Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy's Newest Warplane Tests Its Sea Legs - Super Hornet goes to sea
San Diego Union-Tribune | July 24, 2002 | James W. Crawley

Posted on 07/24/2002 3:18:23 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

ABOARD THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN ... The Navy's newest combat jet is .... a tanker?

Not exactly.

The F/A-18E Super Hornet is an afterburner-charged strike fighter that can dogfight, drop bombs, launch missiles and serve as a mid-air gas station.

It is destined to become the Navy's top-of-the-line warplane.

"We're our own little war machine," said Lt. Stan Wilson, a Super Hornet pilot. "We can do everything."

The $57 million-per-copy Super Hornet, 11 years in development, is deploying for the first time Wednesday as the Lincoln battle group leaves San Diego bound for the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf.

Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-115, based at Lemoore Naval Air Station near Fresno, has been training with the Super Hornets for more than a year.

During the next six months aboard the Lincoln, the unit's 12 jets will be under a microscope during their baptism of fire, probably flying patrols over two powder kegs -- Afghanistan and Iraq.

The warplane is a larger, modernized version of the Navy and Marine Corps workhorse, the Hornet strike fighter. In coming years, it will replace the venerable F-14 Tomcat fighter, the 10- to 19-year-old and less-capable Hornet models, the 1970s-era S-3 Viking tankers and, potentially, the aged Prowler radar jammers.

Four feet longer with larger wings and more fuel capacity, the Super Hornet sports the latest in avionics -- touchscreen cockpit displays, all electronic dials and better computers -- and a refrigerator's worth of extra space to accommodate yet-to-be designed sensors and computers.

It comes in two models. The E version is a single-seater that replaces older Hornets. The F model is a two-seater used primarily as a replacement for the two-seat Tomcat.

The Super Hornet can carry nearly every missile and bomb in the Navy's arsenal, including the satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, a favored weapon in Afghanistan.

The Navy has a contract for 222 F/A-18s, and 100 have been delivered. The service might buy up to 326 more Super Hornets. Chicago-based Boeing produces the plane under a $8.9 billion contract.

However, the Navy is going it alone on the Super Hornet. The Marine Corps, the only other U.S. service that flies Hornets, balked at the price.

The men and women who maintain the Super Hornet praise it, and pilots say the plane is easy to fly because of its advanced computers, newer engines and digital cockpit displays.

Each Super Hornet can carry three JDAMs -- the older Hornets carry just one -- and can bring them back to the carrier if not dropped.

Also, with 33 percent more fuel, the E models can fly 132 miles farther than older Hornets.

"Gas is the Achilles' heel of any strike mission," said Capt. Scott Swift, deputy commander of the Lincoln's air wing.

More fuel capacity also allows the Super Hornets to linger over targets longer, he added.

Keeping the Super Hornet flying is easier, too. Built-in diagnostics monitor engines, radars, electronics, hydraulics, stresses on the wings and fuselage and other information. After each flight, a mechanic can download and analyze the data on a laptop.

"It's the easiest aircraft in the Navy to maintain," said Master Chief Petty Officer Ferrell Briggs.

Lt. Joel Tessier, the squadron's assistant maintenance officer, said: "It's a new car that's performing like a new car should."

The plane's versatility was demonstrated off San Diego during the Lincoln's final training exercise May 7. An important practice mission was jeopardized when an Air Force refueling tanker was grounded.

Without mid-air refueling, the carrier's fighters and bombers would never make it to the target and back.

An admiral asked: Could VFA-115's Super Hornets handle the job? Cmdr. Eric Devita, then the squadron's skipper, said his unit would try.

One aircraft, configured in fighter mode, was just returning from a flight. Missiles and bombs would have to be removed and fuel tanks installed -- a process estimated to take five hours. The refueling mission was two hours away.

As the Super Hornet taxied to a stop at the edge of the carrier's rolling deck and shut down its two engines, a phalanx of sailors advanced, ducking under the wings.

In the darkness, pierced only by flashlights and the glow from the afterburners of nearby jets, mechanics traded bombs for 500-gallon fuel tanks. Five "buddy" tanks were slung underneath the wings and fuselage.

In 80 minutes, the fighter was transformed into an aerial refueling tanker. "We took a strike fighter and made it into a tanker," Devita said. "It's not a glorious role, but it's an important role."

The Super Hornet's flight to deployment hit some turbulence during the 1990s. Some critics questioned the Navy's ability to meet performance specifications, a chronic problem with older Hornet models that were heavier than expected and could not fly as far as projected. Others worried that the plane would not be fully tested before it was approved for production.

In 1996, testing of the Super Hornet revealed a phenomena called "wing drop," during which one wing would dip unexpectedly in some turns, causing the plane to roll sharply and uncontrollably.

"It would have been a show stopper" if not corrected, said Chuck Spinney, a Pentagon analyst.

The Navy spent millions of dollars and months to fix the wing drop, tweaking the wings to reduce the problem.

"Fortunately, (the Navy and Boeing) devoted considerable effort to understand and correct it," said Philip Coyle, head of the Pentagon's testing agency until last year.

Whether it's flying a tanker mission or a bombing run, the Navy seems happy with the Super Hornet.

It's the right plane at the right time, said Vice Adm. John Nathman, who oversees training, maintenance and personnel for Navy air units.

"We bought a strike fighter, and we bought a very good strike fighter," he said.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: miltech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 07/24/2002 3:18:23 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Thanks for posting this, my husband said he heard about it on the radio. I could'nt find a story though.
2 posted on 07/24/2002 3:20:45 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
Your husband needs to visit FR more. The news, the analysis, the rebuttals, the additional data...all in one package.
3 posted on 07/24/2002 3:22:31 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
He only gets to visit FR when he can kick me off!
4 posted on 07/24/2002 3:24:11 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
"We can do everything."

Except match the performance of the plane it will be replacing, the F-14.

5 posted on 07/24/2002 3:26:16 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Touch screen displays and "electronic" knobs? Who'd want those in a cockpit?
6 posted on 07/24/2002 3:29:23 PM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fidgit
Hubby ping!
7 posted on 07/24/2002 3:29:30 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen

8 posted on 07/24/2002 3:30:25 PM PDT by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Except match the performance of the plane it will be replacing, the F-14.

I thought the Hornet's primary role was to replace the A-6 Intruder.

The Hornet will have a tough go of it as an air superiority fighter. Just MHO.

9 posted on 07/24/2002 3:31:53 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cmsgop
"We're our own little war machine,"
Excellant!
thanks for the picture
10 posted on 07/24/2002 3:32:36 PM PDT by apackof2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Anytime......

I also do Birthday Parties........
11 posted on 07/24/2002 3:36:32 PM PDT by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: apackof2


12 posted on 07/24/2002 3:40:02 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen; *miltech
OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
13 posted on 07/24/2002 3:46:06 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The $57 million-per-copy Super Hornet, 11 years in development,

11 years do develop and deploy, what is in reality a modification, albeit a major one, of an existing aircaft. That is truely sick. They didn't even develope new avionics, but used those designed and/or upgraded for the older models. (For the most part that is). Only now are they talking about putting in an electronically scanned arrary radar for example. The existing E and F's have eseentially the same radar as the C and D models. Meanwhile they, the Navy airplane design and developement community, bit the big one twice, once with the A-6 upgrade that never was and the with the A-12, which never progressed beyong the mockup stage, inspite of both of these programs sucking up mucho dinero.

14 posted on 07/24/2002 3:48:34 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
I thought the Hornet's primary role was to replace the A-6 Intruder.

The Intruder was supposed to be replaced by the A-12. The D model Hornet has been a band aid that has failed in that role. The Hornet was designed to replace the A-4, A-7 and F-4.

15 posted on 07/24/2002 3:54:41 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
I note the Corps did not buy. What are your thoughts on this? (Believe me, I do understand that the Corps is always underfunded.)
16 posted on 07/24/2002 4:18:56 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Wish it carried the AIM-54 ... or that we developed the ALRAAM for it. It's another serious issue.
17 posted on 07/24/2002 4:20:14 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Stand Watch Listen
Also, with 33 percent more fuel, the E models can fly 132 miles farther than older Hornets.

That doesn't sound right.

19 posted on 07/24/2002 4:34:13 PM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
They're going to get all of the Navy's D model Hornets as they are replaced by the F. The Corps was never really interested, opting instead for the JSF to replace both the Harrier and Hornet. The Hornet can't operate from the deck of an LHA/D. They want to get to one tactical airframe eventually and get away from having to support CVW's. That won't happen for a long time though, if ever.
20 posted on 07/24/2002 4:35:01 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson