Navy Details New Super Hornet Capabilities

Aviation Week ^ | Feb 25, 2007 | David A. Fulghum

[MARKUSPRIME]

The super hornet is larger than all those.

[Fudd]

Didn't I read (on FR) that the Hornet E/F's performance was not all that great? That dirty C/D's could out-run a clean E/F?

Just wondering.

[skeptoid]

The increased capabilities are pretty substantial.

The MTOW went from 51.5K to 66K
Thrust went from 2x18K to 2x22K
Flip a switch to change missions

I love this from Boeing:
Flight qualities:
Highly departure resistant through its operational flight envelope.
Unlimited angle-of-attack and carefree flying qualities for highly effective combat capability and ease of training.
Reconfigurable digital flight-control system detects and corrects for battle damage.

[Fatuncle]

The YF-17 was a fairly good LWF, in the class of the F-16. The Super Bug is a 21st century conceptual descendant of the F-4: an multi-role fighter/interceptor/ground attack bird. Due to modern electronics, materials, and engines, it's vastly more capable.

Bear in mind that even the F-16 flown today bears only a cosmetic resemblance to the prototype.

[Fatuncle]

Yes. Only the Tomcat could carry it.

The missle never did live up to the hype.

[Erasmus]

Or, Kick Ass and Take Names.

[yhwhsman]

From the side those look a lot like Veritech fighters from Robotech--when do they change into mecha? :)

[EagleUSA]

If I'm not mistaken, the Left wanted to kill this plane during its development.
----
In general, the radical socialist left wants to kill every military and space expenditure. If money is not being spent to BUY VOTES, POWER AND CONTROL it is not worthy of expenditure...

[SampleMan]

Nothing like it? They do bear a family resemblance.

Try to find a part that is interchangeable between the YF-17 and the F/A-18E. You won't be able to.

While the F/A-18A was a direct development of the YF-17, a "resemblance" is all that is left between the YF-17 and the Super Hornet.

Look at the stats on the aircraft.

The planform you posted wouldn't even have been that close if you had posted the correct aircraft. You are aware that the Hornet and Super Hornet are as different as the Sabre was from the Super Sabre aren't you? Would you say the Super Sabre was a FJ-1 Fury, or even that the F-86 was an FJ-1 Fury?

[Oztrich Boy]

The plane that lost to the F-16 was not a super hornet,but a F-18 hornet. Yes they are a big difference.

Actually it was the YF-17 Cobra. Even bigger difference

[Dark Wing]

bookmark

[Doohickey]

F-14 was the only platform that could fire it. Phoenix was retired in 2004.

[SampleMan]

The AIM-54 was designed to shoot at large Soviet bombers with the radar cross section of a strip mall. Its range against smaller maneuvering targets was much less.

I have thought about the idea of hanging an SM-2 under an interceptor with a combination seeker that would passively track like the HARM and then go full active in the terminal phase. Fired from 40k feet it would have a range in excess of 140 nm and be a real AWACS killer.

Of course it would have to fall away before ignition just like the AIM-54 did, and the pilot would have to close his eyes to prevent being blinded by the flash.

[ryan71]

Developing airframes to fly from carriers is expensive and requires more engineering than land based aircraft.

It appears the Navy has decided the correct approach is to take a proven carrier-borne aircraft and increase it's electronic capabilities in order to confront the modern threat. I'm not sure what that means for the F-35... It's not an illogical approach when you consider the advances in electronics in our every day lives. I have a back ground in Electronics Warfare and it's news to me that fighter radar systems are now capable of DECM (Deceptive Electronic Counter Measures). Techniques such as RGPO (range Gate Pull Off) to give false ranges to opposing radar was always limited to very bulky and pricey shipboard systems (SLQ-17), in the past. These are tremendous capabilities to have in airborne platforms because early implementation is critical.

The Navy's defense "screen" is a very layered and reaching approach. Air assets including AEW and CAP aircraft are always forward deployed to increase detection ranges. Surface ships equipped with SPY-1/AEGIS systems add command and control to this capability by creating a link "picture" to the battle group. The goal is to detect and identify threats as soon as possible and attack them before they pose a threat to the carrier.

The most important capability for Navy fighter is not to be able to turn inside a Mig-29 Fulcrum. The "cobra" looks cool at an airshow but I question it's tactical worth. The Navy plans to overwhelm the enemy with superior training, tactics, and technology before a dog-fight can happen. The Super Hornet and other naval assets COMBINED will be able to defeat any foreseeable threat.

[A.A. Cunningham]

F-14 was the only platform that could fire it.

Operational fleet platform. The first plane to fire the AIM-54 was a modified A-3.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Additional comments.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You never worked with the AN/ALQ-126, did you?

[A.A. Cunningham]

The increased capabilities are pretty substantial.

Not really.

Battle of the SuperFighters: F-14D Tomcat v. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[hornetguy]

Good article, wonder why they say NAS Fallon is in California.

[Spruce]

I am still not convinced the Hornet can carry the jockstrap of a Tomcat.