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: 198
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: 178
  • 20231126_151653.jpg
    20231126_151653.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 156
  • 20231126_151738.jpg
    20231126_151738.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 158
  • 20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    20231126_152412 copy.jpg
    4.5 MB · Views: 156
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 120
  • 2 (2).jpg
    2 (2).jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 111
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:
Boeing is buying the GKN factory in St Louis that manufactured parts for the F-18 and F-15. GKN had threatened to shut the plant down at the end of this year (before the completion of the last orders for the aircraft) due to the contract being loss making, Boeing had been suing GKN for breach of contract to try and keep the plant open but has decided to take on the plant itself instead. 550 out of 600 staff are immediately transferred to Boeing while around 50 have taken retirement or decided to seek employment elsewhere.

breakingdefense.com

Boeing buys GKN factory, ending dispute over F-15, F/A-18 parts - Breaking Defense

Through the deal, Boeing’s litigation with supplier GKN Aerospace will be dropped, and the aerospace giant will take possession of a St. Louis-area factory it used to own.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Is not the F-18E/F capable of carrying a dozen or so AIM-120? I thought two could be carried underneath each of the four inner pylon stations, though typically drop tanks would be carried on the innermost set.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is not the F-18E/F capable of carrying a dozen or so AIM-120? I thought two could be carried underneath each of the four inner pylon stations, though typically drop tanks would be carried on the innermost set.
Click to expand...

Physically possible? Probably. Here is a NAVAIR slide from back when the Super Hornet was first being rolled out, definitely showing 12 AMRAAM plus 2 AIM-9.

1715174659237.png

And a very old image that might have Sparrows instead of AMRAAM on the outer stations?

1715175637811.png But in practice, it never seems to be done. Even the loadouts in that article show the inner stations empty rather than fitted with either drop tanks or missiles.

The expansion of the carriage for AIM-9X might have to do with cost or target set, rather than increasing the number of missiles (Especially with them adding AIM-9X to the Growler, which can already carry a bunch of AMRAAM if need be. Seems like there might be drones out there that are easier or at least cheaper to engage with Sidewinder.
 
Yeah I think the just like the photo of the original hornet wearing ten AIM-120 it was just a one time photo op. I just meant 9 AAMs hardly seems to be the physical upper limit.
 
The Super Hornet always had the theoretical capability to carry the AIM-9 on stations other than the wingtip ones. It just seems to have been a capability that wasn't used until recently.

The original Hornet on some rare occasions did carry AIM-9s on twin missile racks on stations 2 and 8, so theoretically the Super Hornet should have that same ability (using stations 3 and 9 in that case). It would probably take some more certification as this latest loadout may have required before they started flying sorties with that loadout.

This chart from some earlier days isn't entirely accurate but gives a general idea.

1715191408610.png
 
Going back to the older articles about this from April, it sounds like the 2/10 stations were never actually cleared for AIM-9, despite the PowerPoint engineering, and they've done that as a crash program.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Going back to the older articles about this from April, it sounds like the 3/9 stations were never actually cleared for AIM-9, despite the PowerPoint engineering, and they've done that as a crash program.
Click to expand...
I assume this means having the air test and evaluation guys fire off some shots to prove there are no separation issues?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I assume this means having the air test and evaluation guys fire off some shots to prove there are no separation issues?
Click to expand...

Something like that. Turns out the Growler already was cleared, but only for the RAAF, so that was probably just a paper drill for the USN. Maybe one or two separation tests for the E/F just to make sure nothing weird happens.
 
Where does the Super Hornet hide the towed decoy when not in use? Does the Growler EA 18g also have it?
 
Either mounted alone in a cannister on a wing pylon, or inside the rear of a pylon mounted ALQ-184 Electronic Warfare Pod.
Eurofighter has a towed decoy in its right wingtip.
F-35 it emerges from a flush panel in the right underside of the fuselage near the engine.
Rafael it has a dispenser built into the underside of the wing near the wingtip on either one or both wings.
 
Last edited:
Lc89 said:
Where does the Super Hornet hide the towed decoy when not in use? Does the Growler EA 18g also have it?
Click to expand...
WatcherZero said:
Either mounted alone in a cannister on a wing pylon, or inside the rear of an ALQ-184 Electronic Warfare Pod.
Click to expand...

That's right for the F-16.

The F/A-18 does things differently. There's a removable ALE-50 triple launcher scabbed on between the main landing gear doors. It can be hard to see in pictures but the image below includes one. The Growler apparently does not use it.

1715882288882.png

Calling on Super Hornet Experts

Can someone explain what this protrusion is between the main landing gear bays that shows up on the Revell Super Hornet but not the Hasegawa? Here are real-world examples with and without the fairing. Is it something to do with the ECS system? Are the different configurations specific to certain ...
www.arcforums.com www.arcforums.com
 
I think the difference is that F-18E/F uses ALE-55, not 50 like F-16 and some other USAF aircraft (B-1?). The -55 has a fiber optic tow line that connects it to an waveform generator on the aircraft, where as I believe ALE-50 is a stand alone counter measure.
 
The first F/A-18E (BuNo 165164) is now at the Museum of Transportation here in the St. Louis area and like a large plastic model kit, is being reassembled for display. Apparently Boeing, persuaded by local Boewing retirees from the program, spearhaded its move here. Looking forward to seeing it restored and in fresh paint on display.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMG_6636.jpg
    zMG_6636.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 74
  • zMG_6633.jpg
    zMG_6633.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 55
  • zMG_6631.jpg
    zMG_6631.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 57
  • zMG_6629.jpg
    zMG_6629.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 51
  • zMG_6627.jpg
    zMG_6627.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 46
  • zMG_6637.jpg
    zMG_6637.jpg
    710.7 KB · Views: 63
Josh_TN said:
I think the difference is that F-18E/F uses ALE-55, not 50 like F-16 and some other USAF aircraft (B-1?). The -55 has a fiber optic tow line that connects it to an waveform generator on the aircraft, where as I believe ALE-50 is a stand alone counter measure.
Click to expand...

Super Hornet uses both, it seems, at least as of 2019:

www.militaryaerospace.com

Raytheon to demonstrate electronic warfare (EW) towed decoy aircraft protection from radar-guided missiles

Raytheon joins BAE Systems to use existing technologies in protecting aircraft from radar-guided missiles that operate on two separate frequencies.
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Super Hornets Now Flying With Nine Air-To-Air Missiles To Counter Houthi Drones

Thanks to a recent upgrade, five AIM-120s, four AIM-9Xs and an ATFLIR pod offer considerable ‘magazine depth’ for tackling Houthi drones.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
www.twz.com

EA-18G Growler Killed A Houthi Mi-24 Hind With An AGM-88E Anti-Radiation Missile

The Navy has confirmed our suspicions that an EA-18G Growler used an AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile to destroy an Mi-24 Hind.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom