the bug help it dominate close in range fight.
But the 9x is very maneuverable and has far more range.

Maneuverability: the Rhino has far better maneuverability armmed with any air to air missile.
The Rhino driver has the advantage to have great maneuverability at slow speeds and beyond.
Also the Rhino has big flaps and alerions to move quickly.
The Rhino is very agile carrying missiles for air to air. But indeed a very survivable plane.
The Rhino is clearly the better match for any Mikoyan or Sukhoi viarant.
But in close in range combat, the Rhino has that good nose to point and shoot the target beyond.
The only thing the rhino lacks in close in combat is acceleration or kinetic performance etc.
the Rhino wasn't designed to be that of a superior kinetic performer.
But it's a choice for the Boeing team to think. The Rhino doesn't have to be a superior kinetic performer, even if it especially lacks its kinetic requirements.

Super Hornet Beyond Visual Range

Clearly where the Rhino is good at too.
But now the super drivers have the powerful APG AESA radar. This is a radar for air to air or air ground engagements.
But the Rhino is a long range fighter and when it spots a enemy it has the first look, first shot, first kill.
The Rhino has good sensors and electronics in beyond visual arena.
That's what it helps the rhino in every category.
Even it's lower RCS gives it a little stealth that way it doesn't get on radar first.
The bug has a large payload of missiles, so if it misses in the far away engagement, it could launch another missile.
But the Rhino has the disadvantage at beyond visual range, mainly beacuse it lost the aim-54 missile. The USN might acquire meteor class missile, if it's denied by us government, then best thing is to extend the aim-120's range.

Conclusion: The Rhino is a potent close in range machine and a beyond visual range platform. In within visual range the bug has helmet display, aim-9x ,good maneuverability and avionics. But despite the kinetic disadvantage, it can still survive the close in range battle. But since it's all beyond visual range, the Super Hormet can still be a superior within visual range fighter if it has to engage close. But i'd take the Super Bug in the close in battle instead of beyond visual range arena.

But if you want the answer your wanting to achive, is yes the Super Bug is a great all round air superiority fighter. But remember air superiority is the Rhinos 2nd role while the bugs first mission is to achive ground attack. But it isn't a primary air superiority fighter for the whole US. The Raptor is. The Rhino is the primary air superiority fighter for the us navy while the f-35 will achive ground targets. But every singe plane has its disadvantages and advantages. But USN_Force i recommend to read on the new super silent hornet offering enhanced systems etc.

 

[gambit]

Hello, i'm new here to the forum. So i had a question about the super hornet.
Since its a multirole platform able to do widely roles. Is the Super Hornet good in the air to air role?

I've figured out that its able to do the same agility as the flanker..... SH's foe and SH has the best variety role in a2a which performs alot of stunning maneuvers etc.

but there's some compact of the SH critized by eagerly tomcat fans out there that hate the SH. As of 2013 SH is not widely critized as a matter. But critized as a poor performer in kinematics like acceleration, top speed

But when the SH replaced the Tomcat, gave quite Tomcat drivers the agility in within visual range from the SH. But in beyon visual range it lacked the AIM-54 missile which tomcat pilot were urgley pissed that it lost the capability. So then if not the chance they might need to acquire a long range missile like Meteor.

in air to air combat, the super hornets has advantages of being good in air to air combat, but i want to know if it truly is a good performer in air to air. But that said aside, it's the SH primary second role, while the SH main task is to do CAS, but in CAS it's not really that stunning performer like the SH is in air superiority.

While that aside what happens if the SH recives EPE? How many want the EPE fitted to the super bug?

I'm certainly not pleased having nonsense in this thread. Also no being clowns here. This is a question

We want an aircraft that is as maneuverable as the F-16, take of vertically like a Harrier, carry loads like a B-52, speed like the SR-71, and have a radar as large as an F-15.

Is it possible? Not in this lifetime.

The F-18 Super Hornet have been characterized as the Honda Accord of military aviation. It can do many things very well but nothing superior if compare against dedicated platforms. Like the F-16, the -18SH is a jack-off-all-trades and master-of-none. But far from being derogatory, both the -16 and -18 raised the standards on all the 'trades' these fighters can do.

You should understand that to date, only the US and the (once) Soviet Union had the technological and financial means to deploy dedicated platforms and the Soviets were behind US in that as well. For example, no one can touch the SR-71 in the speed and altitude departments and that aircraft was from 1950s technology.

But take a look at this...

What do you see between the two carriers in terms of aviation platforms deployed, not counting the AWACS and the helos?

For the top carrier, it deploys with the F-14, F-18, S-3, A-6.

For the lower carrier, there is the F-18.

You do not need to be a logistical or human resources (HR) expert to see how much less work are involved for the second carrier in terms of supply, maintenance, and training. And this financial strain is barely acceptable for US, let alone any country that does not have global interests and responsibilities and the resources to support them. If the US Navy had no choice but to give in to financial restrains and accept the F-18, what do you think other countries like Canada and Australia will do? They will do the same. May be not using the F-18, but they will use a jack-off-all-trades because they cannot afford many masters of many trades.

As far as missiles goes, the differences between the AIM-120D and the AIM-54 are that the -120D is one Mach less in speed and about 15 nm less in reach. But the reality is that in terms of avionics, the -120D is 3 times the missile over the -54.

 

[Pinnacle]

@gambit Sir,
Why F-14 was replaced by f-18 ? F-14 had superior avionics , missiles , speed, service ceiling and maneuverability than F-18 ...
In maneuverability and with Long range AIM-54 AAM , long range radar , It was very lethal plane...
If it was due to CAS role then again there is no logic I understand as F-14 had gained ground attack capability in F-14D.

 

[Cat12345]

@gambit Sir,
Why F-14 was replaced by f-18 ? F-14 had superior avionics , missiles , speed, service ceiling and maneuverability than F-18 ...
In maneuverability and with Long range AIM-54 AAM , long range radar , It was very lethal plane...
If it was due to CAS role then again there is no logic I understand as F-14 had gained ground attack capability in F-14D.

F-14 was replaced by the F/A-18. What problem? The F-14 had the same service celling like the Hornets. F-14 never had superior avionics, maneuverability. The AIM-54 was the F-14's mission in the intercepting and beyond visual range. The F-14 wasn't that maneuverable and wasn't that good of a dogfighter. But the Super Bug or any military aircraft could outmaneuver the Tomcat anyday or anytime.

But......

 

[gambit]

@gambit Sir,
Why F-14 was replaced by f-18 ? F-14 had superior avionics , missiles , speed, service ceiling and maneuverability than F-18 ...
In maneuverability and with Long range AIM-54 AAM , long range radar , It was very lethal plane...
If it was due to CAS role then again there is no logic I understand as F-14 had gained ground attack capability in F-14D.

The variable wing sweep design is not unique to the USN, my first assignment was on the F-111, another variable wing sweep aircraft. While both aircrafts are more maneuverable than their size seemed to implied of restrictions, neither would be in the same class as the F-16 or F-18.

The logic that you do not see is not driven primarily by technical specs but by financial, as I showed earlier. The USN is an expeditionary branch of the US military, meaning by virtue of aircraft carriers, the USN is a mobile force projection and short term duration presence service. The USN must be able to represent the US in areas and locations that may not be amenable to long term fixed land basing. As such, logistics plays a major role in the decision to move away from multi-platform deployments to an all-around platform such as the F-18 that can do many things very well. The F-14 is outclassed by the F-18 SH today.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Hello USN_Force

Relying to the question you want, the Rhino has good reputation in all of its roles. I mean what role did the Super Hornet take away to the Tomcat pilots? It was intercepting. Was the Super Hornet a good interceptor? No. But the Rhino doesn't need that role. It wasn't just designed in that regime.

But as i saw the comments, all of you are wrong.

But let's start.

Super Bug in the Within Visual Range arena.

It's far the role the Rhino is much loved or reputed in. But the Bug has clearly the helmet mounted display to have better situational awareness in a dogfight.
While any Flanker viarant doesn't have any advanced helmet systems.
Now aim-9x is where the Rhino is going to get better at.
The aim-9x let's the bug help it dominate close in range fight.
But the 9x is very maneuverable and has far more range.

Maneuverability: the Rhino has far better maneuverability armmed with any air to air missile.
The Rhino driver has the advantage to have great maneuverability at slow speeds and beyond.
Also the Rhino has big flaps and alerions to move quickly.
The Rhino is very agile carrying missiles for air to air. But indeed a very survivable plane.
The Rhino is clearly the better match for any Mikoyan or Sukhoi viarant.
But in close in range combat, the Rhino has that good nose to point and shoot the target beyond.
The only thing the rhino lacks in close in combat is acceleration or kinetic performance etc.
the Rhino wasn't designed to be that of a superior kinetic performer.
But it's a choice for the Boeing team to think. The Rhino doesn't have to be a superior kinetic performer, even if it especially lacks its kinetic requirements.

Super Hornet Beyond Visual Range

Clearly where the Rhino is good at too.
But now the super drivers have the powerful APG AESA radar. This is a radar for air to air or air ground engagements.
But the Rhino is a long range fighter and when it spots a enemy it has the first look, first shot, first kill.
The Rhino has good sensors and electronics in beyond visual arena.
That's what it helps the rhino in every category.
Even it's lower RCS gives it a little stealth that way it doesn't get on radar first.
The bug has a large payload of missiles, so if it misses in the far away engagement, it could launch another missile.
But the Rhino has the disadvantage at beyond visual range, mainly beacuse it lost the aim-54 missile. The USN might acquire meteor class missile, if it's denied by us government, then best thing is to extend the aim-120's range.

Conclusion: The Rhino is a potent close in range machine and a beyond visual range platform. In within visual range the bug has helmet display, aim-9x ,good maneuverability and avionics. But despite the kinetic disadvantage, it can still survive the close in range battle. But since it's all beyond visual range, the Super Hormet can still be a superior within visual range fighter if it has to engage close. But i'd take the Super Bug in the close in battle instead of beyond visual range arena.

But if you want the answer your wanting to achive, is yes the Super Bug is a great all round air superiority fighter. But remember air superiority is the Rhinos 2nd role while the bugs first mission is to achive ground attack. But it isn't a primary air superiority fighter for the whole US. The Raptor is. The Rhino is the primary air superiority fighter for the us navy while the f-35 will achive ground targets. But every singe plane has its disadvantages and advantages. But USN_Force i recommend to read on the new super silent hornet offering enhanced systems etc.

MKI,su-30Sm have advanced HMS.RVV -MD/r-73,plus TVC and lesser aerodynamic performance,why you want to close in vs flanker?With AESA,reduced RCS f-18 in air to air should fight in BVR,don't u think?

 

[gambit]

MKI,su-30Sm have advanced HMS.RVV -MD/r-73,plus TVC and lesser aerodynamic performance,why you want to close in vs flanker?With AESA,reduced RCS f-18 in air to air should fight in BVR,don't u think?

And the F-18 pilots will exploit those advantages as much as possible.