Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Aardwolf RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/23/2003 5:00:53 AM

>>The F18e/f should have been equiped with 30,000lb engines with 2D TVC and larger F22 style nose with a big AESA radar. Where would they fit? Remember the Hornet started out as a twin-engine F-16 analogue (and in that original version had very good flight performance). It was supposed to have been a _lightweight_ fighter. Even the F-18A was loaded down with enough extra fuel and other modifications that it significantly degraded flight performance. It's the F-14 that should get AESA radar, 35,000lb thrust engines with vectoring nozzles, and aerodynamic/antiradar updates.

Quote Reply

Crusader RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/23/2003 6:21:31 AM

>>It's the F-14 that should get AESA radar, 35,000lb thrust engines with vectoring nozzles, and aerodynamic/antiradar updates. << Very true. The F-18 is a compromise, nothing more. They wanted a one-plane does all, and they got it. It can do everything, but nothing well. The Navy wanted to get rid of A-6s/A-7s/F-4s/F-14s, and MD politic'd Grumman out of the good graces of the Navy, so we ended up with a Swiss Army Knife. As a taxpayer, I would have preffered to either keep the F-14 AND the F-18. or the F-14 and the newer marks of A-6 that were in testing. But we got the F-18, so we better make the best of it. But we better hope we n3ever need dedicated fighter support from our carriers, as we will lose our optimised fighters once the last of the F-14s is gone, as the F-35 is also a compromise design fighter-wise. Not real keen on the way my tax dollars are being spent on carrier aircraft, but such is life. muti-role aircraft have limits, but the Navy refuses to accept that fact.

Quote Reply

D5551 RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/23/2003 5:25:11 PM

The F18c/d only weighs 24000lbs, the F15c 28,000lbs, the F18e/f weighs 30,000lbs. There is plenty of room. I don't think the centre barrel or nose were any larger than the F18c/d, they just made the LERXs and wings larger with 40% more fuel. The engines in relation to the planes size are very small like an F5, look at the F14/F15 they look like hotrods with big fat powerful engines not little F5 size engines. I've read a few references to the F18e/f having more fuel than an F15. The F15 has more range with less fuel, more powerful engines which are 20yrs old and there fore less fuel effecient than the F414s of the F18e/f. From what the French Navy say the F14 is out of date and no match for the Rafael? Probably wrong when at BVR range even though the F14 would probably have a large RCS. From what I know the F14 was optimised for intercepting large or supersonic russian designed bombers at LR and high speed. The large size 36,000lbs, variable geometry wings, huge radar and AIM54s were excellent for the job. I did read an article on the proposed Super Tomcat with LERXs which the senior officer writing the article said was much better than the F18e/f. He didn't like the F18e/f at all. But its to late now. Should make the F18e/f as good as possible. Maybe make the second batch of 200 should be more optimised for the Air/Air role, instead of being as you say a swiss army knife.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/23/2003 11:17:39 PM

"I don't want USN pilots hanging there heads in shame when they walk past French Rafael pilots." Not to worry. On any given day, one of them is usually hung over and the other one on leave.

Quote Reply

Aardwolf RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/24/2003 12:10:40 AM

Crusader: >>As a taxpayer, I would have preffered to either keep the F-14 AND the F-18. or the F-14 and the newer marks of A-6 that were in testing. I'd say the second solution, definitely--except that the F-14 could have replaced later A-6s too. It could have used a fixed, multielement, electronically steered antenna, like a miniature Aegis array, and at that point could have been given a very reliable terrain-following capability. (Only part of the antenna would have to be used--just a certain number of elements, others could have been performing other functions at the same time, or for long-range AAW,etc., all elements could have been focused on that task for maximum transmitted power.) >>But we got the F-18, so we better make the best of it. That's about the best we can do. I'm just saying that if the money used developing the F-17 into the F-18 hadn't been spent, and production funds not released, we could have had many more (fully multirole) F-14s at much reduced cost. Also if there had been no Super Hornet development/production, there could have been further F-14 production and upgrades also at lower cost. D551: >>The F18c/d only weighs 24000lbs, the F15c 28,000lbs, the F18e/f weighs 30,000lbs. There is plenty of room. I don't think the centre barrel or nose were any larger than the F18c/d, they just made the LERXs and wings larger with 40% more fuel. You seem to have just contradicted yourself. You assert there is plenty of room, but then note that the center barrel, nose section, etc. is not any larger. The nose will not fit an antenna any larger than that of the APG-65. It isn't a matter of weight, but size and profile. >>The engines in relation to the planes size are very small like an F5, look at the F14/F15 they look like hotrods with big fat powerful engines not little F5 size engines. Again it's a matter of size and profile. The F-18 is not desinged to fit larger engines. If you wanted to fit a bigger radar and larger engines, it would change the profile of the aircraft significantly enough, and require extensive enough structural modifications, that you'd wind up with what is really a new, different aircraft. Wait--that's exactly what already happened with the Super Hornet. Enough money spent that thay could have practically designed a new aircraft from scratch, but decided to re-engineer the Hornet instead (which was origginally supposed to be a 15,000lb empty weight F-16-class light fighter). And look what happened--it proved to be less agile and slower than the F-18, which itself was significantly less agile and slower than the original F-17 design. All of that Hornet and Super hornet funding could have been used to produce and progressively upgrade a much expanded fleet of F-14s, and the F-17 could have been developed as a _better_ land based export fighter, F-18L style, at far lower cost, without all of the re-engineering for carrier use. Whew, okay, I think I've brought up some of these points on other threads. By the way, if you think this is a lengthy post, please don't even get me started on the Avro Arrow, Orenda Iroquois engine, Bac TSR.2 (vs. Tornado), Hawker P.1154, Pratt & Whitney TF30, or F-105F upgrade vs. early F-111s. ;-]

Quote Reply

northernguy RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/24/2003 8:13:29 PM

The content of this thread puzzles me. It seems likely that the intended use of the F/A 18 is such that if they are actually engaged in a dogfight there already has been a catastrophic mission failure. The advantage of being a super power is that you simply don't get surprised by a superior number of opposing fighters in a situation to their advantage. If you do, you lose. That's a given unless you design your equipment around that likelihood. My understanding of current U.S. air strategy is that opposing forces simply won't get close enough for the enemies purported advantage to come into play. That's what satellites, AWACs and uav amongst other things are for. If you don't have these things in abundance then you don't send in your forces until you do. The U.S. has the luxury of waiting until they have that abundance. Yes, without bvr F/a 18's are slightly disadvantaged wrt to specific qualities of a given opponent but that's probably why considerable effort has gone into making sure that F/A 18s do have bvr. Once you've exhuasted your bvr capacity, you use your superior range and air to air fueling resources to head back to base, all the while under the protection of covering forces. If you can't commit those sort of supporting resources don't go there until you can. That's why the U.S. is called a super power.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/24/2003 9:48:58 PM

"F/A 18 is such that if they are actually engaged in a dogfight there already has been a catastrophic mission failure." Not really. Or, put another way, betting that there will be no air to air missions is a very bad bet.

Quote Reply

Aardwolf RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/25/2003 3:06:15 AM

>>The content of this thread puzzles me. It seems likely that the intended use of the F/A 18 is such that if they are actually engaged in a dogfight there already has been a catastrophic mission failure. Then why build short-ranged dogfighters to use in a power-projection role? Especially ones compromised by attempts to make them into long-range strike aircraft, when there were already much heavier fighter-bombers available to begin with? >>The advantage of being a super power is that you simply don't get surprised by a superior number of opposing fighters in a situation to their advantage. If you do, you lose. That's a given unless you design your equipment around that likelihood. In that case what's the use of having aircraft carriers at all? Their aircraft compliment is inherently limited. Basing military strategy around the idea that you'll never be be surprised by enemy action seems to just be asking for disaster.

Quote Reply

Aardwolf RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/25/2003 3:14:20 AM

I previously wrote: >>The F-18 is not desinged to fit larger engines. If you wanted to fit a bigger radar and larger engines, it would change the profile of the aircraft significantly enough, and require extensive enough structural modifications, that you'd wind up with what is really a new, different aircraft. Let me point out that if you did do that, you'd just have reinvented the MIG-29. (Though hopefully one with a bit less down time and a somewhat longer range.) ;-]

Quote Reply

shawn RE:Rafael vs Hornet - USN no top of the line Air/Air fighters 12/26/2003 12:58:16 AM

I'm intrigued about an aspect of the close-combat ACM exercise. I assume that the Rafael woul be using an off-boresight Magic SRAAM and helmet mounted sight combination, which the F-14 & F/A-18C/D/E/F will not acquire until AIM-9X enters service in 2006. I'm thus not in the bit surprised that the Rafael won. As for AMRAAM v MICA... I think it probably be a mutual kill.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT