Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet article.|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated B-class)|
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)
I understood that USA had been unwilling to sell modern guided Air to Ground bombs (can't remember the exact name) to Finland since they're not a NATO country. Maybe the capability to launch them is present at least in some degree but there's no ordnance, just remember reading something about that from a Finnish news paper or even a Finnish army news paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The 1/3 of the intro is dedicated to the E/F which btw has its own article. Intro is supposed to be a summary of the current topic and not of another article. The last third should be focused instead of a career summary ( fought in x wars and will be replaced by whom ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Updated USN squadron status
I updated the information for which US squadrons have transitioned to the Super Hornet from the Legacy Hornet. spook498~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
side by side comparison A&C vrs. E and C&D vrs. F
To the best of _MY_ (unverified) knowledge, the main difference between the A&B vrs. C&D (discarding the one vrs. two position cockpits) is that the A&B have OVAL air intakes, whereas the C&D have "diamond" or semi-rectangular air intakes. But...
Does anyone know of a website where there is a comparison, either in text or images, the differences in APPEARANCES between the "A" vrs. "C", as well as the "B" vrs. "D"?
(i.e.: The differences of the "A" and "C" versus the "E" as well as the "B" and "D" versus the "F" are rather well know.)
I've had no such luck.
LP-mn (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
NO. My understanding is it is a lot more than just that. From the Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet "The Navy retained the F/A-18 designation to help sell the program to Congress as a low-risk "derivative", though the Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft. The Hornet and Super Hornet share many design and flight characteristics, including avionics, ejection seats, radar, armament, mission computer software, and maintenance/operating procedures." - Re- Finland - the United States Naval Institute Ships and Aircraft of the United States Navy - circa 1979 stated the aircraft would have different software for avionics depending upon mission - fighter or ground attack. I don't think it is that was as fielded - all have the same avionics - mission is simply based on weapons loaded. Perhaps for the Finland variants the software is "stubbed" to omit the support for ground attack weapons. In addition to retaining the designation, I thought that allowed the Navy to not have to provide Grumman the option to present another alternative to replace the F-14 with. Wfoj3 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the C/D to E/F changes are covered in the Super Hornet article. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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:
- ...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:
- Do you realize your double standards? What is the point in hiding? Sometimes it really looks you are running a political agenda.
- ...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.
- "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
- Atkinson, Rick (1994). Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 47. ISBN 0-395-71083-9
- Weiner, Tim. "With Iraq's O.K., a U.S. Team Seeks War Pilot's Body." The New York Times, 14 December 1995: A1.
- Sadik, A., Zampini, D. "Tretij Den' (i posledujuschie...)" ["The Third Day (and beyond...)"]. Aviacija i vremja (Aviation and Time) No. 6 (2005) (Russian)
- Cite error: The named reference
Israeli-Syrian_Shadow-Boxing.was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- "Ejection history." ejection-history.org.uk. Retrieved 1 August 2010.
- "Israel downed 2 Syrian MiGs in 2001." WorldTribune.com. Retrieved 1 August 2010.
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)
Current new 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)
Very surprised that seven accidents should be removed, all at once in this edit, without any discussion, even if "the bar is higher" for military aircraft. Four of those accidents were fatal. How is one to compare the safety record between different fast jet types without at least comprehensive figures for fatal accidents over the lifetime of the aircraft? A small narrative can at least explain the circumstances of each. We're not talking about hundreds here, were talking 10 in total, seven of which have now been removed. That seems a rather big step without any discussion at all. What are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry should have explained it was discussed that this type of accidents were not notable at the F/A-18E article and this article was used as an otherstuff exists point. Fatal military accidents are not really notable unless they kill somebody notable, kill civilians on the ground, hit something important or otherwise notable, the ones listed were just not-notable. They are or should be listed in Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft and if the accidents and incidents were moved into a sub-article that normaly gets expanded to include all fatal accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you direct me (and any one else who might be interested) to that discussion? Generally, I tend to disagree. I think even a bare list would be better than nothing. Any reader coming here might fairly want to know how many fatal accidents this aircraft had suffered and (roughly) why. You think ten is such a huge total to describe? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Non-notable accidents was started after I challenged the addition of a non-notable accident in that article. The project consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents which says that military accidents are "mostly non-notable". How many fatal accidents is not something that is included in most military aircraft articles but if a reliable source could be found then I cant see why it cant be mentioned. The consensus although not written down tends to allow more freedom in an accident and incident sub-article like List of F-15 losses and any fatal accident is normally listed in the Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft series. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link and background explanation. It still seems a bit odd that the project should conclude that military accidents are "mostly non-notable" when, as you say, any fatal accident is normally listed in Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. I guess the issue (for me) is that those lists are arranged chronologically rather than by type. The information is there, it's just not arranged in any particularly useful way. But I'm still rather unclear how one decides whether any particular (fatal) accident is worthy of inclusion in an article or not. And, of course, in terms of the aircraft development programme, non-fatal accidents may be just as significant as (if not more significant than) fatal ones, since the aircrew live to describe what happened - which can be invaluable in terms of diagnosis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, all fatal accidents should be included in the article...and I think it's indefensible to imply accidents are notable only if "important" people are killed. The non-fatal accidents and detailed explanation of all accidents can be covered in specific articles, but I think we should at least mention all the fatal accidents in the article. After all, it's also a part of the general performance overview of the aircraft. Green547 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2015 (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.