Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


F-18 Advanced Hornet

This is a discussion on F-18 Advanced Hornet within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by spaceface When an F-18 Hornet goes up against a Formula One race car, who will win in ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old April 20th, 2014   #91
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,231
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceface View Post
When an F-18 Hornet goes up against a Formula One race car, who will win in this speed showdown?

This adrenaline frenzy was hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force at a base near Melbourne, just ahead of the Australian Grand Prix this week.

Reigning F1 champions Red Bull lined up their latest driver, Aussie native Daniel Ricciardo, alongside a the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet for the spectacular drag race, according to the Daily Mail.

Let’s be clear, jets and cars can’t really race each other, although it’s always awesome to see the stunt. When starting from a dead stop on a runway, almost any car with at least six cylinders could get a head start on the 16-ton fighter aircraft.

But when the F-18′s two massive jet engines kicked in, blasting roughly 24,000 pounds of thrust per engine, the Formula One race car — with its V6 1.6l turbo engine boosted by an electric motor — didn’t stand a chance.
Video mate, video please. I know you can't post links but if you post the link with http entered as hxxp then of us can clean it up for you. For example: hxxp://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-18-advanced-hornet-12727-7/#post277787
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE

Last edited by ngatimozart; April 21st, 2014 at 12:47 AM. Reason: clarification of messy instructions.
ngatimozart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2014   #92
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 889
Threads:
I was goint to post this up a few weeks ago.
Its a classic hornet not a super

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luH-rOYixY8
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2015   #93
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,391
Threads:
Unhappy

Defensenews.com is reporting that Kuwait is likely to order some Superhornets. This should keep the line open for a few more years, no doubt a relief to the USN just in case the "C" doesn't work out as planned. Unfortunately for the RCAF, having the F-18 SH production line continue allows the Canadian government to further delay the purchase of new fighters as there will still be two U.S. jets to choose between. The anti-F-35 crowd here will now try to push the ASH as a better choice. This will be made easier by the likely defeat of the Conservative government in Oct.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2015   #94
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Delhi
Posts: 2
Threads:
One of the best Naval queen

Always admired this aircraft despite of its less manuvering capability but extremely incredible radar signature reduction capability and anti ground collision capability ( as f 16) ...we always expected this aircraft at least for indian navy
Alexendra M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2015   #95
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 799
Threads:
I'll admit in the past I've been dead set against the F-35 but even I can admit the cost per has decreased significantly and have made some good strides in getting them ready.

That aside I do have some concern's/queries.

- Operating costs, While the purchase price can decrease doesn't always mean they will become cheaper to fly. Some use specialized fuels while others are more maintenance intensive. Seen costs for the SH ranging from $11k to $20k (I'm more inclined to believe the $20k+ figure), Costs for the F-15 at $40k (give or take) and costs for the F-35 at $60k+. Does any one have any idea on operating cost of the F-35 vs say the SH??

- Stealth, Based on an article I read with the USN or member's of it saying that stealth was over rated. How accurate is this view? and if it is is it worth while bothering going for a less maneuverable aircraft (If I'm incorrect on this please correct me) whose stealth may be of little to no use down the track?

Operating costs are only a small issue in the grand scheme of things but the stealth is the biggest issue, If it is going to be obsolete down the track then a number of nations are going for an aircraft when other's are more suited to there needs.


On the subject of Canada operating two different air frames (Old but just gone through and read it all), Operating the ASH and F-35 would be impossible in the number's Canada is looking at. For a small air force wanting to operate two air frames about the best one could do would be the ASH and the Gripen since they share engines, Beyond that as far as I know every other combat aircraft globally in production are all just too different.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2015   #96
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,278
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonnoobie View Post
I'll admit in the past I've been dead set against the F-35 but even I can admit the cost per has decreased significantly and have made some good strides in getting them ready.

That aside I do have some concern's/queries.

- Operating costs, While the purchase price can decrease doesn't always mean they will become cheaper to fly. Some use specialized fuels while others are more maintenance intensive. Seen costs for the SH ranging from $11k to $20k (I'm more inclined to believe the $20k+ figure), Costs for the F-15 at $40k (give or take) and costs for the F-35 at $60k+. Does any one have any idea on operating cost of the F-35 vs say the SH??

- Stealth, Based on an article I read with the USN or member's of it saying that stealth was over rated. How accurate is this view? and if it is is it worth while bothering going for a less maneuverable aircraft (If I'm incorrect on this please correct me) whose stealth may be of little to no use down the track?

Operating costs are only a small issue in the grand scheme of things but the stealth is the biggest issue, If it is going to be obsolete down the track then a number of nations are going for an aircraft when other's are more suited to there needs.


On the subject of Canada operating two different air frames (Old but just gone through and read it all), Operating the ASH and F-35 would be impossible in the number's Canada is looking at. For a small air force wanting to operate two air frames about the best one could do would be the ASH and the Gripen since they share engines, Beyond that as far as I know every other combat aircraft globally in production are all just too different.
The F-35 isn't 'less maneuverable' than the Super Hornet. Its acceleration, agility and E-M charts are most comparable to late model F-16's. The difference is that Super Hornets and F-16's require external stores in combat configuration, wheres the F-35 doesn't (though obviously it can). This gives it a tremendous performance advantage compared to most fighters. The majority of performance comparisons aren't conducted on like basis.

The second aspect is the tremendously large amount of fuel the F-35 carries. It carries nearly 19,000lbs of fuel internally. The Super Hornet carries 14,000 odd pounds internally while the F-16 carries about 7,000lbs... Most performance comparisons are predicated upon light air to air missile loads and 50% internal fuel. Put the F-35 performance metrics in that perspective and you see why many critics argue it isn't great. However apples aint apples because no fighter enters combat with a light air to air missile load, no sensors and only 50% fuel. Not if they wish to survivein modern combat anyway. External stores provide drag, vibration and 'G' maneuvering restrictions. The F-35 obviously has no such restrictions as it can be and will most often be 'combat configured' with no external stores of any kind.

The F-35's performance is predicated upon 2x 2000lbs JDAM's, 2x AMRAAM missiles and 9,500lbs of fuel.

Put that on any fighter you choose to compare and see how things look then...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2015   #97
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
The F-35's performance is predicated upon 2x 2000lbs JDAM's, 2x AMRAAM missiles and 9,500lbs of fuel.

Put that on any fighter you choose to compare and see how things look then...
^^^^ this. 100 times, this!

I'm super excited to see the aircraft come into service.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2015   #98
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 290
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
^^^^ this. 100 times, this!

I'm super excited to see the aircraft come into service.
Superhornet - excellent aircraft.
JSF 35A - will be an excellent aircraft.
The difference between the two,well have the debate.
What I will suggest is that both government and the RAAF have got fast air right both for now, transition and for the future.
I would also like to see a MATURE debate on the F35b option.
Take away the emotion,what are the facts:what are the needs and what's the opportunity cost.
LHD's aside there is not that many runways in this part of the world.
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2015   #99
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
^^^^ this. 100 times, this!

I'm super excited to see the aircraft come into service.
+1. Agreed. The further its developed it will only continue to solidify itself as a system despite the critics
Ranger25 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2015   #100
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stampede View Post
Superhornet - excellent aircraft.
JSF 35A - will be an excellent aircraft.
The difference between the two,well have the debate.
What I will suggest is that both government and the RAAF have got fast air right both for now, transition and for the future.
I would also like to see a MATURE debate on the F35b option.
Take away the emotion,what are the facts:what are the needs and what's the opportunity cost.
LHD's aside there is not that many runways in this part of the world.
I don't have any personal opinions on F-35B for Aussie LHDs, mainly because if I assumed to have much knowledge on what the RAN wants to achieve, I'd be guessing.

Suppose it depends on if you need the LHD capability, how much will those 6 or so F-35B offer with respect to the lift capability lost etc, I don't really know.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2015   #101
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
I don't have any personal opinions on F-35B for Aussie LHDs, mainly because if I assumed to have much knowledge on what the RAN wants to achieve, I'd be guessing.

Suppose it depends on if you need the LHD capability, how much will those 6 or so F-35B offer with respect to the lift capability lost etc, I don't really know.
Based on what I've heard from the navy folk's too much lost so they are not interested. Only reason they kept the Ski-jump was because it would have cost more to get rid of it then to keep it.

Only ones thinking about the F-35B's are the politicians and we all know how well that work's out for the military when they stick there noses into it (Only getting half the number of Destroyer's then originally planned)
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2015   #102
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 290
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonnoobie View Post
Based on what I've heard from the navy folk's too much lost so they are not interested. Only reason they kept the Ski-jump was because it would have cost more to get rid of it then to keep it.

Only ones thinking about the F-35B's are the politicians and we all know how well that work's out for the military when they stick there noses into it (Only getting half the number of Destroyer's then originally planned)
I'm fully aware that defence dollars can only go so far.
The well written paper by ASPI comes down against the purchase of the F35b for the ADF for a number of reasons.Probably the most important being that of oppertunity cost. What will be need in up front cash to add this capability or what do we forgo in other areas of defence to gain this aircraft and its unique qualities.
I like a former defence minister don't claim to be an Air Power expert, however over the decades it has impressed me the utility of the old Harrier and how this old slow aircaft has contibuted much to campains from both land and sea.Its not what it cannot do, it's what it can.
It's successor the F35b offers a similar capability with steroids.
I remain unconvinced that it has no benefit to the ADF, be it from land or potentially from sea. I am however open minded to the fact that most with defence knowledge feel its a nice have, but not worth the dollars. As to the PM and some pollies yes it is getting a push.
I guess we will wait for the DWP.

ps - With a small compliment of six Australian Hornets in Operation Okra most would consider this a valued fast jet contribution by the RAAF and committment by the Australian government.
You could fit six F35b on the deck of Canberra and still have lots of utility in the decks below.
I still feel that we are a country that both needs and can afford this F35b option.
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2015   #103
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
Blackshoe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 282
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stampede View Post
Superhornet - excellent aircraft.
JSF 35A - will be an excellent aircraft.
The difference between the two,well have the debate.
What I will suggest is that both government and the RAAF have got fast air right both for now, transition and for the future.
One big thing to remember is that no matter what else you strap into the F-18 series...

...it's never going to be a Gen 5 fighter.

There is only so much room for growth in the fighter itself. That's a hard limit that can't be avoided (at least not cheaply, and even then, one can only do so much with the basic design)

Future potential is a question that should be included in weighing these options, and the ceiling for the F-18 series is always going to be lower than the F-35s.
Blackshoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016   #104
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,391
Threads:
Apparently a F-18 SH sale is still a possibility to Kuwait. This is good news for Boeing if it happens and will benefit the USN down the road should it be necessary to procure more SHs. One negative is it allows the new Canadian PM to procrastinate on making a fighter decision since it now appears the F-18 production line will stay open. Mind you a delay gives LM time to sort the the F-35 making it a more attractive choice, even to our idiot PM "junior".

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...er-hornet.html

Last edited by John Fedup; January 26th, 2016 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Forgot link
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2016   #105
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,231
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Apparently a F-18 SH sale is still a possibility to Kuwait. This is good news for Boeing if it happens and will benefit the USN down the road should it be necessary to procure more SHs. One negative is it allows the new Canadian PM to procrastinate on making a fighter decision since it now appears the F-18 production line will stay open. Mind you a delay gives LM time to sort the the F-35 making it a more attractive choice, even to our idiot PM "junior".

Kuwait Says Sticks to F-18 Jets Despite Approval Delays (excerpt)
Well it looks like Boeing have missed out on that deal with Kuwait reportedly buying 28 Typhoons because they cannot wait for US government approval for a SH purchase due to them having to upgrade their air force now. The contract is to be signed on Sunday and is worth approximately US$8.7 billion.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 PM.