Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Dec 2008 Crash

What about the the crash that happend Dec 8 2008 around noon in california? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington95 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's right in the Accidents section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And at 2008 San Diego F-18 crash - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

0I applogize Washington95 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the guidline for including accidents? Obviously, there have been many - some more notable than others. I understand why the Miramar crash is there (lots of news coverage/separate wiki article about crash), but why is the Fallon accident there? Just wonnerin'.E2a2j (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There are guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH#Military (M) now. If you mean the Finnish F-18D crash, I agree that does not qualify as notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I was talking about the 13 June 2008 Nevada crash. Not partucularly notable. Thanks.E2a2j (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• That one seems notable since it involved 2 aircraft colliding. -fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"The Hornets shot down two MiGs and resumed their bombing run, each carrying four 2,000 lb bombs, before returning to Saratoga. Mongilio and Fox become the first pilots to register air-to-air kills while still completing their original air-to-ground mission."

This statement in the article seems doubtful. What about B-17's and the like in WW2 shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft enroute to Germany? Assuredly at least one of those got to their targets after shooting down an opponent, let alone the thousands of dive bombers, torpedo bombers, carpet bombers etc. that saw air to air action during WW2.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its meant to be f/a-118 piolets to do that. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This statement is extraordinary, but it was only supported by a website from Boeing. Boeing is not objective enough to support this statement which is highly unlikely, considering the great number of fighter-bombers in WWII, and bombers with gunners, etc. I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• That should probably the first fighter pilots to do that, but I have not seen it specifically mentioned in my F/A-18 books. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Even should you look only at fighter pilots, it is likely that a fighter carrying a bomb or two, on a mission to attack ground targets, might have achieved an aerial victory during WWII, and also completed its original mission. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Finnish/Swiss Hornets and A-G capability

Does anyone have any confirmed information about the A-G features delivered with Swiss and Finnish Hornets? What bothers me are these sentences in the Finnish Air Force article: "It lacks certain avionics, target acquisition and weapon control features, limiting its ground attack capability. The variant is also used by the Swiss Air Force."

As far as I know, the Finnish Hornets are for the most part pretty much standard. They for example even retain the launch bar which is completely useless without an aircraft carrier. I've never heard from a reliable source that there were actually any missing major features related to ground attack. And by major features I mean something that is normally integrated in the aircraft instead of some removable pod that can be bought and added at any time if needed. Only in recent years have I seen talk about a "Finnish variant" of the Hornet.

It is of course well known that both air forces originally intended using Hornets only for air defense, but were there actually any technical restrictions or was it only decided not to buy A-G weapons and targeting pods? I remember reading that originally Swiss Hornets had slimmer pylons capable of carrying only A-A weapons but Finnish Hornets had the standard pylons from the start. -Khilon (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Refueling image

I noticed that this article is missing one of the "staple" images we have on military aircraft articles: aerial refueling. It's got that NASA video, and a ground refeuling image, but if consensus say we want more, there is a great PD closeup at http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/_layouts/imagemeta.aspx?image=http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/PublishingImages/20050711-M-0502A-006.jpg, not to mention that there aren't too many images on the article of the dual-seat models. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re designation

Please excuse the flagrant ignorance, but what does the "A" in F/A 18 designate? I (and probably many others) would appreciate/ recommend an explicit statement explaining that in the opening section. From the context I can assume that the "A" stands for "All weather," but I would be more comfortable with an explicit statement defining this. Thanks. Olan7allen (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The A in F/A-18 is for attack (ground attack) under the 1962 tri-service designation system. The Hornet was originally to have F-18 (fighter) and A-18 (ground attack) versions, but avionics advancements allowed them to be joined in one version. See the bottom of the "Redesigning the YF-17" section for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a question?

How do you create the blank maps to put what came from what country? Mickman1234 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

F-18 cat shot video really a Super Hornet?

Video of F/A-18 taking off

Should the video be moved to the Super Hornet page? I suspect the video is really of a Super Hornet taking off for the following reasons:

1. The tail markings appear to be those for VFA-41, "The Black Aces". This is supported by the file description which indicates the video was taken in May 2009; VFA-41 was indeed deployed on Nimitz at that time.
2. VFA-41 flew the Super Hornet during the May 2009 timeframe.
3. If you look closely it appears the engine intakes are the rectangular type on the Super Hornet, not the circular ones on the original. The shadows in the video make it a little hard to tell.
4. It just looks .... bigger.

Quickfoot (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looks like the rectangular SH intakes and also there are 3 pylons on the near side wing. The legacy Hornet has 2 pylons. I moved the video link to the E/F article. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

F-18L

IMHO the F18L paragraph does not belong in the development section since it was neither a precursor to the F/A 18 nor a production plane in it's own right. I think it is reasonable to leave it in the export variant section, but perhaps it also needs it's own page? Chalky (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of this was covered in the "Details of McDonnell Douglas/Northrop split" section above. The -18L section is in the right place historically/chronologically to cover the program development. McDonnell Douglas buying rights to the F/A-18 is covered there. So seems fine to me. By the way the F-18L text was in another article, then was merged here because it was very short. -fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Aging fighter jet gets new lease on life

Possible reference of interest: "Aging fighter jet gets new lease on life", Los Angeles Times, 4 February 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.84.30 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is mostly about ordering more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Common name rule

Is "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F/A-18 Hornet" is probably more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F/A-18 Hornet", rather than "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen?

There is some prominent Charlie Sheen quotes, "I'm an F-18 bro" and "Most of the time- and this includes naps- I'm an F-18." I believe this is in reference to this aircraft, but I'm not completely certain. Can someone verify this and if so, can we include it in popular appearances in the media? Reference: http://www.livethesheendream.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.27.113.51 (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, suggest you keep the un-encyclopedic input elsewhere other than here. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What defines 'notable' in regard to accidents for military aircraft?

Perhaps the heading title should be changed to 'notable accidents' or 'fatal accidents' (seems that might be your criteria- hmmm) Questioning since there doesn't seem to be a solid understanding of what makes an accident notable to the moderator of this article. The last 2 major class A mishaps of this type have been for engine maintenance issues (a very rare set of circumstances on their own, let alone in the same squadron) yet justification requirements for listing the latest accident seem to be shifting and arbitrary. It meets the WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft_articles guidelines. Let it go. (98.112.135.88 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Still perplexed regarding accident section moderation

I'm finding it difficult to NOT continue to question the qualifications of the moderator of the accidents section of this article. After continued changes to the posting regarding the March 30, 2011 Stennis engine explosion mishap rendering the listing less accurate and questioning it's notability, now there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not this accident was the same squadron as the December 2008 San Diego accident that killed 4 civilians on the ground. The reasoning given is that the references given do not explicitly state that 'it was the same squadron'. In fact cited references to both accidents clearly state the squadron was VMFAT-101. One of them spells it out as MARINE CORPS FIGHTER ATTACK TRAINING SQUADRON 101. I expect as a moderator on this article you have the experience to know these are one in the same. Are you looking for more than this?(98.112.135.88 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Read this talk page and its archive page(s). The Consensus on this article's talk page and other articles is that most crashes and accidents involving military aircraft are non-notable. These are not large airliners after all. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you offering as compromise (as defined on the consensus page)? Could you point out where in this article's talk page or it's archive that mentions a notability standard? I'm not sure of the validity of comparing this article to large airliners. This article is about military aircraft. Shouldn't notability be related to context? I would agree this would not be notable for the Aviation accidents and incidents article, but this article is about the specific aircraft type involved in this accident. Different standard of notability for sure.

In general, I'm still wondering why the gestapo edit tactics. Are we hurting for server space or something to the point that adding this small item is compromising some standard? If in the course of time the notability of this accident fades and diminishes, perhaps revisit the issue but for now it doesn't seem to be taking anything away and it is giving the user more information. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia?(98.112.135.88 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

Just to clear up one point this article does not have a moderator or similar, all the actions and changes are by consensus of all editors. The fact that the addition of the Stennis accident was challenged is in an indication that at least one or more editors do not think we should include it. Rightly this was raised on this talk page where the onus is on the person wanting to add content is to gain a consensus. Fnlayson has already stated that military aircraft accidents are not normally notable, a reflection of the current thinking and practice on such articles. It is up to you to convince other editors that this accident is notable enough to be included. The F/A-18 has had lots of accidents and aircraft losses and more than 20 fatal non-combat accidents, but as a military aircraft this happens and we cant list every loss in an aircraft article. Really it has to have hit something important or killed somebody important to get a mention, although accidents that show a trend of a major failure in the aircraft type may make the mark, although that may be more of a summary of such events. Some aircraft articles have a separate List of accidents and incidents page and more info is normally allowed on them, including fatal accidents and aircraft destroyed. So unless you can convince other editors that this is more than just another non-fatal accident it should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make regarding the editing was that Fnlayson was acting as sole authority and defacto moderator, and that a consensus of one by convincing this single user with an apparently shifting agenda was the apparent requirement.

To the real issue at hand, this is a repeated major accident of the same aircraft type and squadron linked to engine maintenance issues. While no loss of life, it is one of the most significant accidents of this aircraft type yet that didn't involve an actual crash. The circumstances of this mishap are more unusual and therefore notable than even the typical crash with loss of crew mishap. There doesn't seem to be a lot of competition for notability for this particular aircraft type, so in that context this mishap qualifies for mention in my opinion. Applying a wider standard of all of aviation, this is not headline news and as such it would be difficult to make a case for notability on that level. But in my opinion that would be a misplaced standard across to broad of a context to be appropriate. 98.112.135.88 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Almost time to put down the stick on this. It's been a month since I removed the entry once and tagged it after the text was re-added. If media outlets were making your case this accident surely would be notable, but that has not happened yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought by now you would have taken your own advice and recused yourself from further comment on this issue. Let's focus on building consensus, instead of arbitrarily removing content without consensus. Your input to this article is appreciated and the Design section is no doubt the better for it, but the users who care one way or the other would perhaps be better served if you didn't apply your agressive editing to the Accidents section.

Naval Aviation operational experience is evidently under represented within the wikipedia community, and solely relying on the media to report factual details of this sort of trend or information is wishful thinking and would result in a far less effective wikipedia if applied to all articles. It seems to me that is one of the major reasons why we are here, to provide information and insight as Subject Matter Experts to help better inform the general public. As is no doubt evident by the passage of time since my last entry I had pretty much put this bed, but I wanted to respond to MilborneOne's post and make a case for inclusion based on a more specific notability standard.

Which brings me to my final question/point: Can you link or point to a notability standard for aviation accidents and/or more specifically military aviation accidents by type that is clearly defined in writing? 98.112.135.88 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just need to avoid getting into original research/synthesis territory with this... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "the Navy was skeptical that an aircraft with one engine and narrow landing gear could be easily or economically adapted to carrier service" Such a statement needs a good reference - as is sounds like original research as the Navy didn't appear to have a problem with the F8U, F11F, or A-7 (which the F-16 or F-18 was expected to replace). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't provide you with a reference other than my years of experience in naval aviation, but I can try to explain the way US naval aviation doctrine shifted and moved away from single engine or narrow landing gear designs for their aircraft. The aircraft you mentioned, as well as the A-4 Skyhawk are all excellent aircraft that excel in their performance characteristics and mission achievement. But in the 60s after analyzing mishap data it was apparent that single engine aircraft had much higher loss rates than twin engine, mostly due to losing an engine during over water flight providing no suitable emergency landing other than a water ditch, which results in a total loss of the aircraft.

The narrow landing gear issue showed up as a significant contributor to carrier landing mishaps, due to the inherently less stable stance compared to wider landing gear designs.

The F-14, A-6 and F-18 are examples of newer generation aircraft these design requirements were applied to. The F-16 is an excellent aircraft for Air Force use, but the narrow gear and single engine make it unsuitable for carrier landings and primarily over water operations. This is probably the best example of why the Air Force and the Navy continue to have divergent design requirements for their aircraft.

I can't point to a publicly available single document or a collection of documents that can be used as a good reference, but the evolution of naval aircraft design if analyzed closely and the absence of any modern naval aircraft that don't meet these objectives should help to verify this is not original research by a contributor. 98.112.135.88 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)