Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

eagle said:
Weren't they loaded with 4 Mk84 each? Not that expensive, but seriously limiting the Hornet's already limited capability to run away. ;)
Click to expand...
The Navy tended to like the 4 or 5 Mk83 load out, the difference being the 4-bomb load carried a jamming pod on the centerline while the 5-bomb load had the 5th on the centerline. It's one reason the Superbug was welcome as it brought an extra two and when JADM came along they could carry 6, plus two tanks, and a 7th or another tank on the centerline. Seven GBU-32's are a bad day for most sets of DMPI's, -31's only deepen the crater, throw the debris farther and leave behind smaller pieces, but are really nice when you want to leave behind a big whole.

As for running away, my gut tells me 4 slick 84's on pylons will have a lower drag index than 4 83's on BRU's. The interference drag is much higher. Anyone with a NATOP's is free to fact check me, as mine is on the HD with a fried MB.
 
mkellytx said:
The Navy tended to like the 4 or 5 Mk83 load out, the difference being the 4-bomb load carried a jamming pod on the centerline while the 5-bomb load had the 5th on the centerline.
Click to expand...

According to https://www.dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/f-18.html no pods were carried on the centerline other than AN/AWW-9A datalink pods. Generally I don't recall seeing US Hornets with ECM pods except those used for aggressor training. ‍

mkellytx said:
As for running away, my gut tells me 4 slick 84's on pylons will have a lower drag index than 4 83's on BRU's. The interference drag is much higher. Anyone with a NATOP's is free to fact check me, as mine is on the HD with a fried MB.
Click to expand...
Sure, drag of 4 slick Mk84s is lower than 4 Mk83s on BRUs. But the comparison in question is a Hornet with either 4 Mk84 retained or dropped vs a MiG-21. In that scenario, the fuel states are surely the most important factor. But if the MiG has some fuel to play, it's much, much faster than the loaded Hornet, and still much faster than the clean Hornet. :D
 
eagle said:
According to https://www.dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/f-18.html no pods were carried on the centerline other than AN/AWW-9A datalink pods. Generally I don't recall seeing US Hornets with ECM pods except those used for aggressor training. ‍
Click to expand...
Agree that it's a load not normally carried. That said, there were threats in theater that the legacy Bugs with their 80's era couldn't jam. So, a bunch of those aggressor pods were reprogramed, rushed to theater and used where those system(s) were expected. ASPJ fixed a lot of that in the 90's on.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
IIRC weren't there a couple of US Senators who tried to kill the AN/ALQ-165 in the 1990s?
Click to expand...
Indeed, there were, that gave USAF the excuse they needed to kill it on all Block 30 and beyond Vipers (Peace dividend, got to pay for the Raptor). Only the Navy Bugs and a very few Turkeys got the kit. They eventually got it to work.
 
I'm not sure, maybe it's common knowledge, but recently I've come across the F/A-18E SAC from 2001. Has anyone ever seen a SAC of a legacy Hornet, either F/A-18A/B or F/A-18C/D? It would be interesting to compare the data.
 

Attachments

  • FA-18E Super Hornet.pdf
    885.7 KB · Views: 32
lolek said:
I'm not sure, maybe it's common knowledge, but recently I've come across the F/A-18E SAC from 2001. Has anyone ever seen a SAC of a legacy Hornet, either F/A-18A/B or F/A-18C/D? It would be interesting to compare the data.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen one, but I'd also be interested in comparing the two!
 

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov

INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS TO INCREASE THE UNREFUELED RANGE OF NAVAL TACTICAL AIRCRAFT

The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Navigation Plan identifies the need for "Long-range precision fires across all domains and platforms with greater reach [to] enable naval forces to strike hostile targets while increasing our own survivability.” In support of this need, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Program Office for F/A-18 and EA-18G (PMA-265) is interested in information on innovative, affordable concepts that may extend the unrefueled range of naval tactical aircraft (TACAIR).
The intent of this RFI is to provide PMA-265 with initial insight into the existence of such concepts, their potential capability to extend platform range, how the concept could be integrated into naval TACAIR, and any considerations with respect to reliability and suitability for carrier-based flight operations. A non-binding Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate of the costs required to reach Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 is also desired.
The audience for this RFI is industry, academia, and Government laboratories. The RFI does NOT presuppose a specific technology solution. It is meant to provide respondents with broad latitude to submit concepts across multiple engineering disciplines that could provide extended range capability. Example areas these concepts may address include, but are NOT limited to, methods to increase lift, reduce drag, increase fuel available, reduce fuel usage on the deck, increase engine performance; and/or adjustments to subsystem integration and/or architecture or advanced flight controls.
This RFI is the first step of an iterative process aimed at understanding concepts that may be able to meet this need. Based on the findings, additional RFIs may be issued in the future to continue the Government's informational exchange with potential solution providers.
Click to expand...
 

The following is the complete statement from U.S. Central Command.

TAMPA, Fla. – Two U.S. Navy pilots ejected safely over the Red Sea during the early morning hours of December 22 when their F/A-18 fighter aircraft was shot down in an apparent case of friendly fire.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64), which is part of the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, mistakenly fired on and hit the F/A-18, which was flying off the USS Harry S. Truman.

Both pilots were safely recovered. Initial assessments indicate that one of the crew members sustained minor injuries. This incident was not the result of hostile fire, and a full investigation is underway.
 
The carrier group had apparently been conducting strikes on Houthi and ISIS targets in Yemen and during the night had intercepted several drone/missiles launched towards Israel after two missiles launched from Yemen had successfully penetrated Israeli defences in recent days and struck residential areas in Tel Aviv. The fighter was engaged by the cruiser as soon as it lifted off suggesting air defence had got a bit trigger happy and the notification of the launch possibly hadn't been properly conveyed to the rest of the carrier group.

I dont think its been said if the cruiser used a missile or left its Phalanx in auto mode.
 
WatcherZero said:
The carrier group had apparently been conducting strikes on Houthi and ISIS targets in Yemen and during the night had intercepted several drone/missiles launched towards Israel after two launched from Yemen had penetrated Israeli defences in recent days. The fighter was engaged by the cruiser as soon as it lifted off suggesting air defence had got a bit trigger happy and the notification of the launch possibly hadn't been properly conveyed to the rest of the carrier group.
Click to expand...
So going by this account, AEGIS were set on fully automatic engagement, combined with faulty IFF (but, still, shouldn't the unresponsive IFF ping be recognized inside the quadrant in which the carrier itself is going? And the engagement director bypassed that?) and the crews operating AEGIS not being notified of an imminent launch (to disengage or switch engagement mode accordingly).

Well, that sucks. Major reprimands to follow.
 
yeetmahboi said:
So going by this account, AEGIS were set on fully automatic engagement, combined with faulty IFF (but, still, shouldn't the unresponsive IFF ping be recognized inside the quadrant in which the carrier itself is going? And the engagement director bypassed that?) and the crews operating AEGIS not being notified of an imminent launch (to disengage or switch engagement mode accordingly).

Well, that sucks. Major reprimands to follow.
Click to expand...

Which account? I only see the USNI one that doesn't say anything about AEGIS modes or that the aircraft was just taking off.
 
TomS said:
Which account? I only see the USNI one that doesn't say anything about AEGIS modes or that the aircraft was just taking off.
Click to expand...
Watcherzero's. Rest is purely my speculation, plus some digging on Reddit that revealed stuff like the auto engagement, which most people (TAOs, FCs, WEPSUPs, SWOs, whatever they call themselves these days) agreed on being the highest probability. Some talked about stuff like FAB, supposedly Fire Authorize Bypass, getting enabled, others talked CIWS engaged on its own.

AP reported that the Gettysburg shot right after the SupaBug went off the deck. Depending on the exact formation spacing that could be either a missile or CIWS. Mind you, I'm just an amateur and not an AEGIS engineer like you Tom, so take it with a big grain of salt.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Watcherzero's. Rest is purely my speculation, plus some digging on Reddit that revealed stuff like the auto engagement, which most people (TAOs, FCs, WEPSUPs, SWOs, whatever they call themselves these days) agreed on being the highest probability. Some talked about stuff like FAB, supposedly Fire Authorize Bypass, getting enabled, others talked CIWS engaged on its own.

AP reported that the Gettysburg shot right after the SupaBug went off the deck. Depending on the exact formation spacing that could be either a missile or CIWS. Mind you, I'm just an amateur and not an AEGIS engineer like you Tom, so take it with a big grain of salt.
Click to expand...

AP says that, but it cites CENTCOM, and the CENTCOM statement just says the plane was flying off of Truman. That doesn't necessarily mean it had just launched,

It would make a lot more sense if it was returning from a strike in Yemen.
 
TomS said:
AP says that, but it cites CENTCOM, and the CENTCOM statement just says the plane was flying off of Truman. That doesn't necessarily mean it had just launched,

It would make a lot more sense if it was returning from a strike in Yemen.
Click to expand...
RUMINT from the NAMP Compliance FB group seems to indicate that it was blasted as soon as it came off the catapult.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Moose said:
Going to be a lot of details that matter for this, so I'm not going to speculate much. But glad to hear the crew got out with only minor injuries.
Click to expand...

Wonder how much the new NACES seats improve over its predecessors. I heard back and spine injuries were pretty common (and career ending).
Click to expand...

Three ejections used to be an automatic revocation of flight status in any ejection-seat equipped aircraft.

Two ejections might see revocation if medical examinations so indicated.

One ejection rarely resulted in revocation.

The above applied to NavAir (USN & USMC)* - I don't know about USAF/ANG.

* most NavAir ejection seats were Martin-Bakers.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
RUMINT from the NAMP Compliance FB group seems to indicate that it was blasted as soon as it came off the catapult.
Click to expand...

I'm just skeptical by nature. I'll wait for something more than RUMINT in this case.

I mean, it certainly could have happened that way, especially if this was first bird off the cat during a cycle or something like that. But I just want something more than the very vague sourcing so far.
 
WatcherZero said:
One more minor detail to emerge, the downed Hornet was configured as a buddy tanker and was launching to perform a refuelling mission.
Click to expand...
Yikes. The fact they floated away safe from this just gets crazier and crazier. Surviving a kinetic interception while flying with four bags full and a refuelling pod is incredible...
 
Well this "Own Goal" shoot-down of an F/A-18F is definitely a career-ending fuckup for someone in the USN taskforce.
 
Would not the Hornets ESM known it was being targeted/painted and its jammer been on max power in full auto mode?
 
I would have thought so, that is something that the investigators will have to try and figure out why the radar was not jammed or even the missile. Unless the jammer was not turned on for some reason during launch.
 
Cordy said:
Would not the Hornets ESM known it was being targeted/painted and its jammer been on max power in full auto mode?
Click to expand...

If the story that the Super Hornet was straight off the cat is true, definitely not. Having a jammer live on deck would be a major rad hazard.

Plus, you won't actually get much targeting warning from AEGIS. It doesn't have a super distinct track mode, it just correlates hits from its scans to build tracks. And an SM-2 guides mostly on datalink updates to the autopilot until the illuminator comes on in the last few seconds of an engagement.
 
TomS said:
If the story that the Super Hornet was straight off the cat is true, definitely not. Having a jammer live on deck would be a major rad hazard.

Plus, you won't actually get much targeting warning from AEGIS. It doesn't have a super distinct track mode, it just correlates hits from its scans to build tracks. And an SM-2 guides mostly on datalink updates to the autopilot until the illuminator comes on in the last few seconds of an engagement.
Click to expand...
The “Straight off the Cat” story has already been clarified with additional info that the aircraft were actually relatively close to their landing.

I think the notion that this occurred on launch was due to an over-reading of some of the word choice in the original CENTCOM statement: “The guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64), which is part of the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, mistakenly fired on and hit the F/A-18, which was flying off the USS Harry S. Truman.”

The statement is clearly intended to solely indicate that the Super Hornet in question is a part of the Truman’s air wing, but I quickly saw people jump to say that it meant the jet was shot down while actively in the act of flying off of the Truman - i.e. being launched.
 
HaveVoid said:
The “Straight off the Cat” story has already been clarified with additional info that the aircraft were actually relatively close to their landing.

I think the notion that this occurred on launch was due to an over-reading of some of the word choice in the original CENTCOM statement: “The guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64), which is part of the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, mistakenly fired on and hit the F/A-18, which was flying off the USS Harry S. Truman.”

The statement is clearly intended to solely indicate that the Super Hornet in question is a part of the Truman’s air wing, but I quickly saw people jump to say that it meant the jet was shot down while actively in the act of flying off of the Truman - i.e. being launched.
Click to expand...

OK, thank you. That was actually what I expected (see above). Inbound, probably trailing the returning strike because they were busy passing gas for everyone else who needed it, and their IFF glitched or something.

I can absolutely believe that the Houthis have tried to sneak drones in on the carrier by trailing the returning strikers, so Gettysburg was probably on a hair trigger.
 
I've lobbied before to reopen the Superhornet line. Now that we've lost one, maybe Congress will finally do the right thing. You fight the next war with what you have now, and right now we have super hornets.
 
joshjosh said:
I've lobbied before to reopen the Superhornet line. Now that we've lost one, maybe Congress will finally do the right thing. You fight the next war with what you have now, and right now we have super hornets.
Click to expand...

Congress has no interest in doing anything that does not pad their reelection and a single F-18 matters not at all.
 
Besides, building one flying airframe requires parts from scores of suppliers - and due to the nature of aircraft supply chains they delivered their last parts to Boeing months before the assembly line shuts down - and being smaller, most of those companies have to clear the SH production equipment from their factory floors and set up for something else, to keep their employees working and money coming in.

If months later the Navy wants production re-started that will screw up those suppliers' production schedules for whatever they were building after the previous SH contracts ended, which costs money to deal with.
 
More info regarding the last blue on blue case: a second SH escaped a narrow miss by a second missile (allegedly 30m).

www.foxnews.com

Second US Navy fighter jet narrowly avoided being shot down in 'friendly fire' incident: source

An F/A-18 Super Hornet – flying a few miles behind the Hornet that was shot down in a "friendly fire" incident over the Red Sea – took evasive maneuvers after a second surface-to-air missile was fired from the cruiser USS Gettysburg, a source with knowledge of the incident tells Fox News.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

With details of the previously reported shotdown:
The F/A-18 Super Hornet was attempting to land aboard Truman when it was shot down after performing a midair refueling mission for jets carrying out airstrikes over Yemen, the source said.

"It was a tanker crew returning to land on the carrier about 10 miles out. They recognized the missile was guiding and punched out about three seconds before the missile hit the jet," the source said.
Click to expand...
 
Between this and neighboring thread - I guess things are still as awfully wrong as ever with automated multi-target engagements in complex situations.

AA is either careful and gets things through(or even bayraktared/droned), or trigger happy and makes mistakes even with rather obvious tracks.

Obvious to outside observer, not to FCS, that is.
 
Ainen said:
Between this and neighboring thread - I guess things are still as awfully wrong as ever with automated multi-target engagements in complex situations.

AA is either careful and gets things through(or even bayraktared/droned), or trigger happy and makes mistakes even with rather obvious tracks.

Obvious to outside observer, not to FCS, that is.
Click to expand...

One data point is not a lot to draw conclusions. The metrics that would be more useful is how many times there were SM-2 engagements during aircraft recovery. Friendly AA fire has been an issue since the invention of fixed wing aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom