What do you think of the F-18 Hornet

[syscom3]

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]

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

Yup...

 

[carpenoctem1689]

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]

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]

Hmmm, the Hornet and the Super Hornet perhaps?

 

[syscom3]

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

Make it one or the other, not both.

 

[evangilder]

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]

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

The F18 is not an attack plane like the A6.

 

[evangilder]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[evangilder]

..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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Boy, a program from the past. The F-18L was the land based version of the F-18. It was basically an F-18 with all the heavy carrier based equipment removed, including the landing gear, and cusomized avionics. Most customers were willing to accept the addition unneeded weight for an off the shelf aircraft.

The story of the YF-17 is an interesting one. Northrop designed and built the YF-17 to replace the large number of F-5s and was in the process of selling them when the AF urged (coersed?) Northrop to wait and join the light weight fighter program the AF was kicking off. Northrop agreed. When the proposal came out, it specified the use of a single F-15 engine. Guess where that left Northrops design. Surprise, the YF-16 was selected. The Navy, which was tag along on the LWF program, insisted on a Navy contractor for its version. Northrop signed McDonald Douglas as a partner. The Navy, not wanting an AF plane and wanting two engines, backed out of the LWF and selected the YF-17 modified to Navy specs. So that's how McAir got the package.

The modification to the YF-17 to make the F-18 was both good and bad. The size was increased, especially in the fuselage width, which distorted the aerodynamics of the better designed YF-17 and lowered the top speed of the F-18. The increased size allowed more fuel and flexibility. The landing gear on the YF-17 goes into the side of the fuselage, the F-18 gear goes mostly into the belly. As a side note: When we were looking at installing the AMRAAM missile on the F-16, it was suppose to have 2 cubic feet of avionics growth space. We figured that they got that number by filling the F-16 with water and measuring how much poured out. Another interesting note. Over 100 F-16 crashed due to engine failure.