VFA-82 - and F/A-18 vs. F-15

Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
changing battlefield environment.

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

wrote:

Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
changing battlefield environment.

Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
(before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

Guy

draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

You can see the results of that research on the F-18 E/F as
stations 2 and 10.

Ray

Raymond Marshall wrote:

draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

You can see the results of that research on the F-18 E/F as
stations 2 and 10.

I think not. 2 & 10 are designed to carry 1,000 lb. A/G stores IIRR, far heavier
than needed for an AAM, and in addition there's no room for such a pylon on an
F-18A/C wing. The intent was to replace the current 2 & 8; presumably 3 and 7
wouldn't need to be carried for the AD role in Swiss or Finnish airspace. At
most they might need a C/L tank.

Guy

As it can be seen on aviation photo web sites (like www.airliners.net)
Suomi's and Switzerland's Hornets are quite often flown in a clean or
"almost clean" (w/fuel tank on the centerline) fighter configuration.

As for the USN/USMC Hornets it's a different story. You put one fuel
tank under the wing. You put the second on the centerline (this pylon
in F/A-18A/C is not suitable for PGMs, also not very good for dumb
bombs, so why waste another underwing pylon for a fuel tank?!) You put
FLIR/NITE Hawk on the port nacelle station. And you have an aircraft
for any mission - day or night, fighter or strike, 2VX/4VX self-escort
flight...

That's a bit different with Marine F/A-18Ds, carrying LITENING on no.5
(centerline)station.

East or West - the rule must be the same - when something is assembled
and works well, DON'T TOUCH IT! - so I would not be surprised when a
Rhino once configured as a tanker stays as a tanker for a next few
days...

The F/A-18E/F gives some more capabilities: Thanks to ATFLIR (two pods
in one, as a matter of fact!), an AMRAAM can be carried also for CAS
sorties. You can use the "small" outboard wing stations for additional
HARM or AMRAAMs for self-defense, being still capable of carrying PGMs
and LOT OF extra fuel. You can even put a Maverick on a Rhino in a
tanker configuration, in case any surface contacts may appear in the
area!

Jacek

Guy Alcala wrote:

wrote:


Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
changing battlefield environment.


Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
(before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

Guy


Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.


Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
(before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

Guy


Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.

Thanks for the picture. Quite a difference in size and (presumably) drag. One question -- does that look like the stock nose tow bar on the NLG?

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:



Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.


Thanks for the picture. Quite a difference in size and (presumably) drag. One question -- does that look like the stock nose tow bar on the NLG?

Guy



You're welcome. The bar indeed looks a bit odd to me, but AFAIK it
wasn't uncommon for the bar to be removed on land-based export Hornets,
or to be replaced by something a little less beefy. The latter is
probably what we're looking at here.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

In article .com,
() wrote:

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Presumably, any CTOL fighter that is reasonably safe to make a carrier
approach in must thereby have pretty good low-and-slow handling? Whereas
planes built to operate off long concrete runways don't /have/ to be
nearly so capable in that respect, and therefore usually aren't?

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.