Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

La-Fuente Technologies said:
FighterJock said:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
FighterJock said:
It will be sad when the Hornet production line closes, but there will still be plenty of Super Hornets on carrier decks for now.
Click to expand...
Hopefully enough to last until the 2070s at the most. Perhaps they, alongside the F-15EXs and F-16 Block-72s will be the last remaining Fourth-Generation Fighters that the US will ever field, as they slowly gain more Fifth-Generation and Sixth-Generation fighters, and maybe even start fielding a few Seventh-Generation Fighters soon enough.
Click to expand...

Let’s get the sixth generation fighters into service first before talking about seventh generation, but you are probably right about the fourth generation lasting as long as the 2070s after all the US Navy and the USAF will want to get the most of the last Falcons Eagles and Hornets before they eventually retire.
Click to expand...
For that, you would be right. We gotta ensure that all the parts for these aircraft see the light of day before they are eventually retired, and the more parts that are available, the much longer they will remain up in the air and in service. I just hope that their replacements will just be as venerable and capable as the Hornets were when they come to service.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to watch what the true capabilities of the NGAD/F/A-XX will be when they enter service, I cannot wait to see the sixth generation fighters enter service.
 
Question regarding the outer weapons stations of the F-18E/F - what is their max weight? I think I read somewhere 1000lbs, although I can't find a source for that now. I'm pretty sure I've seen them carry AGM-88 on this station (EA-18G specifically). Is there any reason Harpoon could not be carried? Fin clearance issue? If the latter, how about SLAM-ER?

EDIT: additional question, the BRU-32 is supposed to be able to carry ordnance up to 1000lbs - supposedly JSOW and SLAM-ER could be fitted as such. Has this ever been integrated/separation tested? I've never seen F-18s fitted that way.

Broadly speaking I'm looking at options that would allow greater AShM carriage since carrying 2-4 Harpoon/LRASM is rather suboptimal.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Question regarding the outer weapons stations of the F-18E/F - what is their max weight? I think I read somewhere 1000lbs, although I can't find a source for that now. I'm pretty sure I've seen them carry AGM-88 on this station (EA-18G specifically). Is there any reason Harpoon could not be carried? Fin clearance issue? If the latter, how about SLAM-ER?

EDIT: additional question, the BRU-32 is supposed to be able to carry ordnance up to 1000lbs - supposedly JSOW and SLAM-ER could be fitted as such. Has this ever been integrated/separation tested? I've never seen F-18s fitted that way.

Broadly speaking I'm looking at options that would allow greater AShM carriage since carrying 2-4 Harpoon/LRASM is rather suboptimal.
Click to expand...

I think this diagram is fairly accurate.

1684688323401.png

So, the outer stations can carry a clean 1000-lb bomb or Paveway but not JSOW, JDAM, or Harpoon/SLAM. That starts to feel like a databus limitation or something other than a simple weight limit because a JDAM tailkit isn't notably heavier than a Paveway kit.
 
That doesn't look right.
For one, the outer stations can carry JDAMs. SHs flew with 10 GBU-32 over Syria.
Secondly, the chart doesn't actually give the max. weight for individual stations. But the GBU-10 is a 2000lbs weapon, and that's surely too heavy for the outer stations. They have a 1000lbs limit I think.

So the questions about max. weight remains.
Harpoon is about 1200lbs. Maybe too much. JSOW is a bit over 1000lbs. Another interesting weapon is AARGM-ER. That missile is 1030lbs reportedly. If there is a strict 1000lbs limit, the Growler esp. is in trouble.
 
I hadn’t realized how heavy Harpoon was - for some reason I thought it ~1000lbs. You’re quite right. SLAM would have to be as heavy or more so. Good point on AARGM-ER; it’s right up against what we *think* is the limit. I’d presume they wouldn’t design the new missile such that it couldn’t be carried at its normal position on the platform that it primarily arms (hopefully).

That would bring me JSM - would that be a candidate for the outer pylons and/or BRU-32? If so that seems to me to open up a lot carriage possibilities were it adopted by the USN. Given the relative dearth of LRASM production, for whatever reason, it seems to me such a buy makes sense. The F-35 will also be cleared for it anyway and could carry four (or more on BRU-32?) externally in addition to internal carriage.
 
Did they ever give a reason for why the formal tanks were unworkable?

EDIT: Actually while I'm asking fuel questions, could anyone give a ballpark combat radius range for an F-18? I know it depends on numerous factors, most especially warload - I'd accept any figure for a specific configuration to nearest hundred nm/km. Just looking for a rough ballpark because I've seen anything from 300-600nm.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't expecting Boeing to close the Super Hornet production line that quick bobbymike on the back of loosing the Indian competition to the Rafale, it will be a sad loss when the line closes. :(
 
Forest Green said:
www.thedrive.com

A-10 Pilot's Compelling Case For Replacing Warthogs With Super Hornets

An A-10 Weapons Instructor lays out how buying F/A-18E/Fs fits the Air Force's imperatives and keeps the A-10's unique braintrust intact.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
This would be a smart move, it avoids trying to design and build another CAS aircraft and keeps the production line going for a little while longer.
If they didn't want to cough up the cash for new aircraft, they could move to F18C/D for the time being, then switch to the E/F once they get replaced with the F-35.
 
I feel like the A-10 community and the existing USMC F-18 community would have a lot in common. Maybe some kind of airframe share like the EA-6s?
 
FighterJock said:
I wasn't expecting Boeing to close the Super Hornet production line that quick bobbymike on the back of loosing the Indian competition to the Rafale, it will be a sad loss when the line closes. :(
Click to expand...
its too bad the line will be closed.
for a fighter jet of that weight and size, it had a surprisingly low operational cost. I think among the US fleet, only the f-16 was lower to operate.
 
Such a loss that the CFTs didn’t work. Did anyone ever give a reason why? I always assumed the harsh acceleration/deceleration wasn’t conducive to a non structural fuselage tank mount.
 
Josh_TN said:
Such a loss that the CFTs didn’t work. Did anyone ever give a reason why? I always assumed the harsh acceleration/deceleration wasn’t conducive to a non structural fuselage tank mount.
Click to expand...
No, only that there were difficulties concerning the cost, schedule and performance. We could only assume that aircraft performance equipped with CFT was lower than what Boeing expected/Navair demanded and the works to remedy the performance deficit was consuming too much time.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
No, only that there were difficulties concerning the cost, schedule and performance. We could only assume that aircraft performance equipped with CFT was lower than what Boeing expected/Navair demanded and the works to remedy the performance deficit was consuming too much time.
Click to expand...
Seems like a CV lost opportunity. Even if it didn’t live up to expectations, it seems to me anything that extends range is worth doing.
 
Magnum_Force said:
This would be a smart move, it avoids trying to design and build another CAS aircraft and keeps the production line going for a little while longer.
If they didn't want to cough up the cash for new aircraft, they could move to F18C/D for the time being, then switch to the E/F once they get replaced with the F-35.
Click to expand...
It's definitely got my recommendation for what to build/buy in case a shooting war with China breaks out in the next ~5yrs or so.
 
Josh_TN said:
Seems like a CV lost opportunity. Even if it didn’t live up to expectations, it seems to me anything that extends range is worth doing.
Click to expand...
The basic concept of ASH was that instead of putting the drop tanks under the wings, they'll install a CFT on top of the fuselage so that they could load the aircraft with 2~3 EWPs in place of the drop tanks. So basically, with the loss of CFT, most of the important features introduced to ASH are indeed gone for the block III. I also think it's a lost opportunity, and considering the operational environment of West Pacific, I wonder what the reason exactly was for Navair to forgoe such capability, which they seem to be putting a great emphasize in lately.
 
I vaguely remember comments about stress on the airframe when catapulting with full CFTs, and possibly maneuver restrictions with full or partially-full CFTs likewise due to airframe considerations - but that may have been internet forum discussions rather than anything official.
 
I remember reading an article a few years ago, that maintaining an aircraft with additional conformal fuel tanks in an cramped aircraft hanger on a carrier would be too time and cost consuming. The maintenance crew would have to park the aircraft on a special spot under a crane, which would lift up each CFT, so the crew could get a clear access to aircraft systems. So that is one main reason, why the US Navy decided against CFTs on future Blk 3 Super Hornets.
 
Interesting about the Block 3 Super Hornet and the CFTs fightingirish, I had always wondered why they never had them installed.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1308.jpeg
    IMG_1308.jpeg
    157.2 KB · Views: 69
Last edited:
So I take it that the new helmet is made from carbon fibre materials? That will make it lighter than some of the helmets that were used in the past.
 
looking at that, sometimes I wonder if McD/Boeing should have kept upgrading the regular Hornet instead of building a new larger aircraft.
supposedly pilots preferred the handling on the older hornet in the air, although the super hornet was easier to land on the carrier.
 
helmutkohl said:
looking at that, sometimes I wonder if McD/Boeing should have kept upgrading the regular Hornet instead of building a new larger aircraft.
supposedly pilots preferred the handling on the older hornet in the air, although the super hornet was easier to land on the carrier.
Click to expand...
Or just went clean sheet... There is zero Legacy Hornet left anyway, why stick to the basic layout only to do it slightly worse than first time around?
 
That's interesting. In the movie "Under Siege" if the decision to destroy the battleship "Missouri" by aviation would still be made. Could an F-18 squadron sink a captured battleship? There are no torpedoes. There are no armor-piercing bombs. Only rockets, high-explosive and concrete-piercing bombs. Although I'm not sure about the latter.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Or just went clean sheet... There is zero Legacy Hornet left anyway, why stick to the basic layout only to do it slightly worse than first time around?
Click to expand...
Politics.

The way I've heard or read about it, the upper echelons of NAVAIR at the time were dominated by former A-7 pilots, whose squadrons generally transitioned to the F/A-18A-D. There was quite a strong Hornet lobby, which also coincided with then-SecDef Dick Cheney having a hate boner for Grumman. The Super Hornet is essentially an evolved Hornet 2000 and was sold as an affordable "variant" of the existing Hornet that would rein in costs, which was relevant given the gradual detente between the US and Soviet Union at the time and the latter's dissolution shortly after.

To be fair, the F/A-18E/F has evolved to be quite a versatile strike fighter and has been a reliable workhorse during the GWOT, if somewhat lacking in raw kinematics particularly when it comes to high energy rate fights. That said, a replacement for the Super Hornet is well overdue, with the upcoming F/A-XX placing a greater emphasis on fleet air defense.
 
So what will the Hornet replacement be? I think that it could be a new less expensive fighter taking on the Lo part whereas the F/A-XX being the Hi. Any thoughts?
 
FighterJock said:
So what will the Hornet replacement be? I think that it could be a new less expensive fighter taking on the Lo part whereas the F/A-XX being the Hi. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

F/A-XX is the only program I’m aware of, besides ongoing F-35C production. I think that’s it, for manned a/c. Low end will likely be UAVs.
 
I believe the logistics of running two fighter types on a single carrier would be wxorbitent and unfavourable tbh. Why do it?
 
So in the end after the retirement of the Hornet the next low fighter will be a UCAV, that would make sense after all because the 7th generation will probably be fully unmanned anyway.
 
FighterJock said:
So what will the Hornet replacement be? I think that it could be a new less expensive fighter taking on the Lo part whereas the F/A-XX being the Hi. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
The F/A-18A-D Hornet replacement is the F-35C, while the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement is the F/A-XX. With strike fighters capable of largely fulfilling the roles of both fleet air defense like the F-14 and strike like the A-6, a single "hi" aircraft would be able to replace both, and the higher cost of individual aircraft would be offset by the simplified logistics of a single aircraft type. I believe this was the rationale behind F-14D Quickstrike and the ST-21, and the planned A/F-X. Due to the reasons of politics and economics given above, the Super Hornet currently fulfills this strike fighter role and for a good while, the Navy was operating an all-Hornet air wing until the F-35C showed up. While a dependable workhorse, the Super Hornet doesn't quite have the raw performance of either the F-14 or A-6 in their dedicated roles. The F/A-XX will take over the strike fighter role from the Super Hornet as it enters service, and hopefully be the true successors to the F-14 and A-6 combo.

That said, one of the pitfalls of this strike fighter force structure is that since both the strike/attack and the fleet air defense role can be covered by a single aircraft in terms of equipment characteristics, all squadrons are trained to a single syllabus that incorporates a wide gamut of missions. This means that from a training perspective as it currently stands, the F/A-XX squadrons will still lacks the specialization that the F-14 and A-6 squadrons did. Hopefully, advancements in avionics can make up for this shortfall, but I really wish NAVAIR would recognize that just because the aircraft is multirole-capable, that doesn't mean you necessarily need a one-size-fits-all training syllabus.

How the F/A-XX and the F-35C both fit into the force structure will be interesting, since the latter can't really be considered as the "lo" like the legacy Hornet that it's directly replacing. However, having both aircraft types might be the impetus for NAVAIR to move towards the training syllabus being more focused on specific missions due to having two aircraft types. The truly "lo" aircraft would then be the uncrewed CCA UVACs.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom