• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Easy question for people in the know about F/A-18s.

What's grinding me is I can't remember if the T-45 had the stupid thing or not.

If it's for roll ins, the GHawk probably didn't have one. I'd love to remember who told me it was for sitting height. Probably some SuperDuperHornet pilot who didn't know either.
 
It's intended as an eye-alignment tool. The little dot on the front glass is supposed to line up with the crosshair on the rear glass. Most F/A-18 guys don't use it since you can't move the seat until a generator comes online anyway, so they turn on the HUD and then adjust the seat. The dot usually isn't lined up, because the majority of Hornet guys hunch over slightly in the seat, so they set the seat a little higher.

johnson42 said:
You're going to feel foolish about trying to make other people seem stupid when you look this up and realize that it IS for designating.

With a hud failure, you would roll in and line up the target with the crosshairs/dot on the other piece of glass. The mission computer then calculates the offset from the crosshairs/dot and you can use the a DDI to fly the velocity vector onto the ASL. You won't know for sure that you're diamond is on the target, but once you have designated with the target lined up with the crosshairs/dot (like looking through a scope) you can assume that your diamond is on the target. This is obviously in an extreme case dropping a gp bomb. The good thing about the crosshairs/dot method is that your seat height actually doesn't matter, unlike what you said. It doesn't matter how high or low you are sitting when you look through a scope (crosshairs/dot). lining them up can be done from any height. You would be right if there were only the crosshairs. Then your head position would be crucial.
Click to expand...

I have no idea where you got this ridiculous notion. You'd have to be a suicidal idiot to attempt to employ A/G weapons using something like what you described in this abortion of a post. HUD Designations are normally through the velocity vector, so with a failed HUD, your designation will be a function of AOA, meaning your little "backup sighting tool" will be worthless. With a failed HUD and velocity vector (INS), your designation is through the waterline; however, since the alignment tool is not coincident with the waterline symbol, there would still be significant lateral error. The MC does not under any circumstances calculate a lateral offset to some arbitrary marking on the glass, so you'll have some unknown lateral error, probably much greater than the CDE of whatever weapon you are dropping, unless you want to argue you'll be dropping a nuke via dive-delivery. Furthermore, there isn't a Hornet guy alive who would advocate pointing your nose at the ground with a failed HUD, even (or especially) in combat conditions.

Whoever told you that was trying to make a fool out of you.
 
Last edited:
From the FA-18 NTRP section 3.2.4: "In the event of a HUD failure a standby reticle is available in the upper right side of the HUD for use in performing visual designations."

It literally took me two minutes to find that this morning. Actually took me longer to find the NTRP on the share drive than it did for me to find the info in the NTRP.

Before everyone starts skewering others, they should probably be sure they are correct. A little life lesson that also helps out in the Navy.
 
Copy. I take back what I said earlier. I stand by my arguments for why you wouldn't want to do it, but regarding the OP's question, it sounds like I was the one with bad gouge today.

Sorry, Johnson42. I should know better than to go "all in" without definitive proof, especially from behind a keyboard where everyone is 10 feet tall and bulletproof.

I find it frustrating that I couldn't get this info in either NATOPS manual (A-D, E/F) or in the Gold Books. The NATIP confirms it though... it's a backup designation reticle.

:confused:
 
Last edited:
See, if you had asked a Helo or P-3 person a similar question about a possibly useful, but practically useless part of their aircraft, they'd all know it in a second. Because somehow that is how we piss excellence.
 
Treetop Flyer said:
Well to be fair, he was (apparently correctly) answering a question asked by another hobbyist that most of you hornet dudes had no clue about. No reason to get panties twisted over it.
Click to expand...

whatever, guess I should have put a smiley on the end. Relevant since it was the question originally asked, irrelevant to all of us however. Look at the big brain on Brad :)
 
This thread has been very amusing. Curiosity, followed by confidence, followed by scepticism, followed by sarcasm, followed by truth, followed by apathy. All caused by a simple question...........a little laboratory in NavAir.
 
jmcquate said:
ery amusing. Curiosity, followed by confidence, followed by scepticism, followed by sarcasm, followed by truth, followed by apathy. All caused by a simple question...........a little laboratory in NavAir.
Click to expand...

it is like a roller coaster of emotions…...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top