# What do you think of the F-18 Hornet



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 7, 2006)

I guess a common response is: Blue Angels. 

But in combat what do you think of it?


----------



## R988 (Apr 7, 2006)

which one? the early models ABCD or the later EF Super hornets?

Perhaps the best F/A-18 was the one they never made, the F-18L

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_9.html

Otherwise it's done a good job as a reasonably priced light attack multirole aircraft with respectable air to air ability for those who need something with a bit more reliability than an F-16 (ie twin engines, probably stronger structure due to having to take carrier landings)

An interesting read on how the RAAF came about selecting the Hornet here
http://www.boeing.com.au/YearOfHornet/History.html

This one made it back after a midair collision, so it must be able to take a fair amount of punishment


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 8, 2006)

I guess the old F-18 Hornet, not the new "Growler" super Hornet.


But you can discuss it too if you want.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2006)

The F18 is a fair enough aircraft, but compromises had to be made for it to perform bombing and fighter missions.

Remember the airframe is still a mid to late 70's design and its coming on 30 years of design age.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The F18 is a fair enough aircraft, but compromises had to be made for it to perform bombing and fighter missions.
> 
> Remember the airframe is still a mid to late 70's design and its coming on 30 years of design age.


 Agree!

I was told by some of my former navy buddies it was a great aircraft to maintain, especially when compared to the F-14


----------



## Twitch (Apr 9, 2006)

"F-18 in combat-" I guess the main thing is how can we evaluate a combat aircraft's effectiveness from its endless training excercises that has little or no real world combat immersion?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2006)

I think it is a good aircraft overall. A good eneogh replacement in the interceptor role for the F-14? Hell no!


----------



## R988 (Apr 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> "F-18 in combat-" I guess the main thing is how can we evaluate a combat aircraft's effectiveness from its endless training excercises that has little or no real world combat immersion?



Well it has seen a bit of combat actually, though nothing major except perhaps the first Gulf war.



> The F/A-18 first saw combat action in 1986, when Hornets from the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) flew SEAD missions against Libyan air defenses during the attack on Benghazi.
> 
> The F/A-18 demonstrated its versatility and reliability during Operation Desert Storm, shooting down enemy fighters and subsequently bombing enemy targets with the same aircraft on the same mission, and breaking all records for tactical aircraft in availability, reliability, and maintainability. The aircraft's survivability was proven by Hornets taking direct hits from surface-to-air missiles, recovering successfully, being repaired quickly, and flying again the next day. Two F/A-18's were lost in the Gulf War, one for reasons unknown and the second alleged to have been shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25PD. US Navy pilots Lt. Robert Dwayer (Air Wing Pilot VFA-87??) and LCDR M. Scott Speicher (VFA-81) were killed. [1] in the first hours of the air campaign. F/A-18's were credited with two kills, both of MiG-21's, during that conflict.


(summarised from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

So 2 kills, 2 losses, MiG-21s aren't much to brag about (then again most F-16 and F-15 kills weren't exactly top grade opponents either). Being shot down by a MiG25 isn't that shocking, they are fast enough to get in and take a shot with both IR and Radar missiles for an effective kill then get out using it's high speed, a rather underrated threat IMHO.

Full known combat record for F/A-18:
Libya - Operation El Dorado Canyon (USN, 1986)
Iraq - Operation Desert Storm (USN, USMC, Canada, 1991)
Iraq - Operation Southern Watch (USN, USMC, 1991-2003)
Bosnia - Operation Deliberate Force (USN, USMC, Canada, Spain, 1995)
Iraq - Operation Desert Fox (USN, 1998)
Kosovo - Operation Allied Force (USN, Canada, Spain, 1999)
Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom (USN, USMC, 2001-present)
Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom (USN, USMC, Australia, 2003-present) 

Not much aircombat but some mud moving.

It is a very well thought out aircraft design wise, very easy to maintain and repair and cheap to run, it will last 2 or 3 times longer between servicing and the servicing should only take half as long. It was one of the first aircraft to make good use of digital systems so it can be upgraded more easily and cheaply and it's cockpit is supposed to be well thought out with HOTAS and lessons learned from McDonnell Douglas' experience on the F-15, but updated of course, with lots of MFDs. When you consider that it has now basically replaced the A-6, F-4, A-4, F-14 and EA-6 that's quite remarkable, the Navy must have saved a shedload of cash from that sort of commonality alone, of course they are also compromised by trying to squeeze so many tricks out of one design, and for us enthusiasts it's a bit boring to see a carrier with virtually only one type of aircraft on it.

The F404 engine is supposed to be very good, reliable, reasonable consumption to thrust and able to be throttled back and forth without too much worry about the engine health or compressor stalls. Some of it's design features were later even added to the F101 series (F-15/F-16/F-14D) after the US Govt gave the details to P&W (to GEs obvious ). Even the JAS-39 Gripen uses the same F404 engine licence built by Volvo. 


Known Operators:
Australia (Royal Australian Air Force)
Canada (Canadian Armed Forces, Air Command)
Finland, Suomen Ilmavoimat (Finnish Air Force)
Kuwait, al-Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Kuwaitiya (Kuwaiti Air Force)
Malaysia, Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (Royal Malaysian Air Force)
Spain, Ejército del Aire Española (Spanish Air Force)
Switzerland, Schweizer Luftwaffe (Swiss Air Force)
United States (US Marine Corps)
United States (US Navy)
United States (NASA)


----------



## Twitch (Apr 11, 2006)

Exactly, the combat immesion of the F-18 is incomplete. I'm unconvinced. besdies I personally like more substantial craft like the F-14 and its systems where the F-18 is a compromise due to size.


----------



## R988 (Apr 12, 2006)

The SuperHornet is pretty big, I'd rather be a smaller target than a bigger one 

I'd prefer a dedicated interceptor/air superiority aircraft and dedicated attack aircraft though it's probably doubtful whether carriers are actually needed these days with the cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft improving all the time.

Probably cheaper to keep a bunch of long range missiles than to keep a carrier floating around, though it's imposing psychological value is probably worth something.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

I think youre right. A fighter only and a bomber only aircraft.

The biggest problem with the F18 is its lack of hard points to carry lots of bombs.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2006)

The Super Hornet has quite a bit, actually. Remember, it is an attack aircraft, not a bomber. Bombers are Air Force missions.

From Boeing's website:
The Super Hornet's versatility applies to its weapon stations and payload types:
* 11 weapon stations
* Supports a full complement of smart weapons, including laser-guided bombs
* Carries a full spectrum mix of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance

From the FAS site:


> The multi-mission F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" strike fighter is an upgrade of the combat-proven night strike F/A-18C/D. The Super Hornet will provide the battle group commander with a platform that has range, endurance, and ordnance carriage capabilities comparable to the A-6 which have been retired. The F/A-18E/F aircraft are 4.2 feet longer than earlier Hornets, have a 25% larger wing area, and carry 33% more internal fuel which will effectively increase mission range by 41% and endurance by 50%. The Super Hornet also incorporates two additional weapon stations. This allows for increased payload flexibility by mixing and matching air-to-air and/or air-to-ground ordnance. The aircraft can also carry the complete complement of "smart" weapons, including the newest joint weapons such as JDAM and JSOW.
> 
> The Super Hornet can carry approximately 17,750 pounds (8,032 kg) of external load on eleven stations. It has an all-weather air-to-air radar and a control system for accurate delivery of conventional or guided weapons. There are two wing tip stations, four inboard wing stations for fuel tanks or air-to-ground weapons, two nacelle fuselage stations for Sparrows or sensor pods, and one centerline station for fuel or air-to-ground weapons. An internal 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon is mounted in the nose.
> 
> ...



And to replace the EA-6B Prowler, the F/A-18 Growler
F/A-18G "Growler"
The EA-6B will begin retirement in the 2010 timeframe, after a career that exceeded 40 years of deployments in support of USN, USMC, and USAF strike forces. As of early 2000, Defense Department planning for replacing the EA-6B Prowler include a scheme under which the Navy would buy an F/A-18G "Growler" -- an F/A-18E/F modified for escort and close-in jamming. The Air Force would provide standoff jamming with modified EB-52s or EB-1s, and close-in jamming with unmanned air vehicles such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk or General Atomics Predator.

Sources
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/fa18/fa18ord.html


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2006)

Here is a regular Hornet, showing 4 underwing hardpoints, 2 wingtip hardpoints and a drop tank. Doesn't seem like it's lean on that to me...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

Thats six bombs. Whoop de doo!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2006)

Like I said, it's an _attack_ aircraft, not a bomber. Surely you don't think it would be one lone hornet for a strike?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2006)

Just for the argument - someone sent this to me today, F-18 killing an F-22...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2006)

I think the F-18 is a quite capable aircraft, and obviously so does that bug-driver, Joe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2006)

Yep - just one thing, that might be a Sim shot - some of the guys here have been arguing about this all day.


----------



## R988 (Apr 12, 2006)

How many bombs do you need to carry these days, it's not WW2 anymore?

Most bombs these days are guided meaning you dont need to carry loads and carpet bomb, you can hit exactly what you want.

It's at least equal to an F-16, probably equal to an A-6 as well, early model F/A-18s with drop tanks can carry the same amount as an A-7 corsair without drop tanks. 
F/A-18 has been doing a good enough job trucking bombs so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's clever placement of AIM-7 and now AIM-120s semi conformally and AIM 9 on the wing tips means it can carry credible air to air capability along with a full load of bombs.

Can carry a fair few AIM-120s if needed as well


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2006)

R988 said:


> Most bombs these days are guided


Ummm, more cluster munitions were dropped in Iraq than any other weapon....


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

The F16 was never intended or designed as a fighter bomber. The F18 was.

The more bombs an aircraft can carry, the more targets it can hit?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The more bombs an aircraft can carry, the more targets it can hit?


 Yup...


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 12, 2006)

An f-18 can carry more than one bomb on one hardpoint. ive seen pictures of one, fully loaded, carrying 3 250lb or 500lb bombs on one hardpoint. only problem is all three would need to be dropped at once, and this would most likely be uselful only against airfields or buildings, which is sort of what a fighter-bomber is for. Light strike/penetration missions, able to fight its way out. But it, as was also stated, can carry guided munitions as well. Hoping it can carry JDAM, because those are much cheaper when compared to other guided munitions.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

The navy needs a dedicated attack bomber. Even if it means tweaking or modifying the Hornet to do it. There should be a dedicated Hornet model only for air defense, and a model only for attack.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2006)

Hmmm, the Hornet and the Super Hornet perhaps?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The Hornet is a fighter bomber. The Super hornet is a fighter bomber.

Make it one or the other, not both.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2006)

I know that. My point is that it is a fighter/attack aircraft, not a fighter/bomber. There are differences. Like I said before, bombing is the job of the Air Force, they have the big land-based airplanes that can fly long distances to pummel the shit out of something.

The Navy needs an aircraft that can defend the fleet and provide ground support and strike missions. The Hornet fits the bill. If you have an airplane that does both, then you have effectively doubled your fighter force, or your attack force. Plus now you only need spares for one aircraft. The days of unlimited cold war spending are over.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The F18 is not a fleet defense fighter like the F14.

The F18 is not an attack plane like the A6.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2006)

But it is a different mission than during the cold war. Threats to ships in the fleet are not as much from aircraft anymore. They are more threatened by missiles and small gunboats. Granted the F-14 had a better air to air system, but when was the last time an F-14 had to be sent up to protect a carrier task force from incoming aircraft?

The A-6 was effectively removed from service in 1997. The max payload of the A-6 was 18,000 lbs. The normal Hornet is 15,500 lbs and the Super Hornet has a max payload of 17,750 lbs. Plus the Super Hornet has a top speed almost twice the Intruder and has a longer range with a combat payload.

This isn't the cold war anymore. The missions have changed and the Hornet is a capable plane that is much more cost effective than maintaining the A-6 and the F-14.


----------



## R988 (Apr 13, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> An f-18 can carry more than one bomb on one hardpoint. ive seen pictures of one, fully loaded, carrying 3 250lb or 500lb bombs on one hardpoint. only problem is all three would need to be dropped at once, and this would most likely be uselful only against airfields or buildings, which is sort of what a fighter-bomber is for. Light strike/penetration missions, able to fight its way out. But it, as was also stated, can carry guided munitions as well. Hoping it can carry JDAM, because those are much cheaper when compared to other guided munitions.



Yes I have seen those pictures as well, and yes it can carry JDAM.


----------



## R988 (Apr 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The F16 was never intended or designed as a fighter bomber. The F18 was.
> 
> The more bombs an aircraft can carry, the more targets it can hit?



Actually they both grew out of the light fighter competition so neither was originally intended for attack, both were modified in later versions (more so in the F/A-18 case).

The F-14 was also turned into a credible bomber as well (the so called 'bombcat') after the end of the cold war, as effectively it's mission of intercepting Soviet bombers at long range barely exists anymore so they needed to get more use out of it. 

The world has changed since the last war, these days the military effort is heavily directed towards counter insurgency since there really isn't a military that can go head to head with the US in a conventional war and this is where the threat lies. 



lesofprimus said:


> Ummm, more cluster munitions were dropped in Iraq than any other weapon....



In the first gulf war it was something like 80% unguided and 20% guided munitions, in the second its was 80% guided and 20% unguided, at least according to news reports I have heard (I doubt the figures are accurate, but the fact they use more guided munitions this time around is no real secret, how many bombs do you need to take out a terrorist vehicle or sniper? You only have so much loiter time. 
They may as well use a B-52 as a mobile bomb rack, as there is pretty much no air opposition in Iraq or Afghanistan, it can stay on station for ages and drop a suprise or two on to the insurgents below. Even better use unmanned drones with hellfires, like they are doing now in a limited capacity with good effect.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The F18 was reworked in order to make it also a fighter bomber. The F16 was primarily (and still is) an air-to-ait fighter, with a bonus of it being able to carry some bombs.

The F18's wing needs heavy structural strengthening in order to carry bombs on its hardpoints. This add's unnecessary weight when its just in the "fighter" mode.

I would say we need an F18 model in the pure fighter mode by NOT having those heavy hard points on the wings, plus a new avionics suite more in the mode of the Phoenix. No more "multimode" radar stuff. Just a pure air intercept radar and avionics.

Evans, the threat of supersonic cruise missles is very real. The technology for it is cheap, and the Russians and Chinese dont care who they sell it to. If anything, the need for the F18 fighter has gone down with the need for the F14 has gone up.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2006)

But the question remains is whether or not the F-14 could intercept, target and shoot down the missile. That is also assuming that the F-14 is in the air when the threat is picked up, if it is at all. Missiles flying just above the sea at supersonic speeds are going to be very difficult to counter, regardless of the aircraft that is sent to intercept. A better idea might be an unmanned "kamikaze" type craft that would crash into the missile, or get in it's path to take it down.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The F14 was designed to engage incoming cruise missles (and bombers too, if they could be spotted)


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2006)

..if they could be spotted... Plus when the F-14 was designed for that, the missiles were not supersonic, or at least not the speed that they travel now.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2006)

I would have thought that the chances of being in the right place at the right time to shoot down a supersonic sea skimming missile are slim at best whatever your flying.
Even if you did shooting it down would not be easy given the speeds involved, I am afraid you would have to rely on the point defence systems on board the ship.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The Phoenix radar system was designed for the look down/shoot down roll. A missle skimming over the water is actually far easier to spot on radar than when its traveling over the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2006)

For todays world the F/A-18 will serve well. Despite the advantages with the F-14, it was costing more and more to operate and it was becoming a maintenance nightmare, one of the reasons cited for its retirement. As stated previously, many F-14 maintainers I met while in the USNR eventually hated the Tomcat because so many things were going wrong with it...

The exact different story with the Hornet guys....

What good is a Tomcat when your FMC rate (Fully Mission Capable) is between 50 and 65% - I think the Hornets rates are in the 80s%....


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

Flyboy, I agree. But the cost of converting the F18 to a pure fleet defense fighter is actually minimal compared to the scheme of things. All you need is a half dozen per carrier set up with pure air to air capability "with nary a pound for the ground".

There is no technological reason why a Phoenix avionics sytem cant be updated and installed in the F18.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

R988 said:


> which one? the early models ABCD or the later EF Super hornets?
> 
> Perhaps the best F/A-18 was the one they never made, the F-18L
> 
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, I agree. But the cost of converting the F18 to a pure fleet defense fighter is actually minimal compared to the scheme of things. All you need is a half dozen per carrier set up with pure air to air capability "with nary a pound for the ground".
> 
> There is no technological reason why a Phoenix avionics sytem cant be updated and installed in the F18.



I believe the Phoenix installation is about 2000 lbs per weapon. That will bog a fighter down fast. There should be no reason the F-18 couldn't carry the Phoenix. There does't seem to be a desire to do so.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just for the argument - someone sent this to me today, F-18 killing an F-22...



183 IAS, .37 Mach?? Were they practicing attacking the F-22 on final?? With variable nozzle and lots more power, the F-22 would change this position in less than a heart beat. The F-18 might get in a passing shot but I doubt it would get many.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2006)

davparlr said:


> 183 IAS, .37 Mach?? Were they practicing attacking the F-22 on final?? With variable nozzle and lots more power, the F-22 would change this position in less than a heart beat. The F-18 might get in a passing shot but I doubt it would get many.


 Mach .37 indicated at 15,000 feet is 232 knots, factor a standard lapse rate and the OAT is -21F. TAS at -21F is 301 knots - that's not unreasonable for a dogfight - but remember, once you're in that pipper, you're dead!


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Mach .37 indicated at 15,000 feet is 232 knots, factor a standard lapse rate and the OAT is -21F. TAS at -21F is 301 knots - that's not unreasonable for a dogfight - but remember, once you're in that pipper, you're dead!



Well, many a great plane has been shot down by much lower performing aircraft by chance encounter. If you examine the HUD you will notice that the F-22 is flying horizontally across the nose of the F-18. The F-18 was not maneuvering with the F-22 but rather crossing paths. Also note that he aoa was 18 degrees which tends to indicate he was pulling nose up, crossing at 90 degrees. Can't make out g load. They may have been in a fuzz ball. In any event, I would say that the F-22 pilot broke across the flight path of the F-18 and the F-18 pilot saw this, pull his nose up while the gun was egaged and made a lucky catch of the intersection. This is one frame of a video. No evaluation of performance of the F-18 verses the F-22 can be made with out the rest of the video. I would be very surprised if there was a portion of the F-18 envelope that the F-22 was not clearly superior, except maybe roll rate.

Airplanes do no fly on TAS rather IAS or CAS. This plane is showing 183 IAS, possibly 201 Calibrated. I've never flown in combat simulation (or any other kind of combat) but this still seem unusally slow.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Phoenix radar system was designed for the look down/shoot down roll. A missle skimming over the water is actually far easier to spot on radar than when its traveling over the ground.


True but spotting is one thing and shooting down another. The 15 seconds it could easily take to get your missile locked on and fired is another 5 miles to the target to the sea skimmer and then its a deadly race. 

Unless the Phoenix is in the right place, its a race the Phoenix is going to lose.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2006)

So we have the F18 out cruising around at the peripheries looking for cruise missles. I never said anything about the Hornet to be a point blank defense system


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Well, many a great plane has been shot down by much lower performing aircraft by chance encounter. If you examine the HUD you will notice that the F-22 is flying horizontally across the nose of the F-18. The F-18 was not maneuvering with the F-22 but rather crossing paths. Also note that he aoa was 18 degrees which tends to indicate he was pulling nose up, crossing at 90 degrees. Can't make out g load. They may have been in a fuzz ball. In any event, I would say that the F-22 pilot broke across the flight path of the F-18 and the F-18 pilot saw this, pull his nose up while the gun was egaged and made a lucky catch of the intersection. This is one frame of a video. No evaluation of performance of the F-18 verses the F-22 can be made with out the rest of the video. I would be very surprised if there was a portion of the F-18 envelope that the F-22 was not clearly superior, except maybe roll rate.
> 
> Airplanes do no fly on TAS rather IAS or CAS. This plane is showing 183 IAS, possibly 201 Calibrated. I've never flown in combat simulation (or any other kind of combat) but this still seem unusally slow.


 Its hard to speculate because we don't know where the engagement was prior to this shot - the airspeed is slow and I'm aware that IAS is is the operating norm (I got a few hours in jets doing simulated combat). The point here (if this shot is even real) is no complicated aircraft is invincible and there will always be "the lucky BB" and of course pilot skill and optimizing the equipment to the fullest.

More importantly I think this also shows that the F-18 still has plenty of fight left in her even if this was a lucky shot.....


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Its hard to speculate because we don't know where the engagement was prior to this shot - the airspeed is slow and I'm aware that IAS is is the operating norm (I got a few hours in jets doing simulated combat). The point here (if this shot is even real) is no complicated aircraft is invincible and there will always be "the lucky BB" and of course pilot skill and optimizing the equipment to the fullest.
> 
> More importantly I think this also shows that the F-18 still has plenty of fight left in her even if this was a lucky shot.....



You've got it all right! The F-18 along with the F-15, with their weapons and support, and most of all their pilots, will continue to fearlessly dominate the airspace for many years to come. Training and determination have trumped many aerodynamicaly superior aircraft. Even when the F-22 and F-35 are fully operational, these will be fearfull weapons.


----------



## Razgriz1 (Jul 30, 2017)

The Bug & Superbug ain't bad, but I'd still would've preferred the Tomcat (as much of a maintenance nightmare it is).


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 30, 2017)

The F-18 is, as is the much-abused F-35, an Aircraft for Everyone. I'm old enough to remember some rather scathing letters and opinion pieces, from naval aviators from the fast-jet community, published in the USNI's _Proceedings_ that were highly critical of the aircraft, considering it a total waste of money: it could neither bomb as well as an A-7 nor fight as well as an F-14 and it even couldn't use some of the smaller carriers that the F-14 could.

For the Navy, in its current strategic situation -- where there is no probability of massed bomber attacks on USN carrier groups on the high seas and the basic role is bombing countries with weak air defense systems -- the F-18 is more than adequate: it can outfight any fighter operated by countries being dealt. Unfortunately, the DoD doesn't seem to be considering a potential need to fight a major adversary, possibly because they all have massive nuclear arsenals and the results of that kind of conflict are, at best, likely to be national suicide. For one thing, I think saner people would not want an experiment to test the validity of the nuclear winter hypothesis by losing about 30% of the US population.


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 23, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - just one thing, that might be a Sim shot - some of the guys here have been arguing about this all day.


My money's on the F-22 oxy system going tits up... again.... and the driver passed out. That's about the only way I can see that!

Just kidding of course.


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 23, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What good is a Tomcat when your FMC rate (Fully Mission Capable) is between 50 and 65% - I think the Hornets rates are in the 80s%....



A little OT, but if what you say is true, then what good are B-52's, B-1's, C-5's (and etc) that have similar to lower FMC rates. The vast majority of B-52's are in an almost permanent PMC status. (for differing reasons)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> A little OT, but if what you say is true, then what good are B-52's, B-1's, C-5's (and etc) that have similar to lower FMC rates. The vast majority of B-52's are in an almost permanent PMC status. (for differing reasons)



Keep in mind that some of those low MC/FMC rates are actually deemed acceptable. This was put out last year but I doubt its changed much.

"the venerable B-52 bomber has a 72 percent up rate"

Which aircraft are most mission ready


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 24, 2017)

The smaller the fleet, the greater the pressure for high MC/FMV rates in order to maximize the available force, hence the rather more challenging MC/FMC rates for F-22 and F-35.


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 24, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Keep in mind that some of those low MC/FMC rates are actually deemed acceptable. This was put out last year but I doubt its changed much.
> 
> "the venerable B-52 bomber has a 72 percent up rate"
> 
> Which aircraft are most mission ready



I read that article. The most laughable element of that piece was the suggestion that from the top all the way down to the mechanic turning the wrenches "it's safe, by the book maintenance". That is broken so frequently (by "the top") that it renders the phrase by the book meaningless. The pressures (especially under high tempo ops) is so great that by the book is often tossed aside for expediency. Numbers being more important it seems... Sorry, OT I know.

That "up rate" of 72 percent includes the PMC aircraft I mentioned. Still admittedly a good rate for aircraft that old. And you are correct about the low MC rates being acceptable for some aircraft. C-5's being the ones I can personally attest to.

I recall working with KC-135's in a couple a theaters. They would scramble 4 or 5 airframes to ensure 2 made the rendezvous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 24, 2017)

KC-135: Wow!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 24, 2017)

I actually have a cousin who flies Super Hornets for the "Fighting 103". Never spoke to him about it though. Last time I saw him he was knee high to a grasshopper! 

VFA-103 JOLLY ROGERS


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 24, 2017)

The OP's question, "[w]hat do you think of the F-18 Hornet" can have a million right answers, because somebody can think it sucks because of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with its utility, like they don't like that it has a high wing or twin tails or doesn't have a canard. What's important is that it seems to be completely adequate for its current missions, with acceptable warload, weapons effectiveness, acceptably low maintenance requirements and acceptably high mission-readiness and reliability. Is it perfect? Well, of course not: perfect aircraft don't exist. Are there better aircraft out there? Depending on criteria and limiting the pool to aircraft with similar roles (this would include other fighter/attack aircraft, like the F-16 or Gripen), the answer is "probably," dependent on criteria.


----------

