Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

I had always wondered about the F-35/F/A-XX mix one being fifth gen and the other being sixth gen, I suppose that we will just have to wait and see what the US Navy does with the future force structure.
 
I believe the logistics of running two fighter types on a single carrier would be wxorbitent and unfavourable tbh. Why do it?

Previous to the superbugs there often were several types of fighter/attack/bomber aircraft, as well as dedicated tanker and ASW types. A 1980s CVW operated at least five distinct airframes, even counting E-2/C-2 and EA-6/A-6 as the same thing.
 
I had always wondered about the F-35/F/A-XX mix one being fifth gen and the other being sixth gen, I suppose that we will just have to wait and see what the US Navy does with the future force structure.

I think UAVs will fill in any blanks around the FAXX and F-35.
 
Previous to the superbugs there often were several types of fighter/attack/bomber aircraft, as well as dedicated tanker and ASW types. A 1980s CVW operated at least five distinct airframes, even counting E-2/C-2 and EA-6/A-6 as the same thing.
I get that but development costs are through the roof, where is the logic in doing something just because it was done in the past? It is unsustainable.
 
I get that but development costs are through the roof, where is the logic in doing something just because it was done in the past? It is unsustainable.

I agree; there will only be 1-2 manned fighter/strike types going forward. Multirole aircraft make anything else pointless. But I suspect there will be a lot more variation in the UAV complement.
 
Unless there is a paradigm shift in naval warfare in the coming decades (such a shift is very possible), I can foresee the generation of naval tactical aviation after F/A-XX and F-35C to be consolidated under one type of manned multirole aircraft, while variation can be found in the supporting CCA UCAVs.

Single-mission tactical aviation as a whole is a fading breed. Even the F-22, which was initially designed as an uncompromised air superiority fighter, is now multirole and its strike capabilities were being developed even during the 1990s.
 
I agree too that the era of not a pound for air to ground made famous by the F-15 is well and truly over.
 
Unless there is a paradigm shift in naval warfare in the coming decades (such a shift is very possible), I can foresee the generation of naval tactical aviation after F/A-XX and F-35C to be consolidated under one type of manned multirole aircraft, while variation can be found in the supporting CCA UCAVs.

Single-mission tactical aviation as a whole is a fading breed. Even the F-22, which was initially designed as an uncompromised air superiority fighter, is now multirole and its strike capabilities were being developed even during the 1990s.

I agree too that the era of not a pound for air to ground made famous by the F-15 is well and truly over.
It never actually existed, Raptor was a stop gap for the F-117 but it probably has less equivalent ground attack then the F-15 did in the 70s and 80s.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1170.jpeg
    IMG_1170.jpeg
    72.2 KB · Views: 156
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.

That was the plan. But the last frontline USN legacy Hornet squadron transitioned to the Super Hornet in February 2019. Way before the first F-35C squadron deployed in August 2021. So in effect, due to delays in the F-35 program, the Super Hornet replaced the F-14 first, then the F/A-18A-D.
 
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.
"Quicksink" fuzes, let the bomb detonate under the keel. Not as good as a heavyweight torpedo, but still reasonably effective.
 
Few more items on early F/A-18E.
 

Attachments

  • 20231126_151455.jpg
    20231126_151455.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 135
  • 20231126_151653.jpg
    20231126_151653.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 118
  • 20231126_151738.jpg
    20231126_151738.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 120
  • 20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    4.5 MB · Views: 116
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 90
  • 2 (2).jpg
    2 (2).jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 78
I wonder if retaining the original LERX layout of the Legacy Hornets would have negated the need to the canted weapons pylons? The larger square intakes might have a bigger impact on the airflow in that region though, so perhaps not.
 
I wonder if retaining the original LERX layout of the Legacy Hornets would have negated the need to the canted weapons pylons? The larger square intakes might have a bigger impact on the airflow in that region though, so perhaps not.
The material RAP posted just above your post says the LERX was widened because the narrow LERX did not provide enough lift in high angle-of-attack maneuvers (such as air-air combat) for proper control.

So unless the Super Hornet is de-rated to an attack-only bird, the wide LERX has to stay.
 
From what I remember the pylons were canted due to some computer modeling showed that certain stores configurations could impact the airframe when released, however that computer model had not been around at the time of the first Hornet testing so later after the the airframes were being built with canted pylons someone thought to run the A-D airframe in the program and the computer showed the same potential issue, one that never happened in the operational life of the 1st gen Hornet. I think Boeing even asked the Navy if they wanted to redo the pylons but the Navy passed.
 
Last edited:
Boeing is buying the GKN factory in St Louis that manufactured parts for the F-18 and F-15. GKN had threatened to shut the plant down at the end of this year (before the completion of the last orders for the aircraft) due to the contract being loss making, Boeing had been suing GKN for breach of contract to try and keep the plant open but has decided to take on the plant itself instead. 550 out of 600 staff are immediately transferred to Boeing while around 50 have taken retirement or decided to seek employment elsewhere.

 
Is not the F-18E/F capable of carrying a dozen or so AIM-120? I thought two could be carried underneath each of the four inner pylon stations, though typically drop tanks would be carried on the innermost set.
 
Is not the F-18E/F capable of carrying a dozen or so AIM-120? I thought two could be carried underneath each of the four inner pylon stations, though typically drop tanks would be carried on the innermost set.

Physically possible? Probably. Here is a NAVAIR slide from back when the Super Hornet was first being rolled out, definitely showing 12 AMRAAM plus 2 AIM-9.

1715174659237.png

And a very old image that might have Sparrows instead of AMRAAM on the outer stations?

1715175637811.png But in practice, it never seems to be done. Even the loadouts in that article show the inner stations empty rather than fitted with either drop tanks or missiles.

The expansion of the carriage for AIM-9X might have to do with cost or target set, rather than increasing the number of missiles (Especially with them adding AIM-9X to the Growler, which can already carry a bunch of AMRAAM if need be. Seems like there might be drones out there that are easier or at least cheaper to engage with Sidewinder.
 
Yeah I think the just like the photo of the original hornet wearing ten AIM-120 it was just a one time photo op. I just meant 9 AAMs hardly seems to be the physical upper limit.
 
The Super Hornet always had the theoretical capability to carry the AIM-9 on stations other than the wingtip ones. It just seems to have been a capability that wasn't used until recently.

The original Hornet on some rare occasions did carry AIM-9s on twin missile racks on stations 2 and 8, so theoretically the Super Hornet should have that same ability (using stations 3 and 9 in that case). It would probably take some more certification as this latest loadout may have required before they started flying sorties with that loadout.

This chart from some earlier days isn't entirely accurate but gives a general idea.

1715191408610.png
 
Going back to the older articles about this from April, it sounds like the 2/10 stations were never actually cleared for AIM-9, despite the PowerPoint engineering, and they've done that as a crash program.
 
Last edited:
Going back to the older articles about this from April, it sounds like the 3/9 stations were never actually cleared for AIM-9, despite the PowerPoint engineering, and they've done that as a crash program.
I assume this means having the air test and evaluation guys fire off some shots to prove there are no separation issues?
 
I assume this means having the air test and evaluation guys fire off some shots to prove there are no separation issues?

Something like that. Turns out the Growler already was cleared, but only for the RAAF, so that was probably just a paper drill for the USN. Maybe one or two separation tests for the E/F just to make sure nothing weird happens.
 
Where does the Super Hornet hide the towed decoy when not in use? Does the Growler EA 18g also have it?
 
Either mounted alone in a cannister on a wing pylon, or inside the rear of a pylon mounted ALQ-184 Electronic Warfare Pod.
Eurofighter has a towed decoy in its right wingtip.
F-35 it emerges from a flush panel in the right underside of the fuselage near the engine.
Rafael it has a dispenser built into the underside of the wing near the wingtip on either one or both wings.
 
Last edited:
Where does the Super Hornet hide the towed decoy when not in use? Does the Growler EA 18g also have it?
Either mounted alone in a cannister on a wing pylon, or inside the rear of an ALQ-184 Electronic Warfare Pod.

That's right for the F-16.

The F/A-18 does things differently. There's a removable ALE-50 triple launcher scabbed on between the main landing gear doors. It can be hard to see in pictures but the image below includes one. The Growler apparently does not use it.

1715882288882.png

 
I think the difference is that F-18E/F uses ALE-55, not 50 like F-16 and some other USAF aircraft (B-1?). The -55 has a fiber optic tow line that connects it to an waveform generator on the aircraft, where as I believe ALE-50 is a stand alone counter measure.
 
The first F/A-18E (BuNo 165164) is now at the Museum of Transportation here in the St. Louis area and like a large plastic model kit, is being reassembled for display. Apparently Boeing, persuaded by local Boewing retirees from the program, spearhaded its move here. Looking forward to seeing it restored and in fresh paint on display.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMG_6636.jpg
    zMG_6636.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 42
  • zMG_6633.jpg
    zMG_6633.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 31
  • zMG_6631.jpg
    zMG_6631.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 31
  • zMG_6629.jpg
    zMG_6629.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 30
  • zMG_6627.jpg
    zMG_6627.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 27
  • zMG_6637.jpg
    zMG_6637.jpg
    710.7 KB · Views: 35
I think the difference is that F-18E/F uses ALE-55, not 50 like F-16 and some other USAF aircraft (B-1?). The -55 has a fiber optic tow line that connects it to an waveform generator on the aircraft, where as I believe ALE-50 is a stand alone counter measure.

Super Hornet uses both, it seems, at least as of 2019:

 
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom