Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet/Archive 2

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

Omitting one among the most important details

Why is there no mention of the fact that the F/A-18 is the only US-service operated 4th generation fighter being shot down in aerial combat in all likelihood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Without specific source(s) that is just speculation or original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure of what are your "sources" when it's plenty of openly admitted sources out there on the net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, could you provide them here? Please read the policy on reliable sources first to make sure those sources will be usable.--McSly (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I will use Wikipedia itself and its current sources:
an unclassified summary of a 2001 CIA report suggests that Speicher's aircraft was shot down by a missile fired from an Iraqi aircraft,[1][2] most likely a MiG-25,[3] flown by Lieutenant Zuhair Dawood, 84th squadron of the Iraqi Air Force.[4]
...I think it's more than enough to win at least a "probably..." in the main F/A-18 article.
Otherwise your behavior is really biased to a point of getting ridiculous. Just look at the reaction on my recent provocative removal edits on much less detailed and "official" material about MIG-29 and Su-27. I did that on purpose to come back here and think with you guys. That material is using much less authoritative sources than a unclassified CIA report (e.g. look at the Su-27 presumably shot down in Angola source...). Also, much of the material there cites acig or other similar internet sites. So is acig and similar "just speculation or original research" as it was stated before or not? Now, acig (to mention one) credits this F/A-18 to a MiG-25. Why do you accept acig for events that are much less researched and questionable, while here, being wildly reported by different sources and normally accepted as “the way in which it went all over internet”, it is unacceptable?
Now let's go to the MiG-29 page:
Further reports claim that on 14 September 2001 two Syrian Air Force MiG-29s were shot down by two IDF/AF F-15C while the MiGs were intercepting an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of Lebanon. However, both Syria and Israel deny that this occurred.[5][6][7]
I reply to your acig with acig, [8][9] NBC and Tampa Tribune reply to your WorldTribune and ejection history.
Do you realize your double standards? What is the point in hiding? Sometimes it really looks you are running a political agenda.
Again:
...I think it's more than enough to win at least a "probably..." in the main F/A-18 article.
Please use common sense and fairness before making yourself ridiculous.
  1. ^ "Intelligence Community Assessment of the Lieutenant Commander Speicher Case". 27 March 2001. FOIA Electronic Reading Room. CIA. 10 September 2006.page 1, page 2, page 3
  2. ^ Atkinson, Rick (1994). Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 47. ISBN 0-395-71083-9
  3. ^ Weiner, Tim. "With Iraq's O.K., a U.S. Team Seeks War Pilot's Body." The New York Times, 14 December 1995: A1.
  4. ^ Sadik, A., Zampini, D. "Tretij Den' (i posledujuschie...)" ["The Third Day (and beyond...)"]. Aviacija i vremja (Aviation and Time) No. 6 (2005) (in Russian)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Israeli-Syrian Shadow-Boxing. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Ejection history." ejection-history.org.uk. Retrieved 1 August 2010.
  7. ^ "Israel downed 2 Syrian MiGs in 2001." WorldTribune.com. Retrieved 1 August 2010.
  8. ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34182338/ns/us_news-military/t/twists-turns-delayed-finding-pilot-killed-iraq/#.U5LhjnKSwoA
  9. ^ http://tbo.com/list/military-news/altman-centcom-deputy-commander-recalls-mig-shootdown-20140504/
Wikipedia is not an WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Other wikis and other user editable pages are also not reliable sources. The F-14 and F-16 are other 4th generation fighters that are not mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are really ridiculous! you don't even read what people write and the used sources inside! ok enough is enough. Time to update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 14:07, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

If I may jump into the conversation: (1) Common-sense would say to speak kindly; (2) One of the rules of editing in Wikipedia is that we do not use Wikipedia as a source. (3) Please sign your posts with four tildes. (4) If you see Wikipedia information you would like to use, you can double-check the properly sourcing. (5) Consider doing your own sourcing-research with Google-searching. -- Thanks In Advance, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Current or recent news

This article has the last section "Notable appearances in media" and then says the main WP article is 'fiction'. Here is an article about Obama using surveillance over Iraq with "F-18" aircraft: 

Headline: US flying F-18 surveillance missions over Iraq, Obama reviews options with lawmakers

QUOTE: "The United States is flying F-18 surveillance missions over Iraq from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, officials confirm to Fox News, as President Obama weighs options for "increased security assistance" in the country." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Those could be F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, not the legacy F/A-18A-D Hornets primarily covered in this article. Beginning to fly surveillance missions is not that major/significant. Wikipedia is not a news service. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Another news item today that may be for the modern versions[1] "Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly." I'll put a note over to the other article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Those must be legacy Hornets as the USMC has not operated the Super Hornet. The legacy Hornets are covered in this article. Budget issues are causing parts shortages. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To be added to section on F/A-18 display

A F/A-18 from NASA Dryden is on display. One is on display at Lancaster, CA at the Jethawks Stadium aka "the Hangar." See Lancaster, CA photos on the Lancaster, CA Wikipedia page. It is clear, a NASA Aircraft in front of the Hangar in Lancaster, CA is on display.

Photos aren't reliable sources, and the list isn't meant to be exhaustive. - BilCat (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

F/A-18B 181746, a trainer for the Blue Angels, is at the St. Louis Science Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.176.165 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Design

The part about the flight control surfaces is ambigous and contradictory.

  • The intro paragraph of "Design" says it has leading-edge flaps, whereas the following paragraph calls them leading-edge slats. Those are different things. Which is it?
  • The wing trailing edge obviously cannot have at the sime time both full-span ailerons and full-span flaps. This needs to be cleared up.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to make the changes myself. Anyone? Bsieker (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is C+ a passing grade?

http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/10/C-plus-Scores-A-plus-with-Marines_10_16.page

Do we need to wait for media to pick this up before adding? Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

One of those C+ crashed already, and still the article has nothing about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.25.29.6 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas promotional claim

Mondobyte is intent on adding[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] "Every enemy fighter downed in Desert Storm was downed by an aircraft built by McDonnell Douglas. Every single one." to the article which apparently was a slogan that appeared on an MDC gift shop mug, a photo of which he also wanted to add. There is also a citation of the slogan from an article on defense industry marketing. From what I can tell at Air engagements of the Gulf War all but 2 of these were from F-15s not F-18s so I don't think this is particularly relevant to the article. I have warned[9][10] Mondobyte about edit warring and indicated that this conflict needs to be worked out on the talk page. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mondobyte (talk)As usual DIY got it mostly wrong. The phrase "was a direct quote from multiple pilots". A presentation of awards for aircraft achievements was made after the Gulf War at MDC headquarters where representatives from both the NAVY and AIR FORCE extolled the virtues of MDC aircraft during the gulf war. After being told to come up with a reference, what I cited out of desperation was an LA TIMES article where they interviewed and quoted one or more Pilots, presumably Navy or Air Force or both. DIY called it a SILLY SOURCE. Then he called it PROMOTIONAL. It was an unscripted, unsolicited statement from one or more US Military Pilots! It was not something dreamed up by MDC. At the awards presentation at MDC Headquarters, an MDC Blue Coffee mug was shown with the phrase on it. The coffee mug was made available for purchase at the MDC public gift shop and MDC probably made gifts to many Navy and Air Force members. Initially when DIY pressed me for a reference, I took a picture of it and tried to use that as DIY said that anecdotal or personal experience was not a proper source. Pilots also referred to the Gulf War as the "Big Mac Attack" and the "Big Mac War" at the time referring to MDC aircraft. The quote was made by a Navy representative. Of course, MDC did turn it into full page articles in all the major newspapers across the country. What a great way to boast about your success. The phrases was a great source of pride for all of us working at MDC in St. Louis. Those mugs became common in the workplaces of MDC St. Louis over the next several years. DIY didn't bother to read the article, he just discounted it out of hand. I have a problem with people who can't read or won't read and just presume to throw roadblocks time after time hoping I would just go away. Every time I added the quote back in, with new sources or references, he reverted it within seconds - not long enough to read the source or reference. He just didn't read the reference and that is why he says "defense journal" rather than LA Times. In one revert, DIY said, just cite a source giving me the impression that if I cited a source, it would be ok. I provided the picture of the mug. Again he said that was not a valid source and it was a JOKE. DIY said, you can find one on the web. I did just that and he instantly reverted it again - wihout reading the reference. The error was on DIY in creating the Revert War. I did exactly as he requested but then it was PROMOTIONAL which is just another excuses why the change might be imappropriate. DIY just didn't like the Quote so he made it DIY's mission to keep it out with continuing different excuses. Every time I tried to make a new change with differing sources, DIY just kept at it. I continued to make new changes and to each change - REVERT. IS DIY A BOEING employee that can't stand a good word about MDC? Mondobyte (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Mondobyte (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC) On the same subject, it appears that the BOEING F/A-18 E/F was designed and produced entirely by Boeing. That is not the case. The design and initial production occurred before BOEING merged with MDC. Boeing seems to be plastering the BOEING name on every aircraft produced by MDC - smacks of reality control ala "1984". I believe this is inappropriate and true credit should be given to MDC for designs and aircraft in production before the Boeing merger. There is no question in my mind that all that Boeing inherited in the merger was continued production of the F/A-18C/D. At that point, the F/A-18C/D was a mature aircraft in final production. The F/A-18E/F was designed and initial production began before the Boeing merger. This article and the E/F specific article make it seem as if BOEING was responsible for the redesign of the aircraft which is just not the case.
Another case in point. SLAM-ER was an MDC missile and in production before the Boeing Merger yet all the articles about it suggest that it was Boeing that took the heritage of the Harpoon and designed a new missile. Similarly, Just because General Dynamics designed and initially produced the Tomahawk followed by MdDonnell Douglas, Hughes Aircraft and now Raytheon all manufactured the Tomahawk missile does not mean that it should now be named the Raytheon Tomahawk Missile. It should just be Tomahawk missile with the various manufacturers listed and giving credit to General Dynamics as the original designer although today's tomahawks really are quite different from the original. Mondobyte (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mondobyte: The LA Times article[11] does NOT clearly attribute that quote to a pilot although I can see why you might have read it that way. All it says is that a pilot in a TV interview was the source for "Big Mac Attack" and that the subsequent newspaper ad featured the headline "Every enemy fighter..." That article is NOT an adequate source for stating that a pilot said that. Regardless of the origin of the quote (which should be attributed - see WP:QUOTE - to someone or something if put in quotes in an article), the significant issue is that I dispute that it is relevant to this article because it is primarily about the F-15. Air engagements of the Gulf War, if its sources are accurate, indicates that only 2 of them were downed by F-18s. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DIYeditor. That phrase seems like a quote, however, there doesn't seem to be anybody you can acctually attribute that quote to, just an advertisement in a newspaper. Have a look at MOS:Attribution to see how quotes should be attributed ("The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named"). Also, per WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." An advertisement in a newspaper is not a reliable source as it isn't fact-checked by the newspaper publishing the ad.
I also agree with DIYeditor that since most of the kills were by F-15Cs, the quote (if properly attributed) should not be on the F/A-18 Hornet page, but maybe on the McDonald Douglas page. By my back-of-the-napkin math of Air engagements of the Gulf War, 30 fighters were destroyed by F-15s and 2 were destroyed by F/A-18s. That means only 6.25% of the kills were done by F/A-18s, so why would that quote belong on this page, even if it is a McDonald Douglas aircraft? That statement also conveniently ignores the helicopter kills by F-14s and A-10s and other air kills. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. This is trivia. It shouldn't be in this article if it was important information and it's not. --McSly (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with user McSly!.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Swiss mock-ups

An article on two F/A-18C mock-ups, built as interactive training aids for the Swiss Air force, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO. One option being suggested is that the content be moved here. Please make any comments on the AfD page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Range vs Radius

A recent series of edits have seen the wording of the specs jump between 'Range' and 'Radius'. I would like to start the discussion here in order to gain a consensus on the proper term and avoid any edit warring. It's my understanding that the specs template specifically uses 'Range', whereas the source uses 'Radius'. Assuming this is true, I think we need to determine what the difference is between the two terms first, and then we can go from there. Sario528 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That discussion is better had at Template talk:Aircraft specs, which is where changes to the parameters are actually made. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The older aircraft specs template has various fields for both range and combat radius and was used in this article for a long time. The newer Template:Aircraft specs does not seem to have radius fields though. Radius and range are related but different measures, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Template talk:Aircraft specs#Range vs Radius. Sario528 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nose Mounted?

M61 cannon port on top of the nose

If its rotary cannon is mounted on the nose, why is it not visible?2601:245:C101:6BCC:9160:F5A3:AD4A:2198 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mounted inside the nose and shrouded by the nose for better aerodynamics/less drag. Most 4th gen and newer fighters have the cannon in the base of the wing on one side. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"F/A" designation not official

According to Mike Spick, in his "Great Book of Modern Warplanes" (ca. 1980s, new edition in the 2000s), the "F/A" designation is just a popular one, and is not official at all. The fighter is actually called the "F-18". There are no other aircraft given a dual name like that, and where they are, they are written without a slash (RF-4 Phantom, QF-104, etc). I am inclined to beleive him, and I suspect the same is true of the Super Hornet. It ought to mention this if it's true. I doubt it will make any difference, and people will continue to call it the "F/A-18" (why not FA-18?), but if it's true it ought to be stated here.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DoD 4120.15-L infers it is FA-18 but it also lists F-18A and A-18A as valid just to cover all bases. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Voice warnings system

Re this removal: agreed, it is not unusual for a military fast jet warning system to use voice messages, of for those messages to be spoken by a female voice. The only possible notable aspect of that source is the identity of the speaker, Leslie Shook. But she is named at the Bitching Betty article, which seems a more appropriate location. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. what would be more interesting to know would be details of any Zhaluyas Yelizavetas?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet/Archive_2&oldid=1047687742"