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: 40

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...
 
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...
Thanks this is fascinating. You could also compare to the F-4B/F-4J SACs:

Somewhat surprisingly the F/A-18E looks superior to the Phantom in terms of range, CAP endurance, climb rate etc.
 
H_K said:
Thanks this is fascinating. You could also compare to the F-4B/F-4J SACs:

Somewhat surprisingly the F/A-18E looks superior to the Phantom in terms of range, CAP endurance, climb rate etc.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the F-18 is effectively a slower F-4 with better dogfighting ability. The Super-Hornet is essentially a longer ranged F-18, so there you are.
 
Growler plunges down in waters of San Diego Bay - both pilots safe:

View: https://youtu.be/BZak4duVu6o?si=bpDP_D7r4CSQdvRr

“At approximately 10:15 PDT, a U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler assigned to Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 135 crashed while landing,” read a statement from Naval Air Forces.
“Two aircrew ejected into San Diego Bay and were quickly recovered before being transported to a local hospital for medical assessment.”
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
Not good at all, especially with the Growler being twin seat. Did the crew manage to eject in time before the E/A-18G crashed into San Diego Bay?
 
Forest Green said:
two civil aircraft down
Click to expand...

Three -- you are probably missing the one in Alaska.

To amplify my last post, clustering illusion is when there appear to be patterns in random events due to small sample size. Airplane crashes are quite susceptible to this because sample size is really, really small. There are not many accident events compared to the large number of flights, so it often appears that accidents happen in clusters when they really are more or less random.

There is probably also an element of attentional bias at play here. Events that might not get noticed normally are heightened in our perceptions (and in media reporting) after a major accident.
 
Eyewitness reports say this was the 3rd of a flight coming in to land over NAS North Island, they had flown over the base (as is normal for military aircraft, pass over the runway to verify it is clear, then circle around to land), when the engine sound from the 3rd got louder and rougher, there were several pops, then the engines cut off completely.
 
Forest Green said:
EMI issue?
Click to expand...

NMaude said:
Wouldn't the F/A-18F already be hardened against that?
Click to expand...

Grey Havoc said:
A lot of corners were cut in that design, the times being what they were (COTS and the like were in high fashion for example)...
Click to expand...

Except for this one - as it is a carrier aircraft, and the carrier does NOT shut off radars etc during flight ops - aircraft passing within 100' of the main radar that is still rotating AND radiating - etc.

EMI hardening is an absolute requirement for ship-based aircraft.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Eyewitness reports say this was the 3rd of a flight coming in to land over NAS North Island, they had flown over the base (as is normal for military aircraft, pass over the runway to verify it is clear, then circle around to land), when the engine sound from the 3rd got louder and rougher, there were several pops, then the engines cut off completely.
Click to expand...
Wrong part of the country for Sandhills, so maybe just boring ol' gulls.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
EA-18G Crew from the recent punch out.
Click to expand...
They now owe the PRs and AMEs a large BBQ with beverages. Time-honored tradition. If you have to use the ejection seat, you buy the guys who put it together for you a bottle.

Oh, and the squadron owes that fishing trawler a pallet of ice cream. Another time-honored tradition, started in WW2. Some ship (a sub, IIRC) "ransomed" some rescued pilots back to their ship in exchange for ice cream.

Edit: as to how serious the squadrons take this, back in the 1980s a submarine was stuck on the surface in the Strait of Juan de Fuca waiting for a message to clear so they could dive. It wasn't clearing, someone had told the crypto system the wrong number of code groups. About the time they figured out how to make it work, a P-3 from Whidbey Island went down more or less right next to the sub. Sub immediately goes into rescue mode, recovers the P-3 crew, reports the successful rescue of all hands, and turns around to drop the Orion crew back at Sequim Bay. There was a pallet of hard-pack ice cream waiting for the sub at Sequim Bay! It is a ~3.5 hour drive from Whidbey Island around the Puget Sound to Sequim Bay, it was less than 2 hours after the plane had gone down when they arrived at Sequim Bay. I don't know how the got that load of ice cream there in time.​
 
Last edited:
So now they're eligible foe membership of the Caterpillar Club . . .
Does the SH use Martin-Baker seats ? If so, they can join the Ejection Tie Club as well.

cheers,
Robin.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom