EA/18G Growler

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a link to a combined US Navy and US GAO report about the respective capabilities of the US Navy fighters compared to the F-35C fighter they are planning to acquire.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

Of note is the chart on page 11 which shows that:

1) The Super Hornet Block II is rated as only being 65% as combat effective as the F-35 Lightning II (C - model).

2) The F-14D Tomcat is rated as only being 19.5% as combat effective as the F-35 Lightning II (C - model).

Here are some links to show the capabilities of the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block II in a slightly different light:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/13/212600/ultra-hornet.html

http://www.flighttestsafety.org/workshops/FTSC05/NMarler/NMarler.pps

 

[hellfire]

I'd say the Super Hornet is very maneuverable, very fast, has good range and carriers a lot of weapons and has state of the art avionics. The Super Hornet is more than a match for the SU-30. And the F-35 Lightning II will be even better.

well i saw australia networks abc news, where theyt where discussing the combat strategy in case of a war,they were pilots from the australia they said that the F-18 have 50% chance against a SU-30,in BVR but the fact is F18 doesnt have the range and kinematic performance.they said there wont be any F-18 returning home if the SU 30 take out the refulling tanks,and also the SU30 can fire a missile ,turn the other way round and still guide the missile via tail rador. they also said they should'nt have ordered the F18 but rather use the F-111 and not the F18,they wished for the F22,and they said the F35 performance is unclear.
finally they said the SU-30 can outmanuver,outclimb,outrun the f18.

sorry guys i saw the programme 4months ago,so what ever interestings thoughts i remember from the show i just posted.

 

[RubiconNZ]

well i saw australia networks abc news, where theyt where discussing the combat strategy in case of a war,they were pilots from the australia they said that the F-18 have 50% chance against a SU-30,in BVR but the fact is F18 doesnt have the range and kinematic performance.they said there wont be any F-18 returning home if the SU 30 take out the refulling tanks,and also the SU30 can fire a missile ,turn the other way round and still guide the missile via tail rador. they also said they should'nt have ordered the F18 but rather use the F-111 and not the F18,they wished for the F22,and they said the F35 performance is unclear.
finally they said the SU-30 can outmanuver,outclimb,outrun the f18.

sorry guys i saw the programme 4months ago,so what ever interestings thoughts i remember from the show i just posted.

IF you read through the thread you will see quite a large bit of response to the show most of it holding the segment quite negatively, just start reading through an you will get the idea.

 

[battlensign]

People......

In response to point about questions raised in relation to the A2A performance of the F-35 I would simply make these points:

A) The "Four Corners" program referenced provided only very limited detail on their battle strategy scenarios and therefore their conclusions are not really verifiable. I also note that none of those involved has access to any of the necessary classified data to undertake proper analysis or form and credible conclusions.

B) I am suprised that there has been so much debate on the point generally, and I am ashamed to say that Australian public debate on the issue is probably significantly to blame - seems that without our poisionous debate the issues would be limited to costings and time schedules only.

C) The Government and the RAAF have no real concerns about the aircraft performance - the opposition is from a relatively small, but extremely vocal group, of disenfranchised ex-RAAF personnel; Old and Bolds; Pseudo-intellectuals and the odd mobile phone salesman. A defiant group of noble persons in the 'know' publicly shining the light on dodgy government actions is one thing, this is something entirely different.

Brett.

 

[Gryphon]

Super-Slow Hornet

I'd say the Super Hornet is very maneuverable, very fast, has good range and carriers a lot of weapons ...

The Hornet pilots in the initial pilot evaluations of the Super (E/F) Lot-1's called the 'upgrade' the Super Slow Hornet. The E/F's are heavier with longer wings, added weapons hard points, more internal fuel (higher moment of inertia), etc ... the Super Hornet has many advantages over earlier versions but agility or maneuverability is not one of them.

MacDac was able to reduce the total parts count of the E/F model by 29% over earlier versions, making it far simpler to produce and maintain. The inlets were completely redesigned for lower RCS and ease of manufacture. Many internal bulkheads were strengthened and the engine was given serious attention.

I worked maintaining Hornets for five years and not many Naval Aviators (fighters) have much good to say about Lockheed products. (ask P-3 pilots and they would disagree) Hornet pilots enjoyed a rivalry with USAF F-16's, enjoyed scraping them off their windshields if you believed the bar talk. When the Navy's version of the Lockheed F-35 started flight tests, you didn't have to look hard to find claims that it was a slow fat pig. Perhaps, and likely, that was more bar talk than fact. They loved to trash talk Lockheed fighters.

The Super Hornet and F-35 have remarkably similar specs --
Max takeoff weight: SHornet - 66K lbs, Lightning - 60K lbs
Max wet thrust: SHornet - 44K lbs, Lightning - 40+K lbs
Wing area: SHornet - 500 sqft, Lightning - 460 sqft
Wing Span: SHornet - 44'-8", Lightning - 43'
Top Speed: SHornet - M1.8, Lightning - M1.6

In a 'clean' configuration, the Hornet might have an advantage - might and it would be slight. In this configuration the extra surface area of the Lightning hurts it. It needs a greater internal volume for weapons carriage and a much larger internal fuel capability. Playing tag in a clean configuration the Hornet might get the bragging rights, but they better not wander too far from base or the Hornet will run out of fuel.

Take a look at the control surfaces of a Hornet while landing, a huge array of movable surfaces for carrier landings. The F-35C's are more modest, more high speed control oriented. With a full air to air weapon load out, airframe to airframe, no doubt the F-35C would have a serious advantage over the Hornet. All the weapons are inside, away from supersonic airstreams (massive drag), prying enemy radars (stealth) and closer to the aircraft CG (manueverability). Throw in the F-35's front aspect Stealth and advanced avionics and the Hornet's party is over.

 

[nevidimka]

A US Superhornet pilot once said, he never flew anything that bleed energy/speed as fast as the Superhornet.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Take a look at the control surfaces of a Hornet while landing, a huge array of movable surfaces for carrier landings. The F-35C's are more modest, more high speed control oriented. With a full air to air weapon load out, airframe to airframe, no doubt the F-35C would have a serious advantage over the Hornet. All the weapons are inside, away from supersonic airstreams (massive drag), prying enemy radars (stealth) and closer to the aircraft CG (manueverability). Throw in the F-35's front aspect Stealth and advanced avionics and the Hornet's party is over.

I forgot the fact that the F-35 carries it's weapons inside! That is a huge advantage in maneuverability. Not only that having just one engine, helps out everything except reliability and payload which seems to not matter when it comes to the F-35, and modern turbines are very reliable (exception of anything not American, and EU).

 

[f-22fan12]

I'd say the Super Hornet is very maneuverable, very fast, has good range and carriers a lot of weapons and has state of the art avionics. The Super Hornet is more than a match for the SU-30. And the F-35 Lightning II will be even better.

Hooooold on there. The Super Hornet is a great aircraft. Its biggest stregnth would be all the different kinds of weapons it can carry. It is also good at the air superiority role and is without a doubt the world's best carrier based strike fighter.

On the other hand, saying it is "more than a match" for the Su-30 is questionable. If you are talking abou the baseline Su-30s, and even the Su-30MKK you are probobly right, the Hornet is better. But when you go into the Su-30MKI you are wrong. The Su-30MKI is much better than the baseline Su-30s it isn't even funny to suggest they are the same. Here are some reasons why the Su-30MKI is a better plane:
1. The Su-30MKI can carry almost 20,000 pounds of weapons, way more than the Super Hornet.
2. The Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring. The only other operational plane in the world with thrust vectoring would be the F-22 and the Su-30MKM.
3. The Su-30MKI can be armed with many deadly weapons of Russian origin.
4. The Su-30MKI has western avionics, not Russian.
5. They are in different classes of fighters. The Super Hornet is a comparably lightweight strike fighter while the Su-30MKI is a heavy class long range air superiority fighter and powerful strike fighter.

Don't get me wrong, the Super Hornet is a great plane (one of my favorites) but the Su-30MKI is just about the best plane the Russians make right now.
Thanks just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Feanor]

The Su-35M currently in testing is arguably better (since it's a testbed for 5th gen. avionics of the PAK FA among other things).

Mod edit:

Similar threads merged. For those who want to continue the discussion of the capability of the Super Hornet please do so. The merged threads offer quite a lot of information about it's relative capability.

We specifically ask that capability A v capability B discussions be avoided (in fact it's in the rules) because a true comparison CANNOT be made given the different forces etc they serve with. Please stop the SH v whatever aircraft you prefer type comparisons. They are pointless.

Regards

AD

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The biggest thing about the F-35 is that there are so many rumors that it is not maneuverable, but then again it would not matter and that the F-35 can lock on to target 360 degrees around it. But this all started when the Aussies had doubts about the F-35 that is why sooo many people have been in question of it. Right now I am very curious about the maneuverability of the F-35 the Lockheed videos on it's fight do not reveal anything at all.

The F-35 will be just as if not more maneuverable than the F-16 and F-15. Its a +9G rated aircraft from what I know.

Lol the Super Hornet and "very fast"? You obviously don't know what you are talking about here! Except for very low speeds it's also not that maneuvrable at all, the range is ok. Avionics and weapons are the Super Hornet's main strength.

ROFLOL How is Mach 1.8 slow? Please tell me.nfloorl:

The F/A-18 can still do a good +7.5G which is not bad, though not as good as most other fighters but nevertheless the F-18 is still an excellent air to air fighter.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The Super Hornet and F-35 have remarkably similar specs --
Max takeoff weight: SHornet - 66K lbs, Lightning - 60K lbs
Max wet thrust: SHornet - 44K lbs, Lightning - 40+K lbs
Wing area: SHornet - 500 sqft, Lightning - 460 sqft
Wing Span: SHornet - 44'-8", Lightning - 43'
Top Speed: SHornet - M1.8, Lightning - M1.6

The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of more than 1200mph. The F-35 is more of a Mach 1.8 class aircraft not M1.6 as many people say.

Hooooold on there. The Super Hornet is a great aircraft. Its biggest stregnth would be all the different kinds of weapons it can carry. It is also good at the air superiority role and is without a doubt the world's best carrier based strike fighter.

On the other hand, saying it is "more than a match" for the Su-30 is questionable. If you are talking abou the baseline Su-30s, and even the Su-30MKK you are probobly right, the Hornet is better. But when you go into the Su-30MKI you are wrong. The Su-30MKI is much better than the baseline Su-30s it isn't even funny to suggest they are the same. Here are some reasons why the Su-30MKI is a better plane:
1. The Su-30MKI can carry almost 20,000 pounds of weapons, way more than the Super Hornet.
2. The Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring. The only other operational plane in the world with thrust vectoring would be the F-22 and the Su-30MKM.
3. The Su-30MKI can be armed with many deadly weapons of Russian origin.
4. The Su-30MKI has western avionics, not Russian.
5. They are in different classes of fighters. The Super Hornet is a comparably lightweight strike fighter while the Su-30MKI is a heavy class long range air superiority fighter and powerful strike fighter.

Don't get me wrong, the Super Hornet is a great plane (one of my favorites) but the Su-30MKI is just about the best plane the Russians make right now.
Thanks just my 2 cents worth.

The Su-30MKI carries around 3000 lbs more weapons than the SHornet but not much. The F-35 will carry +23000lbs of weapons more than anything else. The F/A-18 can be armed with many weapons of U.S. origin. With up to 11 weapons including AAMs, bombs and fuel tanks.

The Super Hornet is actually a heavy class fighter not a light weight fighter like the original F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet is in the same class as the F-15, F-22 and F-35.

As far as I know the Russians don't have any SU-30s except for many 4-6 maybe 10 at the most, original SU-30s but are not Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM.

 

[Gryphon]

F-35, M1.8?

The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of more than 1200mph. The F-35 is more of a Mach 1.8 class aircraft not M1.6 as many people say.

What is your source for the M1.8 figure? I realize many/most 'public' information reports downgraded capability, but I haven't read anything to indicate such a high speed. Not that it isn't possible with that engine! I think pulled that 1.6M spec out of the LMTAS site ... the Lightning does look a little pudgy to be near M2 capable, but put a big enough engine behind a brick and 'bingo!'.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What is your source for the M1.8 figure? I realize many/most 'public' information reports downgraded capability, but I haven't read anything to indicate such a high speed. Not that it isn't possible with that engine! I think pulled that 1.6M spec out of the LMTAS site ... the Lightning does look a little pudgy to be near M2 capable, but put a big enough engine behind a brick and 'bingo!'.

Considering none of us out here in the civilian world know the precise details of the aircrafts aerodynamic coefficient's, nor it's installed thrust, the exact speed of the aircraft at different weights and altitudes is going to be a little difficult to determine.

Considering that around 1% of it's flight testing has been completed, it's a bit early to determine exactly how "fast" the aircraft will be...

Airforce-technology.com lists the F-35 as having a top speed of M1.8. They are hardly authoritative...

 

[Gryphon]

Airforce-technology.com lists the F-35 as having a top speed of M1.8. They are hardly authoritative...

I've seen a couple of LockMart releases with the M1.6 figure, I think somewhere deep inside fas.org's links they have the same number. Hardly worth quibbling about, I like the M1.8 figure better = makes me feel my tax dollars are better spent.

At the Hazy Center in the DC area, the Smithsonian has the XF-35B parked one aircraft down from an F-4 Phantom. Perhaps, that is not the most flattering of positions for the newer plane. An A-6 between the two helps some, but the Lightning really looks more akin to the A-6 than the M2+ F-4. But with aircraft as in women, looks aren't everything.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/uhc/es_modern_military_aviation.cfm

 

[Salty Dog]

The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of more than 1200mph. The F-35 is more of a Mach 1.8 class aircraft not M1.6 as many people say.



The Su-30MKI carries around 3000 lbs more weapons than the SHornet but not much. The F-35 will carry +23000lbs of weapons more than anything else. The F/A-18 can be armed with many weapons of U.S. origin. With up to 11 weapons including AAMs, bombs and fuel tanks.

The Super Hornet is actually a heavy class fighter not a light weight fighter like the original F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet is in the same class as the F-15, F-22 and F-35.

As far as I know the Russians don't have any SU-30s except for many 4-6 maybe 10 at the most, original SU-30s but are not Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM.

Both the Su-27/30/33/34/35 and the Super Hornet carry 8,000 kg payload with almost no weight difference.

Russia has about (9) of the original Su-30 which they use for training.

One important aspect of the F-18 series almost everyone overlooks is it was designed from the beginning for CATOBAR operations, therefore, had to have ruggedness and aerodynamics built-in which compromises performance with respect to land based flighters. The Su-33/Mig-29 on the other hand were "adapted" for STOBAR.

I see that we are starting to split-hairs with the top-end speeds in discussion. While this may be critical in venues like Formula-1 automobile racing, I feel there are numerous other air combat factors such as tactics, manuevering, sensor range, weapons range, flight envelope, etc. which may make a small top-end speed difference a mute point.

 

[hellfire]

The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of more than 1200mph. The F-35 is more of a Mach 1.8 class aircraft not M1.6 as many people say.



The Su-30MKI carries around 3000 lbs more weapons than the SHornet but not much. The F-35 will carry +23000lbs of weapons more than anything else. The F/A-18 can be armed with many weapons of U.S. origin. With up to 11 weapons including AAMs, bombs and fuel tanks.

The Super Hornet is actually a heavy class fighter not a light weight fighter like the original F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet is in the same class as the F-15, F-22 and F-35.

As far as I know the Russians don't have any SU-30s except for many 4-6 maybe 10 at the most, original SU-30s but are not Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM.

the super hornet isn't classified as a heavy class fighter,its a medium class fighter and it isnt anywhere near the F22.

 

[Gryphon]

Hair splitting?

I see that we are starting to split-hairs with the top-end speeds in discussion.

With respects Dog, information sourcing should be considered pertinent. One of the most valuable resources forums like this provide is - where to get reliable information?

Also, one of the chief complaints about the JSF program in general was that it would produce a 'Camel' (horse invented by committee), or a Swiss Army knife - something that does a little bit of everything, but nothing very well. The performance envelope of the F-35 was supposed to have sacrificed high speed dash capability in favor of Supercruise and Stealth. Admittedly a M0.2 (150 mph) difference isn't much, but having a high speed edge over the F/A-18 in any form does strengthen the Lightning's case as a worthy Hornet successor rather than a bean counter's compromise.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Look people LM has already sated the F-35 can go at least 1200mph. Now please tell how is that Mach 1.6? Every source I looked at says the F-18 has a top speed of 1190mph which is Mach 1.8 so that means the F-35 is slightly faster than the F-18. Mach 1.6 is really more like 1000mph, not 1190-1200mph.

Somebody here said the F-35 can't go Mach 1.8 becasue it only has one engine. WRONG!!!! The F-16 has only one engine rated for 28,000lbs of thrust and the F-16 can go Mach 2.

The F135 or F136 is the worlds most powerful fighter engine ever built with 40,000lbs of thrust. I was reading an article once saying when the F-35 is in just military thrust a F-16 has to kick in full afterburner just to keep up. The F-35 pilots say the F-35 performs just like an F-22 but with the size of an F-16. The F-35 has much more acceleration then any current fighter.

 

[Gryphon]

Look people LM has already sated the F-35 can go at least 1200mph. Now please tell how is that Mach 1.6?

1200 mph = M1.61844

 

[F-15 Eagle]

1200 mph = M1.61844

Source? You will need to provide a source if your going to make a statement like that.

If that is true then the F/A-18 is also a mach 1.6 fighter.