Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The SH pulls up and turns relatively gently at first, but then breaks hard to the left towards the SAM. Looks very much like evading to me.
Countermeasures might have been involved aswell, there might have been a lot of distance between explosion and aircraft.
 
"Mover" C.W. Lemoine thinks the pilot was unaware of the threat, he was just disengaging from the strafing run. If he was aware, he would have released flares and pulled harder.
Some questions though. Why was he unaware? Where is the wingman? An empty jet seems strange in this scenario. So could very well be a fake.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUdTu1imwkM
 
None of the U.S. 4th gen fighters in service with USN or USAF has MAWS. Since the ManPAD does not use radar guidance it is kinda hard to detect.

Best course of action is not to do straffing runs with guns. Russians get so much flak for unguided rockets/dumb bombs but this is arguably worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
siegecrossbow said:
Since the ManPAD does not use radar guidance it is kinda hard to detect.
Click to expand...

The wingman is supposed to check the area for threats while the other jet is doing the strafing. SOP.
Lack of a wingman plus empty pylons is what makes this so strange. Must have been a very important target, or a pretty big blunder. Or everything's fake.
 
It looks like the NGJ-MB pod is getting a vigorous workout over Iran on the EA-18G Growler:


A photograph released by U.S. Central Command depicted an EA-18G Growler launching from the USS Abraham Lincoln with an atypical configuration. The aircraft carried an AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pod on its left wing and an AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer–Mid Band (NGJ-MB) pod on its right—pairing legacy and next-generation systems on a single platform. This mixed load-out is not standard practice, and no official explanation has been provided for its use in this instance.​
Click to expand...
The Growler serves as the U.S. Navy’s dedicated electronic warfare platform, tasked with suppressing enemy air defenses and degrading radar systems to protect strike packages operating in contested environments. Aircraft from Electronic Attack Squadron 133 embarked aboard USS Abraham Lincoln have been actively engaged throughout Operation Epic Fury, operating in tandem with the carrier’s full air wing.​
Click to expand...
It is noteworthy here that Raytheon, a subsidiary of RTX Corporation, was awarded a $590 million follow-on contract on December 6, 2024, for continued production of the NGJ-MB pod. The program’s Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract was originally awarded in 2016, with the first test article delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2019 and initial production units entering service in July 2023.​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how the new NGJ-MB Pod in EA-18G Growler is playing a crucial role in Iran?
#defenseupdates #ea18g #usiran
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:59 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
02:33 NGJ-MB Pod OVERVIEW
04:27 CAPABLITIY
06:35 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Anyone know why the new paint??
 

Attachments

  • us-navy-f-a-18e-super-hornets-with-vfa-25-arriving-at-an-v0-7vja77wsb8hd1.jpg
    us-navy-f-a-18e-super-hornets-with-vfa-25-arriving-at-an-v0-7vja77wsb8hd1.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 149
  • VFA-25-Fist-of-the-Fleet-084.jpg
    VFA-25-Fist-of-the-Fleet-084.jpg
    235.1 KB · Views: 178
TomcatViP said:
Spring time is over but beware of that sting:
Click to expand...

Clearly the pilot had been watching way too many reruns of "Top Gun" and decided to express his inner Maverick;):D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone have figures for the maximum Wei of the individual hard points on the F-18E/F? I want to say it was something like 300#/1000#/3500#/3500#, but I cannot seem to find details in my online searches. I know I have seen a diagram that listed this before in open source.
 
I found this. Since stations 4/8 and 3/9 can carry 480 gal fuel tanks, which are about 3500 lbs, there seems to be a substantial difference between max. allowed weight and max. weapons weight.
 

Attachments

  • F-18_Super-Hornet-Block-II-Capabilities-Handbook-pdf-23.jpg
    F-18_Super-Hornet-Block-II-Capabilities-Handbook-pdf-23.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 72
Last edited by a moderator:
eagle said:
I found this. Since stations 4/8 and 3/9 can carry 480 gal fuel tanks, which are about 3500 lbs, there seems to be a substantial difference between max. allowed weight and max. weapons weight.
View attachment 820477
Click to expand...

Much obliged!!

Agree on fuel tanks…plus even the centerline is way too low for the 480 gal. I believe I have heard the F-18E/F have some kind of standing safety waiver for the centerline tank, but I thought that was due to clearance not weight restrictions. It might be that the upper limit is specifically for store ejection, since a drop tank would only be jettisoned full in the most dire situation. The airframe might not be stressed for sudden weight loss greater than the 2500-2800 mentioned in the diagram. Alternatively, maybe those are maximum bring back weight restrictions for those stations.
 
Not sure about the waiver for the center tank. Couldn't find anything about that in the manual. But there are g restrictions when flying in the 5 wet configuration.
I don't think those numbers are max bring back weights, I think those are lower. I once asked a SH pilot about the bring back weights per station. Apparently, that's classified. :D
 
I can easily see ‘bring back’ being both lower and classified; I was just grasping at straws. Could be the much more simple explanation of the image being inaccurate for whatever reason. But thanks again all the same!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom