What do you think of the F-18 Hornet

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Just for the argument - someone sent this to me today, F-18 killing an F-22...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
The Bug & Superbug ain't bad, but I'd still would've preferred the Tomcat (as much of a maintenance nightmare it is).
 
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.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Yep - just one thing, that might be a Sim shot - some of the guys here have been arguing about this all day.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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%....
Click to expand...

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)
 
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)
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
665
SaparotRob
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Howard Gibson
Grumman F-14 Tomcat. A brief history of the aircraft
Replies
0
Views
508
Dronescapes
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
860
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
507
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register