Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

I had always wondered about the F-35/F/A-XX mix one being fifth gen and the other being sixth gen, I suppose that we will just have to wait and see what the US Navy does with the future force structure.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I believe the logistics of running two fighter types on a single carrier would be wxorbitent and unfavourable tbh. Why do it?
Click to expand...

Previous to the superbugs there often were several types of fighter/attack/bomber aircraft, as well as dedicated tanker and ASW types. A 1980s CVW operated at least five distinct airframes, even counting E-2/C-2 and EA-6/A-6 as the same thing.
 
FighterJock said:
I had always wondered about the F-35/F/A-XX mix one being fifth gen and the other being sixth gen, I suppose that we will just have to wait and see what the US Navy does with the future force structure.
Click to expand...

I think UAVs will fill in any blanks around the FAXX and F-35.
 
Josh_TN said:
Previous to the superbugs there often were several types of fighter/attack/bomber aircraft, as well as dedicated tanker and ASW types. A 1980s CVW operated at least five distinct airframes, even counting E-2/C-2 and EA-6/A-6 as the same thing.
Click to expand...
I get that but development costs are through the roof, where is the logic in doing something just because it was done in the past? It is unsustainable.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I get that but development costs are through the roof, where is the logic in doing something just because it was done in the past? It is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

I agree; there will only be 1-2 manned fighter/strike types going forward. Multirole aircraft make anything else pointless. But I suspect there will be a lot more variation in the UAV complement.
 
Unless there is a paradigm shift in naval warfare in the coming decades (such a shift is very possible), I can foresee the generation of naval tactical aviation after F/A-XX and F-35C to be consolidated under one type of manned multirole aircraft, while variation can be found in the supporting CCA UCAVs.

Single-mission tactical aviation as a whole is a fading breed. Even the F-22, which was initially designed as an uncompromised air superiority fighter, is now multirole and its strike capabilities were being developed even during the 1990s.
 
I agree too that the era of not a pound for air to ground made famous by the F-15 is well and truly over.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Unless there is a paradigm shift in naval warfare in the coming decades (such a shift is very possible), I can foresee the generation of naval tactical aviation after F/A-XX and F-35C to be consolidated under one type of manned multirole aircraft, while variation can be found in the supporting CCA UCAVs.

Single-mission tactical aviation as a whole is a fading breed. Even the F-22, which was initially designed as an uncompromised air superiority fighter, is now multirole and its strike capabilities were being developed even during the 1990s.
Click to expand...

FighterJock said:
I agree too that the era of not a pound for air to ground made famous by the F-15 is well and truly over.
Click to expand...
It never actually existed, Raptor was a stop gap for the F-117 but it probably has less equivalent ground attack then the F-15 did in the 70s and 80s.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1170.jpeg
    IMG_1170.jpeg
    72.2 KB · Views: 103
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The F/A-18A-D Hornet replacement is the F-35C, while the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement is the F/A-XX.
Click to expand...

That was the plan. But the last frontline USN legacy Hornet squadron transitioned to the Super Hornet in February 2019. Way before the first F-35C squadron deployed in August 2021. So in effect, due to delays in the F-35 program, the Super Hornet replaced the F-14 first, then the F/A-18A-D.
 
GregoryUSSR said:
That's interesting. In the movie "Under Siege" if the decision to destroy the battleship "Missouri" by aviation would still be made. Could an F-18 squadron sink a captured battleship? There are no torpedoes. There are no armor-piercing bombs. Only rockets, high-explosive and concrete-piercing bombs. Although I'm not sure about the latter.
Click to expand...
"Quicksink" fuzes, let the bomb detonate under the keel. Not as good as a heavyweight torpedo, but still reasonably effective.
 
Few more items on early F/A-18E.
 

Attachments

  • 20231126_151455.jpg
    20231126_151455.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 90
  • 20231126_151653.jpg
    20231126_151653.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 91
  • 20231126_151738.jpg
    20231126_151738.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 95
  • 20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    4.5 MB · Views: 91
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 71
  • 2 (2).jpg
    2 (2).jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 58
I wonder if retaining the original LERX layout of the Legacy Hornets would have negated the need to the canted weapons pylons? The larger square intakes might have a bigger impact on the airflow in that region though, so perhaps not.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
I wonder if retaining the original LERX layout of the Legacy Hornets would have negated the need to the canted weapons pylons? The larger square intakes might have a bigger impact on the airflow in that region though, so perhaps not.
Click to expand...
The material RAP posted just above your post says the LERX was widened because the narrow LERX did not provide enough lift in high angle-of-attack maneuvers (such as air-air combat) for proper control.

So unless the Super Hornet is de-rated to an attack-only bird, the wide LERX has to stay.
 
From what I remember the pylons were canted due to some computer modeling showed that certain stores configurations could impact the airframe when released, however that computer model had not been around at the time of the first Hornet testing so later after the the airframes were being built with canted pylons someone thought to run the A-D airframe in the program and the computer showed the same potential issue, one that never happened in the operational life of the 1st gen Hornet. I think Boeing even asked the Navy if they wanted to redo the pylons but the Navy passed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom