Ultra Hornet

Evil Flower

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
12 October 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
59
This is a concept I've been working on for fun lately. It's basically a very upscaled F-18 to fill the same 'Rapid Theater Strike" role as the F/B-23 concept, except carrier-based. So to this end it's scaled up, has a larger wing with more sweepback and larger flaps, more powerful engines (F119?) and an internal bay to carry 3x GBU-24 or B61 nuclear weapons. Of course external pylons can be fitted when LO is not a huge concern.


Here's my initial sketchout. You can see it is substantially larger than F/A-18E. There is a single fin variant to the left that came out very A-5 like but I've been told twin tails is where it's at so I went for those. There are also some different ideas for stores carriage including ventral conformal bay pod not unlike the F-15SE conformal fueltank bays but I went for an internal bay equipped with a rotary launcher. Right now there are no additional bays for anti-air missiles but I figure the main bay can be configured to hold AIM-120C for long range fleet defense if that capability is needed.


Also a couple color profiles below - comment away!
 

Attachments

  • ultra_hornet.jpg
    ultra_hornet.jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 3,282
  • ra-18_color.jpg
    ra-18_color.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 3,034
  • RVAH-5.jpg
    RVAH-5.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 2,839
  • vah1.jpg
    vah1.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 2,721
Thats really looks cool and very modern. A 'money no object' alternative to the Tomcat prehaps! your designs could even be made more stealthy to be brought into line with the F-22?

I now really want to make a scale model of this design!!!
good call evil flower.
 
red arrow jag said:
Thats really looks cool and very modern. A 'money no object' alternative to the Tomcat prehaps! your designs could even be made more stealthy to be brought into line with the F-22?

I now really want to make a scale model of this design!!!
good call evil flower.

Looks like a Vigilante (that's not a bad thing). Power it with a pair of F110-132s with 3D TVC and it will be what the Super Hornet should have been.
 
I have to add my voice to the chorus that it looks very Vigilante-esque B)

Very nice artwork, I'm building a number of what-if Vigilante models at the moment, a mix of RAAF and SAC birds, now I think your "Ultra Hornet" has me inspired to do something similar to a Vigilante.

Cheers

Duncan
 
Overkiller said:
I have to add my voice to the chorus that it looks very Vigilante-esque B)

Very nice artwork, I'm building a number of what-if Vigilante models at the moment, a mix of RAAF and SAC birds, now I think your "Ultra Hornet" has me inspired to do something similar to a Vigilante.

Cheers

Duncan

Has anybody ever told you you have excellent taste in movies? (your avatar/quote)
 
Yes, A-5 like but also very creative and skill full as well as, yes, original .. Great job
 
Great art, Hot Rod transforms into Rodimus Prime... ;) :D
If the front gear was moved a little forward, there could be an additional smaller weapons bay for 2 AIM-9X's or 2 SDB's.
No TVC, but chevron nozzles like on the F-35C.


Just my 2 cents...
 
Chevron nozzles? Are those the ones with pointy-end petals?


When it comes to weapons carriage, is there any specific reason as to why a fully internal bay is preferable over other solutions? I remember reading about the FB-22 being supposed to use external weapons-carrying stealthy pods (which sounds very B-58 to me at least). IIRC the ventral recon canoe of the RA-5C didn't have a negative impact on speed or fuel consumption, so would it be feasible to use a similar approach for a semi-recessed weapons bay?
 
Evil Flower said:
Chevron nozzles? Are those the ones with pointy-end petals?


When it comes to weapons carriage, is there any specific reason as to why a fully internal bay is preferable over other solutions? I remember reading about the FB-22 being supposed to use external weapons-carrying stealthy pods (which sounds very B-58 to me at least). IIRC the ventral recon canoe of the RA-5C didn't have a negative impact on speed or fuel consumption, so would it be feasible to use a similar approach for a semi-recessed weapons bay?

Just my two'pennarth...

I think as far as internal carriage goes, these days it's less about reducing drag and enhancing top speed with a payload, than signature reduction. So an internal bay would be better from an signature reduction point of view.

On the SAC Vigilante I am building, I am making a new ventral fairing to go were the recon pallette would be, so that it can carry two SRAM's in tandem, it's a bit tight for space, but doable, so I can't see any immediate reason not to have semi recessed carriage of stores, other than the aforementioned signature reduction issues.

As I say, just my own ill informed opinion.

sferrin said:
Has anybody ever told you you have excellent taste in movies? (your avatar/quote)

Thank you. ;D

The Thing is one of my all time favourite movies, I saw it for the first time when I was twelve, and it just blew my mind. That, Alien and Blade Runner were big influences on me as far as the sort of movies I like is concerned. Unfortunately, I actually got round to seeing last year's prequel to The Thing just last night, and it has left a distinctly sour taste in my mouth... :mad: Not a patch on the John Carpenter masterclass.

cheers

Duncan
 
As it happens, after test-fitting some F135's and the requisite S-ducted inlets and cutouts for the main gear, I found there really is no space for an internal weapons bay with larger capacity that 1 GBU-24 or AGM-84E. Hmm, rethink needed. Perhaps a ventral-conformal weapons pod isn't a bad idea?
 
Awesome!!! Looks like the little Hornet made the big old Vigilante pregnant and they gave birth to this amazing child... Love it! I definitely want to see more of your work.
 
Vertically stacked bay as per that Northrop patent. If the bay is loaded with modular "box" racks like that I guess a small but deep bay could easily fit 6-8 AIM-120C to fulfill the fleet defense mission. Also rerouted the inlets again to mask compressor faces.
 

Attachments

  • stackedbay.jpg
    stackedbay.jpg
    370.9 KB · Views: 771
I was thinking of doing the same for a kit bashed model! Great renderings and kudos to Evil Flower for images. Time to figure what to get at the local hobby shop.
 
Oh well...


clayc.jpg
 
Awesome picture, Evil Flower! With that conformal weapons pod underneath, it reminds me now more of the RA-5 Vigilante.
Does the canopy now open to the starboard side like on the Rafale or X-35, or upwards like on the Tomcat, Superhornet etc.?
 
I picked up a FA-18F in 1/72 and is looking for F-35 in 1/72 or aftermarket F135 cans to kitbash. This will be my fall project. Will post images here or at whatifmodels.com. Can we get a front, top, bottom and rear view?
TIA, Bob
 
Sharp-looking plane. It must rank among the best-looking fictional aircraft that I've seen.
 
Congratulations,
That's a great design update of the old Hornet. It's an hardest job to update an existing aircraft than create a new one. I had had this idea before creating my own fighter concept and I know how it's difficult.
Now Boeing can study your proposal ;D
Regards
 
You COULD make the fuselage a bit wider, make the 'hump' of the fuselage longer for more fuel-storage space. you could also arch the wings downward and blend the air intakes with the wing and fuselage to get some sort of triangle with one wide point, lightly bigger wings, so the leading edge is at an 45 degree angle to the fuselage, give the aircraft the f-23 tail (only the rudder-elevators) and due these changes a bigger weapon bay could be possible...
 
Sweet! Always had a soft spot for Hornets... well maybe that's something to do with the year spent studying and maintaining the things...

Looks like the A-5 had an affair with the PAK FA and Hornet joined up for a threesome... which isn't bad as A-5 is also a sleek bird, yet with the looks for pure power.

I've a few questions though:
1. How does the bend in the inlet duct affect airflow, and to some extent, maintenance? Apparently has a huge effect in RCS reduction though?
2. Would the plane be configured for external pylons for non-stealth/heavy missions? Would integration of LAU-127s and alike be reasonable?
3. Due to the AMRAAM capability, how about the other offensive capabilities? Is it fitted with multirole radar etc or aimed mostly for mud moving?
4. Does it come with internal ladder for the crew? ;D

Keep up the good work...
 
With two F135s it has 382 kN thrust..it need fuel 2.5 times more as a C model...where you gonna cast all that fuel as you have internal weapon bays etc ? ???
 
This would be much larger than a C or E/F - think about the size of an RA-5C. Also the latest concept carries the weapons in a ventral canoe-type pod.
 
This is a concept I've been working on for fun lately. It's basically a very upscaled F-18 to fill the same 'Rapid Theater Strike" role as the F/B-23 concept, except carrier-based. So to this end it's scaled up, has a larger wing with more sweepback and larger flaps, more powerful engines (F119?) and an internal bay to carry 3x GBU-24 or B61 nuclear weapons. Of course external pylons can be fitted when LO is not a huge concern.


Here's my initial sketchout. You can see it is substantially larger than F/A-18E. There is a single fin variant to the left that came out very A-5 like but I've been told twin tails is where it's at so I went for those. There are also some different ideas for stores carriage including ventral conformal bay pod not unlike the F-15SE conformal fueltank bays but I went for an internal bay equipped with a rotary launcher. Right now there are no additional bays for anti-air missiles but I figure the main bay can be configured to hold AIM-120C for long range fleet defense if that capability is needed.


Also a couple color profiles below - comment away!
Oh, I like it!

The twin fin design reduces overall height, which is important for packing into the hangar for maintenance. Remember that the Vigilante's vertical stabilizer had to fold for overhead clearance.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom