-
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
Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)
- Thread starter Boss_BlueAngels
- Start date
NASA used an F/A-18A Hornet for it's High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) Program as a test bed for trust vectoring research from 1987-1996 (although thrust vectoring was only incorporated into the airframe in 1991)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/index.html
This looks like a repeat of a successful idea (re: the Hornet 2000 concept study)
From an outsiders perspective this seems like a good idea... Check out the chronology of the Super Hornet program, compared to the F-22 program, regardless of the Raptors' capabilities, the Super Hornet has proved itself combat capable and spawned an EA variant on cost, on time, and on weight...
Super Hornet Timeline:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/fa18efmilestones.htm
Raptor Timeline
http://www.f22fighter.com/timeline.htm
From an outsiders perspective this seems like a good idea... Check out the chronology of the Super Hornet program, compared to the F-22 program, regardless of the Raptors' capabilities, the Super Hornet has proved itself combat capable and spawned an EA variant on cost, on time, and on weight...
Super Hornet Timeline:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/fa18efmilestones.htm
Raptor Timeline
http://www.f22fighter.com/timeline.htm
That's a catchy phrase! Someone should adopt it for a username...wait, someone has already!!
Also here's the Super Hornet vs A-6E debate from a more credible Academic... 
http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html
http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html
Well thought out
I will lob F-bombs, anywhere and everywhere
I stand by what I said, and lets be honest, anyone who throws the A-7 into the mix is a retard.
I chose my anonymity statement based on Fog's numero uno post count. For all I know he's COMNAVPACSINWESTLEADDEVILDOG and didn't want to get wailed on too hard.
LOL. Roger COMNAVPAC...
A-7 vs. F-18 is a stupid argument. But to say that F-18 "replaced" A-6/A-7 is a stretch. It changed the dynamics of the carrier's strike capability. For. The. Worse.
Two out of three for me. But more importantly...
I studied enough and paid enough attention that (with the exception of spelling "ordnance" correctly) I have an informed opinion. If you don't know the difference between E-2 and AWACS capabilities, then I pray to God that you are not a strike lead, or a division lead for that matter...
Of course the Hornets went everywhere that the Tomcats went, there was 1,000,000,000,000 lbs of gas in the air.
I'm tired of the Hornet mafia trying to convince everyone that that jet is the end-all be-all. I've been hearing it for 20 years and I'm not buying it.
Hornet (A-D...I don't know enough about the Rhino) is a great jet. It is pilot friendly, easy to fly, easy to get aboard, flexible, expandable, etc. It is also slow, short on gas, and has no bringback.
I think it would be cheaper to build a brand new aircraft...since that's effectively what you'd have to do.
Someone corrrect me if I'm wrong here but...
The F/A-18 was never intended to replace the A-6, until the Navy and McDonnel Douglas/General Dynamics screwed away the A-12 program in the early 90's.
As a result the Navy had to turn to the only viable alternative present, the F/A-18. As much I am a fan of the A-6, it was a very old platform that was nearing the end of its useful life. Almost all of the DH's in my Prowler squadron were former A-6 guys and most of them agreed that while the way it was done was poor, retireing the aircraft was the right thing. One of them commented to me that when you spend the vast majority of your training practicing ops utilizing degraded equipment because that was a fact of life in the Intruder, maybe it was time to move on.
Pining for the A-6 is like pining for the F-14, both of them good planes that had reached the end of their long and useful lives. Move on people.
Um...
NASA used an F/A-18A Hornet for it's High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV) Program as a test bed for trust vectoring research from 1987-1996 (although thrust vectoring was only incorporated into the airframe in 1991)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/HARV/index.html
Is thrust vectoring worth it?
You are using a one-off NASA research aircraft as an example? They still fly WB-57's for crissakes, NASA is not an example of a 'normal' aircraft operator.
Which brings up an interesting question: Will the F-35 Lightning II become the new A-12 Avenger II?
I'm not saying they intend to use thrust vectoring, or that thrust vectoring is neccessary, only that it's already been done and It probably wouldn't break the bank...
Saying its possible isn't saying its practical...which was my point.