Jump to content

Talk:Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

EA-18G "Growler"

The U.S. Navy is working on replacing its EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare platform with an F/A-18F aircraft modified to carry the Prowler's jammer pods. Aerodyamic compatibility tests have been completed at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, California, and work on the aircraft modifications, including RF receivers, mission computers, and communications cabling, continues. --MWS 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Fine. We already mention it here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

VX-23 at NAS Pax has two F models already converted to Growler specs.--NavyAO2(AW) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have started an article for the Growler at Talk:EA-18 Growler. Any assistance would be welcome, especially if you have a photo of the actual aircraft. Thanks. --BillCJ 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

Should the article not be F/A-18 Super Hornet as opposed to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Much tidier and closer to MOS? The related article isn't titled F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet! Mark83 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The naming scheme is a mess. The F/A-18 refers to the Hornet A/B/C/D version. Only the E/F versions are designated Super Hornet, so I believe the current scheme is correct. Moreover, it's also what the Navy calls it. [1] --Mmx1 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. Its clear from what I wrote that A/B/C/D=Hornet & E/F=Super Hornet. The point I was trying to raise is that the F/A-18 Hornet article doesn't include the designators while the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article does. What I'm proposing is consistency, either
The title comes from the forumula "Designation Popular Name". The designation for the vanilla Hornet is just F-18, so the title is "F-18 Hornet". The base designation for the Super Hornet not F-18, but the clunky F-18E/F, to distinguish it from the F-18. In Navy literature it is referred to as the F-18E/F where the vanilla Hornet would be referred to as F-18.
Is it consistent? No. Is it clearer? Yes. Here, clarity and official nomenclature trumps consistency. Blame the idiots who decided it was worth continuing the A/B/C/D designation series for a wholly new airframe. --Mmx1 04:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair comments Mark83 12:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Reportedly the correct designation for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was F-24A/B (or F/A-24A/B). The old designation was kept to simplify the procedures in Congress and Pentagon (requirements being more strict for the totally new aircraft than for new versions of existing ones). Jacek Z. Poland 10:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I work on both, we refer to them as Super Hornets and when referring to F/A-18A/D we say "Legacy" --NavyAO2(AW) 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I fly the Rhino. When we refer to the F/A-18 A/D we say "JV Hornet" :)

"JV"? That's just disrepectful. ;) The E+'s weren't even a glint in the Navy's eye when I worked on 18's. When we heard about a squadron somewhere else flying 18's, it was commonly qualified with "A" or "C". For example, "We're sending 4 planes to CAX and we'll be sharing space with VMFA-???. They just got some brand new 'C's, so don't count on sharing too many parts." I don't recall ever hearing them referred to as "Hornet", except by pilots, or when talking to pilots to avoid confusing them. ;) --JJLatWiki 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article title is consistent with F-15E Strike Eagle. Iceberg3k 14:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

JV Hornet Eh? Is that why the Super flies around with it's pylon's canted outward like a girl walking? Wonder how much less drag you could be flying around with if the Navy had been willing to pay to correct that little engineering mistake?Stanleywinthrop 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What your article fails to mention is the fact that Boeing engineers later found another fix to the weapons seperation problem other than the cant, and they could have redesigned the airplane with straight pylons, but the Navy didn't want to spend the money for the redisign. And the article doesn't debunk the fact that the cant creates alot of extra drag which is, in effect, needless because Boeing found another fix. You've misinterpreted the article because the problem was not with weapons carriage, but with release. The Super is good airplane, and is an improvement over the legacy Hornet in the key areas of Avionics, Payload, Range, and Endurance, but is not a signifigant improvement in performance. There is no doubt the Navy needed it to replace the tomcat.Stanleywinthrop 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

4 degrees on 2 or more 330 gallon fuel tanks or 2000lb MK 84s will add a lot of extra drag.Stanleywinthrop 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you an aerodynamics engineer? Your 3/8's of an inch can make quite a bit of difference in a 600 knot airstream. The cant creates uneven airflow around the tank or bomb, which creates a corresponding low pressure area on the outer portion, which creates an increased drag.Stanleywinthrop 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Engineer. I haven't said it won't make a difference, just not "alot". Your example is not possible as the outboard pylons are not plumbed for tanks and have a lower load capability. -Fnlayson 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The super can carry tanks on the 2 inner wing pylons and the centerline pylon, therefore it can carry 5 tanks total. The four possible wing tanks/and or any combination of bombs it might carry are where the extra drag comes from Stanleywinthrop 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Continue like this, and in 1.000.000 years we might find out who's smarter...--Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

max speed

haha, ok, who's the joker that put the max speed at mach 2.5?

even an official website (http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/superhornet/superhornet.html) only claims mach 1.8+

NOTHING on the web supports M2.5

the superbug MIGHT hit M2.5 . . . if it's in a dive . . . while firing JATO units

I've seen hud tape showing over 2.2 with a relatively clean bird in a shallow dive. I bet a totally clean Blue Angel (glossy paint) in a steeper dive could do 2.5. Then again, a combat loaded 18 probably can't do 1.8 straight and level. --JJLatWiki 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Without variable intakes "naturally aspirated" speeds above mach 2 are largely impossible for the hornet. That is, straight and level in any configuration. The engines simply can't handle all that airflow. I'm certain there's some expert on the subject around here who can explain better. JaderVason 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Boeing specs ( see ref # 37 ) show max mach at 1.6 ELPusa 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why am I not allowed to add an image of a Super Bug from VFA-115?

Feel free to add a new image if it's proper sourced and licensed. Please check Commons first, maybe there's already an image for your purpose. --Denniss 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

More nicknames

Ok folks, where do these go??

SUPER HORNET NICKNAMES 15th June 2004, 02:34 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PkOaZlX-nOcJ:forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php%3Ft-27005.html+kress+tomcat+hornet&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a AFAIF F-14 will be kept till 2008 before it is replaced by all Sewer Hornets Super Borenet anyone? Be the best damn tanker in the fleet too someday... well the only tanker anyway. I bet the Subpar Hornet is better than the 1950's F3D-2 :)

--matador300 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo of EA-18G

Does anyone have a public domain photo of the 'EA-18G Growler that we can use? Thanks. -- BillCJ 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that work? Found unattributed on a US Congressman's web page. --JJLatWiki 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It works for me. If we find an aerial shot, that would be good also. I still need to expand the text, but with this pic, the EA-18G Growler article is almost ready! Then all I'll need is a consensus to post it, and take out most of the EA-18 info here. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

EA-18G article

I have finished the basic work on the EA-18G Growler article. Please take a look here, and give any suggestions you may have, or make changes where necessary. The text is still fairly basic at this time, but we now have two pics. (Thanks!) I plan on replacing the Growler portion of this article with the short paragraph from the F/A-18 Hornet article, and leaving one pic here also. I'm not planning to move it to the full page without some sort of review and consensus first. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added Split-section tags to the article, in preparation for the move, and for comments on the EA-18G article itself. - BillCJ 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I say split it off, the new article looks fine to me. Probably better than my EF-111A Raven split. My only question is that the armament and specs section looks like it was copied and maybe needs to be trimmed down or adjusted. I have no specifics but I would assume the weaponry would be limited to ARM type weapons and the wingtip sidewinders probably won't work with the pods. It might be advisable to note where the specs came from, if they were copied from E/F Super Hornet or if they are adjusted specifically for the EA-18. --Dual Freq 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the specs were copied from the E/F, Though I did remember to remove the gun. I'm still trying to nail down specifics on what it will carry. One of the selling points used by MD/Boeing for the aircraft was that it could still perform most of the E/F-type combat missions, especially air-to-air self-escorting. Whether the Navy has bought all that capability remains to be seen. For now, I'll cut it down to ARMs and Sidewinders (not on the tips) till we find something more conclusive. - BillCJ 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is from GlobalSecurity.org's website on the EA-18G:

The EA-18 was the only alternative to the EA-6B based on a derivative from an in-production, aircraft carrier adept aircraft. It has the basic tactical capabilities of the F/A-18F Super Hornet coupled with the enhanced electronic attack capability of the ICAP III Prowler. The EA-18 will eliminate the type model series airplane off the flight deck. The configuration of the airplane in terms of capability will be equivalent to what is anticipated in the EA-6B with ICAP III installed, and a concentration on the LR-700 receiver, which will allow tracking of threats. Instead of pre-emptive jamming it will provide selective reactive jamming.
The airplane, though dedicated to the electronic attack mission, can be changed from an EA back to an 'F' with relative ease and vice versa. It allows flexibility on the flight deck. You can use up a certain portion of the life of the airplane flying it as an electronic attack airplane, and then shift missions, and use another section as a fighter. There is certainly a big difference in fighting Iraq with a strong intergraded jamming system compared to fighting in Afghanistan.
The EA-18 will retain everything in it that the F/A-18F Super Hornet has today with two exceptions. The wing tip stations will have receiving antennas. The gun will be replaced with avionics boxes containing the LR-700 receiver and satellite communications, which interface with the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods. The EA-18 is based on the two-seat F/A-18F with the Block 2 avionics upgrades, including active-array radar and advanced rear crew station, already under development for the Super Hornet. [3]

But again, as to what it will actually carry, I don't know yet. - BillCJ 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the EA-18G section keeps getting added to (not a bad thing in and of itself), but that makes it harder to keep my proposed article updated. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, I am proceeding with posting the new article at EA-18 Growler. Don't worry, I'm keeping the new additions made today. - BillCJ 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Australian Possible Use

Does the possible/definate buying/hiring of the super hornet need to be included Noshpit 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of the Super Hornet being considered by the RAAF. DO you yave sources for this? Otherwise it's pure speculation, and can't go in the article. - BillCJ 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a done deal, but there is certain logic to it, with the RAAF still flying 30 year old F-111s, the JSF only just making its first flight:
DEFENCE Minister Brendan Nelson intends to ram through a $3 billion purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, amid concerns Australia may lack a fully deployable air combat capability early next decade.
Dr Nelson has accelerated plans to buy the upgraded Hornets through a US Defence Department purchase from the US navy.
[...]
The decision to buy an expensive interim fighter will generate a major rethink of the 2006-16 defence capability plan, with the prospect of a cut in the 100-strong Joint Strike Fighter fleet planned for the RAAF.
Senior defence sources said Dr Nelson wanted to run no risk of an air combat capability gap, with the F-111 strike force due to retire in 2010.
A key concern is that the Joint Strike Fighter, destined to become the RAAF's new frontline combat aircraft, may be subject to congressional budget cuts, leading to production delays.
On current plans, the first JSF squadron will enter operational service in Australia in 2014-15.
Acquiring a full squadron of Super Hornets from 2009-10 will enable the RAAF to retire its 22 operational F-111s in 2010 without the need for a further costly extension of their service life. It would also mean the air force could reduce to 42 the number of aircraft taking part in the full $1.5 billion Hornet upgrade program.[4]
I note that there is quite a big difference in payload between the "Pig" and the "Rhino" however. Maybe it doesn't matter so much with newer munitions(?) Grant65 | Talk 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would thing there's quite a bit of difference between the F-111's and the F-35's payload/range also. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if that of the Super Hornet is greater than the F-35's also. - BillCJ 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
F-111 can carry 14,300 kg of ordnance, FA-18C = 6,215 kg, Super Hornet = 8,050 kg, F-35 = ? Grant65 | Talk 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Govt has confirmed the purchase: http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21334330-31037,00.html

The report retired Air Vice Marshal Criss refers to in his editoral (currently Reference 29) is here: F/A-18E/F & F-22 review to Senate Armed Services Committee. -Fnlayson 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Text from Hornet Article

I edited down the following text from the F/A-18 Hornet article to make room for the F-18L merger. I placed here incase there is info not in this article. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The newest models, the single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets, carry over the name and design concept of the original F/A-18, but are extensively redesigned, with a new, 25% larger airframe. The Super Hornet has a stretched fuselage and larger wings with leading-edge extensions; more powerful GE F414 engines based on F/A-18's F404; upgraded avionics suite. The E/F began when McDonnell Douglas proposed an enlarged Hornet to replace the cancelled expensive A-12 stealth attack aircraft program. Congress was unwilling to fund a "new" aircraft, however the proposed F/A-18E could be represented as a mere upgrade. A development contract for the Super Hornet worth $3.8 billion was signed in December 1992. The first new aircraft was rolled out of McDonnell Douglas on September 17, 1995. The Super Hornet's first cruise was with Strike Fighter Squadron 115 (VFA-115) flying the F/A-18E in July 2002. The squadron flew 214 combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Southern Watch. The aircraft is currently in production and will eventually equip 22 squadrons.

Munitions capability

The article sez:

"The U.S. Navy's F-14 squadrons have converted to the Super Hornet, which is also taking on the missions of the retired A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D." (emphasis mine)

...so are they going to start hanging Mark 50s on Super Bugs? - Aerobird 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, S-3s have not performed ASW missions for awhile now. That was taken over completely by the SH-60s several years ago. - BillCJ 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"Since 1998, when the S-3B Viking Community changed its primary mission from ASW to surface warfare operations..."[5] Mark 50's barely made it out of testing in the '90s, I'm not sure if they ever reached full operational capability.[6] [7] The APS-137 ISAR that the S-3 carries sounds pretty impressive, I don't know how that compares to the Super Hornet's radar in surface search mode. Certainly all of the previously discussed range and pilot workload issues would apply. --Dual Freq 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks folks, guess I need to catch up a bit. ;-) Seems rather dumb to rely soley on rotary-wing ASW, but... - Aerobird 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also... looking at the page... Since the jet is currently only USN fleet use, Shouldn't the armament page better reflect this? Does the USN still even deploy with Shrike... Walleye... Sparrow for use in Super Hornet squadrons???? I would be suprised if those were even used in real world Super Hornet ops. Also mentioned "Blu series napalm.... " First it isn't called napalm anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb Second while it is possible I am wrong, M77 isn't napalm but kerosene based, even though it performs like napalm. More: M77 is only used by the USMC and there are no USMC Super Hornet Squadrons. Yes you can hang a huge variety of weapons on the Super Hornet if you wanted too and had the correct certification and kit/software on the jet. However I would like an opinion from the real world users out there. Shouldn't the armament page better reflect what the aircraft deploys with for real world ops? --Elpusa 12:18 ( UTC ) Jan 16, 2007.

I think you are right as for Shrike (some Shrike propulsions were used for AGM-123A Skipper rocket-propelled guided bombs, but those were also retired IIRC) and Walleye (even the newest ER/DL version must have been retired, though some guidance pod remains in use for AGM-84E SLAM). But not as far as we talk about Sparrow. I've seen some official Navy photos of Super Hornets (VFA-2 birds among them) carrying AIM-7. I cannot be sure if this is the live version or only a training one, but certainly they were seen on F/A-18E/F. Jacek Z. Poland 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking about Mk 77 fire bombs, I would be careful. Nowadays, when the "Blue Ops" days are gone, USN and USMC Hornets tend to share the same mission profiles more often, e.g. FAC(A) may be performed by either USMC F/A-18Ds or USN F/A-18Fs. So when we speak about the real ops, Mk 77 might also be used on F/A-18E/F. The main barriers to use such weapons today are humanitarian, but they could be used for instance for destroying minefields, or to achieve specific psychological effects on enemy troops. Jacek Z. Poland 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Combat ops on the page. While I am sure F-18E/F is certified for the newer 500lb JDAM GBU-38. Some clarification needs to be made here. The page shows a Sep 8 drop on Taliban by a Super Hornet using a GBU-12 and GBU-38. According to this press release: Operation Medusa, It shows a C Hornet dropping the GBU-38 and a GBU-12 and a Super only doing a GBU-12 that day. So a citation needs to be made on the first combat drop of the relatively new GBU-38 by the Super Hornet. http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2006/161.html --Elpusa 05:13 (UTC) Jan 22, 2007

IMO, if a reliable source can be found that says the Super Hornet will be taking on the missions of the retired Presidential Limosines (ok, maybe more than one reliable source for that one), it could be included. If the source included the Viking missions but you think it's unlikely that they meant ASW, maybe you should try note that Vikings once performed missions for ASW, surface warfare, and ferrying animals for the shipboard zoo, but as of date, Vikings performed only the surface warfare role, so it's unclear exactly what missions once carried out by the Viking will now be done by the Super Hornet. I think the same is true for any particular munition. If a reliable source says the Super Hornet can carry the GBU-43, it could be included. Conversely, if an editor says it without citation, another editor should be supported for removing it. --JJLatWiki 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that additional combat use reference footnote #10 which brings to light that combat history event I was asking about. --Elpusa 02:00 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes. The Super Hornet has not been certified to carry SLAM or SLAM-ER yet (though that will be coming) it's currently a JV Hornet-only weapon, although the Rhino can carry the AWW-13 guidance pod. B-61? That has to be a joke. Above poster is correct, the Rhino can carry AIM-7s. LordKadghar 18:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The F/A-18 Hornet book by Jenkins says although not talked about much, nuclear bombs can be carried on Hornets. I beleive the Navy fact file lists all the others in the Specs section. -Fnlayson 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go with the fact that I have more flight hours by at least a few hundred in the Super Hornet than whoever wrote Janes or the Navy Fact file. I promise you, SLAM-ER and Harpoon are not yet cleared for the Rhino (a source of great frustration to us). It's a projected capability to be sure, but it isn't there yet. Try this link http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/03/12/2407802.htm LordKadghar 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think this is a better format version of that. Ultra Hornet -Fnlayson 05:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is armament info supposed be in those articles? I only see avionics stuff (radars, sensors, etc). -Fnlayson 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Third paragraph from the bottom, bro. SLAM-ER will complete carriage testing next year on the Rhino. Until then, it remains JV Hornets with the missile and Rhinos with the pods. There's several other clearances (combined loads are a big one) that are also pending. Thanks for the help with the links. LordKadghar 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah there it is. Thanks! -Fnlayson 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Help me out with the editing (again, not good with this). ALQ-165 ASPJ is the baseline jammer for the Rhino, though it's being upgraded with the new IDECM to ALQ-214 in the more recent lots. I made a note of ALQ-214 in the "upgrades" section but not good at linking it to other sites and such.. try globalsecurity et al... LordKadghar 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18E/F Operators

I wonder why VFA-15 Valions is still on the future Super Hornet squadrons list. Wasn't it replaced in the transition plans by VFA-136 Knighthawks? Also, I've seen an interview on the official Navy site, where VFA-147 Argonauts transition to F/A-18E was referred to as "imminent". Could anybody put some light on this subject? Jacek Z. Poland 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I see the operators' list is now updated according to April 2007 issue of Air Forces Monthly. However, there was a small mistake in the article itself, so I am correcting it.Jacek Z. Poland 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RCS

With the overall increase in size, has the RCS of the E/D really been reduced from that of the C/D? Seems a bit counterintuitive. Thoughts?--Jonashart 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RCS has fairly little to do with size. It's mostly about shape and angles of observation, secondly about reflectivity. Size is a factor in the RCS - especially with complex shapes and isometric scattering - but it is not the most important one. A right angle shape is a perfect reflector and will have a huge RCS, even when very small in size. A shape that deflects emissions rather than reflecting them have a low RCS, even if being very large in size.
So.... with appropriate changes in shape and reduced reflectivity of the surfaces, the RCS can indeed be made smaller even though the overall net change in size may be in the opposite direction. --J-Star 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. Boeing claims the the new intakes reduce RS. I guess that can translate into less RS overall. However, since the plane is significantly bigger, are they claiming a lower RCS than the C/D or lower than it would be with the older style intakes?--Jonashart 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read elsewhere, the've made other improvements too, such as serated edges on the landing gear door, use of RCS materials, etc. I'll see if I can find a source the details all this for you. - BillCJ 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ, that'd be great. And that would support the argument better. J-Star, I understand all those applications of reduced RCS, but the article is making a claim that is apparently substantiated only by Boeing's website, which says nothing about RCS materials, serrated edges, etc. My concern is that article posits a "reality" that is really not able to be proven...unless the DoD or someone else releases some report that we can trust. If anything, the article should say that the manufacturer (or Navy/Marines) claims a RCS. But suggesting that the E/F definitly HAS a RCS does not seem to meet the standard for "fact". Now, I understand that it's completely possible that the RCS has been reduced as J-Star has suggested. I'm not arguing against the possibility, but rather, the proof.--Jonashart 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a book on the F/A-18 but it does not mention stealth or RCS. But it's mainly an illustrated book and it cost me very little. The Jenkins book would probably have something on that though. -Fnlayson 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the claim really in doubt? It's quite common for modern fighter aircraft to incorporate RCS reductions. Here, Admiral Nathman briefs the DoD and says "We are building it in with a shaped -- a reduced-radar cross-section of the airplane that allows it to penetrate." [8] --Mmx1 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Any claim of a relatively esoteric science without proof should doubted. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide proven fact, not claimed fact. So, if there are articles that support the claim (as you have provided), they should be included. The only way to prove a RCS is to TEST it. And unless we're manning a radar to see if the changes have made a difference, we have to rely on published reports. That Boeing claims it does not exactly make it fact.
Now, can't the same thing be said about things like range, engine thrust, etc.? Sure. However, those sort of things are generally less sensitive. There's a better chance of an outsider being able to substantiate that kind of data. But RCS? I would guess our folks keep a slightly tighter lid on that kind of data. So, when the article states that the E/F has a RCS, why should anyone believe it? Yes, I know, this is slippery slope for alot of claims made via Wikipedia. But, if there is data/proof, I think it's better to include it, rather than to assume it.--Jonashart 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not esoteric - it's fairly common practice for 4.5th generation fighters - everybody's doing it these days. Besides, it's not as though development of the SH takes place in a vacuum. The Navy does have some say in development, you know. And they might have noticed at some point if the RCS was bunk. Skepticism is healthy but blind skepticism without putting it through the sniff test is just a waste of time. --Mmx1 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's esoteric in the sense that an encyclopedia for the general public, not just aircraft/military people. Yes, RCS-design is common place. But the understanding of what it is and what it does is NOT common place. That it makes sense to you, me, and the 15 other guys who read this isn't the point. It's an encyclopedia, for everyone.--Jonashart 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Jonashart. I'm glad atleast one person has the right idea of what an encyclopedia is/should be. 58.165.170.7 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have the April 2007 edition of the Airforces Monthly magazine, which contains a 32 page super hornet supplement. I did read it carefully and nobody says anything about stealth or RCS. As this magazine is well-documented and quite updated , I don't really think that this aircraft has stealth or RCS capabilities. Eurocopter tigre 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oy. I just provided a quote from an Admiral. I think that trumps some conclusion drawn from the absence of a mention in a popular magazine. --Mmx1 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The book I mentioned previously is from Airforces Monthly magazine. It does not have a lot of details. Omission of something may not mean anything. -Fnlayson 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it the April edition? Eurocopter tigre 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the april 2007 edition has a lot of details about development, system and sensors, powerplant, deployment,etc. The omission is quite improbably because stealth is a quite important thing. I mean, when you are making a 30-pages article about a version of an aircraft, you would write in it if it's stealth or not; I think that's a basic thing. Eurocopter tigre 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My source

From Donald, David: Warplanes of the Fleet, pages 50-51. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-81-1. Article by Brad Elward. The book is a reprint of articles in World Air Power Journal and International Air Power Review (exact issues not mentioned in the book).

So, while not a "stealth" aircraft per se, the RCS HAS been reduced greatly over that of the F/A-18C/D. I hope this source suffices to settle the issue. - BillCJ 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, that's great! Now, that should just be referenced in the article. I cleaned up some of the quote, hope you don't' mind. Thanks!--Jonashart 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Definitely better. Thanks to all for entertaining the discussion.--Jonashart 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

EA-18G image removal

What was the problem with this EA-18G image: Image:Cobrachen Ea-18g.jpg ? It was removed without any explaination. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mouse was faster than my keyboard. I've removed photo because there is very little text in Growler section and any image posted there will exceed line generated by the next header. We have separate article and this photo is posted there so there is no real loss. Piotr Mikołajski 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Figured there was a reason. I don't see the problem with the next section header. It wasn't causing any white space in that section when viewed in Firefox & IE. But it doesn't add much. If the article was short on images, I'd say keep it but that's not the case. -Fnlayson 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Prototypes?

I don't quite understand how someone can say there was no Super Hornet prototype as stated in this article [9]. MDC built a handful of pre-production Super Hornets for flight testing before low rate production started. Are these not considered prototypes? Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the superhornet "prototypes" were actually converted hornets. Is that posible? Eurocopter tigre 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not possible with the size difference. A lot of the avionics systems were shared with the C/D Hornets though. They built pre-production Super Hornets for testing. -Fnlayson 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft

Need to get some opinions from naval aviation experts. It is my opinion that the comparable aircraft list should be changed. Only current/recent multi-role carrier capable aircraft should be listed. Example: The F-15 should not be on the list as it can not perform carrier aircraft operations. Also the specific naval carrier versions of the MiG-29 and SU-3x should be listed, not just the generic family name. ELPusa 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MiG-29 should be removed as it's half the size of the Super Hornet. --Dual Freq 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---Hmmm I was thinking.If anything MiG-29 should stay as India is in the process of getting some naval MiG-29's for their aircraft carrier project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier At least this is comparing carrier capable multi-mission aircraft where some of the others in that list aren't even carrier capable. ELPusa 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue should probably be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, as it concerns more aircraft than just the Super Hornet. Until now, the pattern has been to included carrier- and non-carrier-capable aircraft in the same lists, and you would need to get a consesnus from the Project to change it. - BillCJ 17:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I can understand wanting to add in the MiG-29, but the other types should not have been taken out when the consensus here was against it. Again, the pattern in Aircraft articles has been not to differentiate between carrier-based and non-carrier aircraft. If you would like to get this changed, please go the the WP:AIR talk pages, and discuss it there. Wikipedia is goverend by consensus, and you wwere asked to discuss changes before implementing them. If you did not know where to go to discuss this, you could have asked. But changing it unilaterally is not the way to go here. - BillCJ 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I should have left the MiG-29 link in there. I'll add that back. -Fnlayson 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
MiG-29 is comparable to the F-16 and F/A-18, but not very comparable to the super hornet. Carrier capability doesn't equal comparability. The numerous aircraft are carrier capable too, but not comparable in size. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Related_content has a brief description of comparable. I would say the MiG-29 fails era and capability. --Dual Freq 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked about Comparable Aircraft guidelines on WP:Aircraft talk. Direct link: WP:Aircraft talk - Comparable Aircraft - Fnlayson 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also think that reciprocity should be considered, if the MiG-29 can be listed comparable to the Super Hornet on this page, then it should fit with those listed on the MiG-29 page. It's not listed there, a/c like F-16 and F/A-18 are already there, those seem much more comparable than the super hornet. F-4 Phantom II is similar in weight, was multi-role and carrier based, does that mean we need to add it here too? Quite different in era and capability so I would say no. --Dual Freq 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In addtition, the F/A-18C/D is still in US naval service. That would be the place to list the MiG-29 carrier variant (and the Rafael M), not here. - BillCJ 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added MiG-29 and others in this edit, it seems there is enough consensus here to remove it. Based on the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Related content (role, era, and capability), the MiG-29 fails the era and capability criteria when compared to the Super Hornet. --Dual Freq 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Climb rate & max speed

Does anybody have data on the Super Hornet's climb rate? From its test and operational evaluation, it is supposed to be less than the F/A-18C. None of the main Super Hornet web pages and my F/A-18 books lists that. Also, I'm not sure where the climb rate of 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s) on the F/A-18 page comes from. Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is MACH 1,6 the real max speed of the Super Hornet? The source says MACH 1,6 without mentioning max speed or cruise speed. --Eurocopter tigre 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't know. I guessed it was max speed. Everything I've seen is max speed of Mach 1.8 or higher for the Super Hornet. I'm not sure if Mach 1.6 is an error or due to carrying extra ordnance for land-based use. -Fnlayson 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fastest I've ever seen was with a single centerline (no pylons), in full burner, about 5 degrees nose low at Mach 1.2. I think 1.6 is doable if you really wanted to unload in a dive —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKadghar (talk • contribs)
The RCS discussion was using public sources too. I do note in your rant on max speed that you didn't specify what altitude. Even a non-pilot fanboy like me knows that makes a difference. Even Mach 2.5 fighters like the F-15 can't do more than Mach 1.3 at sea level, if that much for the F-15. Besides, the max speeds at altitude are always for clean configuration, are they not? If you want to take on someone for leaking classified info, try the Democratic Party, the State Department, or the New York TImes. We ain't them! - BillCJ 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • True. The F/A-18 and B-1 books by Jenkins have normal specs and some RCS info as well. -Fnlayson 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What I was attempting to get at (and apologies for coming off overbearingly) is that there is a significant amount of information which is both true and also not necessarily verifiable in public domain. In a non-tactical configuration, in would be possible to get a Rhino to the 1.8IMN listed... again, in a dive from the mid-30s at full blower. However, with stuff hanging off the wings, this jet has considerable parasitic drag and will run into a wall in the transonic region. While it is certainly possible to overcome it and break through to the supersonic region (even at sea level), it isn't fuel-practicable to do so except at altitude in an unload. Again, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "real max speed". Are we talking about a "let's see how fast we can get this jet" in absolute, testing terms? Or in practical terms? I don't think you'll meet any aircrew who will say 1.8IMN would fit into the latter criteria.LordKadghar (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft" Editors: Paul Eden & Soph Moeng, 2002, ISBN 0-7607-3432-1, has specs. I could either toss them into the article as extras, or replace the specs web-reference with the book's, or I could just drop the information here any y'all can figure it out. It shows this for Maximum speed, "more than 1,190 mph (1915 km/h) or Mach 1.80 at high altitude". It has no time to climb information. I also noticed it states that the Wingspan dimension includes the wingtip AAMs and is the same number as in the article. --Colputt 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fighters of the 20th Century" by Jim Winchester, 2002, ISBN 1 84037 388 1, says, "max. speed over Mach 1.8 climb not known". It also says the span is over the wingtip AAMs at same dimensions. --Colputt 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Book of Modern Warplanes" Ed. Mike Spick, 2000, 2003, ISBN 1 84065 156 3, has a huge section on the Hornets from Concept to Super. The specs for the F/A-18E are listed the same as above, VmaxHI Mach 1.8+, VmaxLO Mach 1.01, Climb Rate listed as N/A. It listed the F/A-18C as Mach 1.6 --Colputt 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work Colputt! Clearly the max. speed of the Super Hornet is MACH 1,8+. I don't know what to say about the rest of the specs. --Eurocopter tigre 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think was any question that many sources list the SH's max speed as Mach 1.8 or Mach 1.8+. -Fnlayson 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Boeing source (Ref#37) shows Mach 1.6, I would not use the Navy fact sheet as it has munitions on there that aren't even qualified on the jet yet. Elpusa 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved in this revert war, but that Boeing PDF looks like an advertisement to me, not a "reliable, third-party published source[s] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" I handed y'all three published sources that won't vanish in the average 45 days from the Internet. This same type of argument is on the F-16 page. This is one reason I stay away from modern aircraft articles. The other reason is, I know the answer, but all I can do is point to "published" sources. Ever wonder why all Carriers and Submarines have a "published" top speed of 33 knots?" I'm gonna un-watch this and get back to my To-Do list. Have fun. --Colputt 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good points. Basically don't assume the manufacturer is always right. Guess I or someone needs to contact the people on the Boeing backgrounder sheet and ask about the speed change. Take care.. -Fnlayson 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree that older sources state Mach 1.8. Also of interest the really really old basic flight manual for the aircraft which you can buy online, puts limits clean above 35k ft at Mach 2.0 all the way up to it's ceiling. Of course that isn't much value over time with various updates and tactical manuals that we are not privy too that mention additional limits. I would also think and unfortunately on this point I am going from memory, that the Boeing page did at one time state Mach 1.8. What happened? I don't know. A guess with no fact to back it up is that over time they learned things about the aircraft and how they wanted to use it including that the aircraft is now up for more conspicuous foreign sales. Did Boeing after a while publish the limit based out of more recent information based on use of the aircraft? You tell me. I don't know. Fnlayson may have a good point about asking Boeing. ELPusa 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Boeing's F/A-18E/F backgrounder file has been updated in April 2008 and lists Mach 1.8. I e-mailed the contact people several months ago asking about the Mach 1.6 speed. Never got a reply. Maybe they will start using upgraded F414 in a few years and the speed will increase some. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one feeling that Hornet (even Super Hornet) is a rather mediocre aircraft. Say, F-14 it replaced had every parameter better than F-18 (speed 2.3 M -> 1.8 M, combat radius 500 nmi -> ~400 nmi etc). This is a very strange "progress" 89.102.37.40 (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all around. When it was retired the F-14 had less ground attack capability than the F/A-18C/D. There are plenty of articles and forum discussions on Tomcat vs. Super Hornet over the last several years. No need to rehash it here and that does not help improve this article (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).
Admitedly biased, but having flown all models of the Hornet, F-14 and F-16, and having flown against the F-14/15/16/22, M29, M2K, Raf, and many other lesser fighters, no other 4th gen fighter beats the Hornet in regards to lethality, maneuverabilty, ease of operation/maintenance, etc. Speed is nice, but it's not everything... E2a2j (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was not intending to start a flame war. I was merely reading F-14 and F-18 articles. Articles adequately explain that both planes were/are workhorses of carrier aviation, but it was not obvious to me how exactly F-18 is better than F-14. If anyone can add such a section, that would be great. 62.40.79.66 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Naw, no flame war here. This is not a simple thing. One of reasons for retiring the F-14 was age and the associated fatigue life limits and maintenance issues that go with that. Also, finding good sources for overall aircraft comparisons can be challenging. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But this can't be the reason to produce F-18 instead of just producing F-14 with updates to radar/electronics/engine, right? F-18 has to have some advantage over F-14 in *flight characteristics*. (Otherwise, one can suspect that for aerospace lobby making more F-14s is not lucrative enough, they want R&D money associated with new plane development). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.37.40 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If only measuring speed and range, you could also argue that the SR-71 is a superior jet ;-) The F-14 was a 60-70s design and it was really showing its age. The maintenance-man-hour to flight-hour ratio was outragious - something like 120 MMH for every flight hour flown. Changing an engine took a couple of days. Compared to a Super Hornet: about 15 MMH/FH, and an engine can be changed in a couple of hours. Same goes for most of the other systems on a Hornet - they are very reliable and can be quickly swapped out if their built in tests show them to be faulty. Tomcat was fast on the top end - no doubt. But the Hornet actually cruises faster. If an F-14 and F-18 flew together high-subsonic (as is often done in a threat environment), the Tom would have to continuously tap 'burner (and burn lots of gas) to keep up. Within visual range, the Tom was no match for a competently flown Hornet. Its visual signature was huge, and its cockpit "ergonomics" weren't nearly as friendly as a Hornets'. Finally, the fatigue life mentioned by Finlayson was huge. High-G flight, cat shots and traps all take their toll. Although every Tomcat driver will always claim her as their first true love, NONE that I know would trade the SH back for a 'Cat. E2a2j (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, can you add this information to the article? ;) 62.40.79.66 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Too much "original research" / and/or unsourced opinion... E2a2j (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

E model image

Could we get an image of the single seat version? If it's not too much trouble. RaptorR3d 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In-flight Infobox image

Here's some image links on DVIC (dodmedia.osd.mil)

F/A-18E in flight over desert

F/A-18E landing on carrier, front left view

F/A-18E landing on carrier, front right view

F/A-18E launching from carrier, right side view

Which seems like the best to you? I like the desert one, but it has a shadow. The last landing image is good too, I think. I can upload the one picked and so forth. -Fnlayson 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18 Super Hornet Gold game?

I'm aware that there's a game that goes by this name... should I write it or it is not worth the mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Australai???

um........ i think thats AUSTRIA!!! ill change it now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.180.9 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that this editor has numerous vandalism warnings on their talk page... --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[Removed attack on Australia by] 58.107.180.9 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

F/A-18 Intercept Tu-95

Earlier this month (February) F/A-18s from Nimitz intercepted an Tu-95. On the pictures released you can clearly see that on the first pic that's a two seater (F/A-18F/VFA-41) and on the other pic the distinct fuselage of an Super Hornet. So atleast one Super Hornet was involved.

Here are the pictures and you need to see the Hi-res version of it. Can we use this as a source (for operational history) that at least one Super Hornet (VFA-41) was involved in the interception?

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55192

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55193 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagman1983 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bids

I updated and shortened the section about offering of F/A-18E/F for Denmark's fighter competition and added references. Renamed it "Potential operators" as well. I partially think early discussions such as these should not be mentioned in the article as they are minor. If they turn in a proposal for it, that seems OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Both citations are 6 weeks old. We should be able to find some updated info on the Danish proposal at least. - BillCJ (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Radar Signature Reduction

Kopp is not a really good reference! I see re-entrant triangles at the Rafale. [10][11] Or what Journal of Electronic Defence wrote: "Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials, Dassault engineers have said. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM." So nothing unusual.--90.186.9.86 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The Super Hornet's reduced CS is already mentioned in the article and properly referenced. Topic discussed on talk above too. -Fnlayson 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's mentioned in the "Airframe changes" section, btw. It could use a sentence or two explaining how they did that though. The angled rectangular engine intakes and serrated edges in places are two main things. -Fnlayson 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you and I think that the APA citations where as good as any since they are independent and while you may not always agree with Kopp he does have first hand accounts and he does cite his sources. Given the poisonous atmosphere around here I have no interest in making the change though.141.155.118.180 —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a reliable reference [12] for the Radar signature reduction. 20 db lower as the Hornet, that is the factor 100! --HDP (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kopp and co of APA arent taken seriously by any professional or the government, their support of the uber-f11 over the shornet is based on financial interest in the f111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.80 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The following quote: "It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.[26]" is pure speculation and the reference no 26 is not usable. To me it sounds like spin from Boeing-affiliates. I suggest, that the text is removed. --212.242.239.162 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That part is clearly footnoted to book "Donald, David. "Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet", Warplanes of the Fleet. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-81-1", not Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Backseater controls

I had this question after seeing this in the F-15E Strike Eagle article:

Unlike earlier two-place jets (like the F-4 Phantom II and Navy's F-14 Tomcat), whose "backseater" lacked flying controls, the back seat of the F-15E cockpit is equipped with its own stick and throttle so the WSO can take over flying if necessary, albeit with reduced visibility.

Can the backseater on a F-18 take flight controls as well? I've also asked this question at Talk:F/A-18 Hornet. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer's on the C/D page. E2a2j (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead photo caption

This aircraft, regardless of what the Navy says, is NOT taking off. There is no angle on the flight deck (or off the carrier, for that matter) that you can take a picture of an aircraft several feet off the deck that is taking off. If you look in the lower right corner, the fresnel lense is visable. Aircraft launching from Cats 3 & 4 (the "waist catapults") are shot off the angle. They are not airborne until they reach the end of the deck, and then they are over water. This aircraft is in the landing configuration - flaps down, with the hook up. Having the hook up is absolutely routine for a "touch and go" landing. Happens all the time. Take off configuration is flaps at half. From the position of this aircraft, I'd guess that he was on approach, then waved off by the LSOs "in close" to the flight deck. He likely never touched down, because an aircraft that touches down is typically on the deck abeam the lense. This might be a "long bolter", wherein the aircraft touches down very long beyond the wires. Why was the official Navy caption wrong? Easy - they are typically written by junior enlisted Sailor journalist and edited by more senior Sailors, neither of which has been trained to interpret a single photo among hundreds that they're choosing from. E2a2j (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought landing at first and that's why the image file is named that way. I was not sure enough to counter the Navy's description. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

E2a2j: I agree with you totally except for one point; all carrier take offs use full flaps (from the Super Hornet NATOPS manual). Land based take offs are normally performed with half flaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.117.136 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a little give away that the aircraft HAS just been launched; the rudders are towed in. The rudders move inwards for all takeoffs to aid rotation. 220.237.117.136 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My bust on the full flaps vs half flaps - all my boat experience is in legacy Hornet, which is 1/2F for cat launch. Regarding the toe-in: according to NATOPS, toe-in "is used to improve longitudinal stability and to aid aircraft rotation during takeoff or bolter. Rudder toe-in is a function of AOA." pg I-2-62. In this case substitute touch & go or low approach for bolter - same flight control configuration. E2a2j (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! 220.237.117.136 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Australian Air Force

i suggest a re-evaluation of the critics to the shornet purchase, retired officers with uninformed out of the loop views wanting to keep the f111 and journalistic political point scoring shouldnt be a part of this page
i added the Capability Scores to the main page which also shows how silly the criticisms were
At 2004 the capacity score using JSF = 1
F/A-18E/F Block ll = .660
F/A-18E/F Block l = .316
F/A-18A+/C/D = .193
F-14D = .195
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.27 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i draw your attention to the following..

"The order has proved to be controversial, with the critics including some retired senior RAAF officers. Air Vice Marshal (ret.) Peter Criss, a former Air Commander Australia, said he was "absolutely astounded" that the Australian government would spend A$6 billion on an interim aircraft.[54] Criss has also cited evidence given by the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the Super Hornet block I specific excess power is inferior to the MiG-29 and Su-30,[55] which are already operated, or have been ordered, by air forces in South East Asia. Air Commodore (ret.) Ted Bushell stated that the F/A-18F could not perform the role that the Australian government had given it, and the F-111 airframe design would remain suitable for the strategic deterrent/strike role until at least 2020.[54] Some critics have claimed that the decision to buy the F/A-18F merely serves to ease the sale of additional Super Hornets to Australia, should the F-35 program "encounter more problems".[56]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.80 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As this article is about the F-18 most of this really relates to Australian procurement policy and war planning. It can be simplified but needs to be more balanced. Some people thing the F-18 cant replace the F-111 v the F-111 is old and has a high maintenance cost and cant wait till the F-35. The futher sales is pure speculation and is not needed. Can the F-18 meet the Australian war plan? It also doesnt take in consideration the moves to convert them to EA-18s - a different role in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i feel the balance comes from this part of the australian entry and i feel that inaccurate mouthings as per my above quote has no base in accuracy
On 31 December 2007, the new Australian Labor government announced that it would review the purchase as part of a wider review of the RAAF's fighter procurement plans, with the possibility of the order for F/A-18Fs being either reduced or canceled. The main reasons given were concerns over operational suitability, the lack of a proper review process, and internal beliefs that an interim fighter was not required.[58]

On 17 March 2008, the Government announced that it would proceed with plans to acquire all 24 F/A-18Fs. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said that, based on advice from the review team, the Government had concluded that it was necessary to purchase the Super Hornets, though they remained critical of the previous government's air power planning. He said no other suitable aircraft could be produced to meet the 2010 deadline for the retirement of the F-111 set by the former government and it was no longer possible to keep the F-111s in service past this date.[59] The Government has also sought US export approval for EA-18G Growlers.[60] On 27 February 2009 Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets would be wired on the production line for future modification as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost $35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of $300 million, would be made in 2012.[61] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.27 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. The last paragraph above seems to repeat the same arguments from previous paragraphs. I removed the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Maybe some of that needs to go back summarized? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Capacity score?

i added the capacity score to the main page which also shows how silly the criticisms were
At 2004 the capacity score using JSF = 1
F/A-18E/F Block ll = .660
F/A-18E/F Block l = .316
F/A-18A+/C/D = .193
F-14D = .195
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.80 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for being dense, but what the hicky-boo is a "capacity score"? Also, the link used in the article for this info is dead. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that the source link is dead, I've removed the info as uncited and unclear. Please establish a consensus here to re-add the info. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake, i fixed the link and the term its Capability Scores then undid, its from a Report to Congressional Committees and Capability Scores is their term for a comparison between air craft

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.27 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a typo for capability score if you read the document it is only mentioned once in a table about capability scores. Apart from that it is completely meaningless in the context of this article. All it says is each variant of F-18 gets better. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Near Fifth Generation

That is the exact quote from the guy whose job it is to be the top impartial expert on the subject for the United States Congress. If you will not use his term I see nothing else from his article that directly applies to the introduction paragraph. The ref could be used further down the page in the United States Navy section for insite into the tradeoffs between SLEP and buy, but it just wouldn't fit were it sits now. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why link to a 4.5 generation fighter section and not a 5th generation section or article if it is close? Nevermind. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Un-super Hornet tankers

One F/A-18A refueling another: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/AAR/HTML/EC03-0293-03.html Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot Air Australia

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html "The hybird design provides equally good receiver sensitivity to Western AESA designs"

Can you point to one actually reliable source that believes this garbage? Until AAP cleans up their work I strongly advise not using them as a source for anything. Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another unreliable source

"The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility."

So can we remove all links to this site because the Super Hornet is clearly only 4.5 generation?

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/index.htm

Hcobb (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, we can't claim Boeing is not a reliable source based on their use of a vague marketing term. Btw, the term "5th generation" does not appear on that page. Did you add the wrong link, or are you referring to one of the PDFs? - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That quote is from where exactly? The Boeing page does not mention anything about generations. The SH backgrounder pdf linked on that page only mentions 'next generation'. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

View source on that Boeing page and you'll see they hid it in the page description to capture web searches. Hcobb (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, that's still just their definition of a marketing term vs. your own definition. Companies are generally reliable in the publishing of their specs and other data, and the use of terms in page descriptions is no reason to disqualify all of a company's info. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If you seriously want to challenge the reliability of this or any other source, the best place to do that is either at one of the relevant project talk pages (WT:MILHIST or WT:AIR in this case), or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
My answer to the original question would be "no". Boeing can call the Super Bug the purple people eater if they want to, but the specs are the specs. One presumes a manufacturer knows about the product they're selling (especially since they'd get sued if they misrepresented it)! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

While it might seem desirable to use those lovely pre-prepared templates with linked country icons, the 'United States' and 'Australia' are so well-known in the anglophone world. I feel such linking is totally unnecessary in circumstances, WP:REPEATLINK notwithstanding. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines can be overridden by consensus on individual articles. It looks like this one is going against you. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, local consensus needs to be established only where there is freedom under the policies or guidelines. It does not override the global consensus. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines aren't policies, global consensus or not. They do not have to be followed, and your approval isn't required to form a consesnus. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It is open to interpretation how common these links are; US probably, but Australia is less so. Anyway the links should be modified/removed where they originate - in the flag template, not in individual articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Guys, the overlinking guideline is there for good reasons: wikilinking is not served well when low-value links are included. English-speakers are expected to be familiar with "UK", "US", "Australia", etc. The suspicion is that readers click on precious few links anyway, so part of the service we offer them is to funnel them towards the high-value links. This way, they are probably more likely to click on a link. Tony (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Then remove the links from the flag templates so that the change is instant, compared to going around changing every article one by one. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Who copied and pasted?

From the Radar Reduction section of this Article:

"Survivability is an important feature of the Super Hornet design. The US Navy took a "balanced approach" to survivability in its design.[25] This means that it does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and crew."

From the Radar Reduction section of the MiG-29K Article:

"Survivability is an important feature of the MiG-29K design. It does not rely on low-observable technology, such as stealth systems, to the exclusion of other survivability factors. Instead, its design incorporates a combination of stealth, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, the use of standoff weapons, and innovative tactics that cumulatively and collectively enhance the safety of the fighter and pilot."

Who copied and pasted? Victory in Germany (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably copied from this article as it is much older. The -29K article is a little over a year old. Text can be copied from one article to another. But the MiG-29K text needs to be referenced if that's true for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet/Archive_1&oldid=1257412290"