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

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)

• Some specific guidelines would really help. -Fnlayson 23:48, 1 March 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 can agree with that. But size isn't mentioned on that page. Similar size should probably be added. -Fnlayson 01:02, 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)

• Good point about era and capability. I'd say similar capability can cover similar size in a general sense. -Fnlayson 03:40, 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 speeds data we're discussing come from public sources, such as U.S. Navy fact file, so no reason to go there.. -Fnlayson 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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, Vmax^HI Mach 1.8+, Vmax^LO 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)

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)

• There's not much difference, but I'll see what I can find on dodmedia.osd.mil. -Fnlayson 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Added a refueling image with both F and E models. :) -Fnlayson 02:13, 16 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)

• Since no one gave me any feedback, I went with the last one here. -Fnlayson 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Radar Signature Reduction

Kopp is not a really good reference! I see re-entrant triangles at the Rafale. [1][2] 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 [3] for the Radar signature reduction. 20 db lower as the Hornet, that is the factor 100! --HDP (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cool. There's a couple book references and articles in use here. One difficult thing is shielding the front fan blades from radar waves. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (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)

• It doesn't seem to have a Wiki article. Doesn't appear to be that important or notable. So I don't think that'd be needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:31, 17 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)

• Nope. Australia is correct. Read the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:05, 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)

• Also, Navy press release on Tu-95 incident: CNO Calls USS Nimitz Incident 'Benign'. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 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)

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)