WT Forums

Boomer..........

The F-18A U.S. Navy and Marine varient was never concieved as any more than the low end of a high cost, low cost airframe mix on a CV. The Hornet is extremely flexiable, it always has been and was designed with that criteria in mind, being that then SECNAV John F. Lehman concieved it as a swing fighter (point defense & strike) nothing more.........And there were never visions in the 80's to make it bigger, that would defeat its very purpose.

The F-18 could operate from the smaller Midway class CV's that the F-14 could not, (blast deflectors were to small for a 14 cat shot) it was to replace the F-4, and the A-7 because it could do both jobs quite well..........The larger CVN's (Nimitz class and the Enterprise) were to go with either an all Grumman air wing........or a mix of all three. The conventinal larger CV's (eg) USS Ranger, Constellation, Kitty Hawk also experimented with the three........The airwing that represented the "fist of the fleet" was the all Grumman airwing, however they traded some flexability for that strike package.

I will get into the Hornet later, but don't make it into something it isnt, or never was. It was perfect for the USMC, and was a vast improvement over the one demensional and extremely vulnerable A-7, and obsolete F-4.

There is a good reason why the USAF isnt promoting a F-16 "Super Falcon" with comformal fuel tanks and a larger wing area; advertising, bigger and better than the F-16, but discouraging direct comparisons with the F-15.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 03 2003 01:01 AM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 03 2003 01:12 AM

Actually GD(at the time) did try to sell a big wing F-16 to the USAF in the strike eagle competition.

The USAF selected the bigger more powerful F-15E, and i think it is safe to say they made the right choice.


Luke, thanx for the correction, feel free to toss them out whenever i am talking nonsense bro

Tritonal, the SU-37 is the latest version of the Flanker. The FSW model was the S.37 Berkut. They are different aircraft.

The SU-37 features 3D thrust vectoring, Phased array forward AND rear radars, 360 degree rotating hard points(freaky), and agility that has to be seen to be believed.

The best footage i have seen of the SU-37 is definitely the 'Super Manueverability' segment on Discovery wings that runs about 10x a day it seems.

That aircraft does things that are just not natural.
Like flying in a backwards controlled flight loop.
Freakish to see.

The F-22 is in it's league manueverability wise, but that's it.

Thankfully as Luke pointed out the SU has a gihugic RCS and IR signiture.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Tritonal.......

Thrust to weight ratio in laymans terms (cause I am no zoomie or aerospace egineer) Is the aircrafts maiximum thrust compared to its weight. It varies with its maximum take off weight, and clean weight. I believe the advertisement figures are always clean weight with a certain fuel capacity. (Muddman jump in here)

The 9:1 figure you were quoting was the thrust of the engine in reference to the weight of the engine itself, not the jet, or both engines combined.

In regards to the AIM-9X.......It will be a lethal arrow in a fighter pilots quiver. But with the advances in Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) gear which well help relieve ROE disadvantages the fight should not errode into a "knife fight in a phone booth" when the AIM-120 is at the pilots dispoasl. You always want that redundancy (hence the 20mm cannon) but the slammer is truely a "silver bullet"

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

F-16XL with the cranked delta was cool..........But not a F-15E.

SU has a hudge radar cross section, and its tremendous thrust comes with a IR signature compromise. Ruskies were always 1/2 a generation behind us. They say you can fight in a SU or fly an SU, but not both, even the SU-27 lacked a glass cockpit, HOTAS, and reliable HUD........In contrast, the F-16, F-18, and F-20 of that time represented the state of the art of cockpit egronomics, and situational awareness.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

The thrust to wieght ratio for a max-TO weight F-18F is 0.67:1

The F-22 max TO weight(full internal load) T/W ratio is 1.17:1

Nearly double that of the F-18F.

Even loaded as a bomber the F-22 will have a better thrust to wieght ratio than an AAW configured F-18F.

The F-22 and the F-18F are not even in REMOTELY the same class.

Not in performance, avionics, RCS, or lethality.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and opine that the F-18E/F will be very easy prey for the F-22 in DACT's for many decades to come, lol.
(If the S Hornet is even around in 20years)



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Well, I'm not gonna assume anything because I,ve heard rumors that the F-22 project is actually walking a thin line. For how much? 150 million a shot the F-22 better do all that turn water into wine.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The thrust to wieght ratio for a max-TO weight F-18F is 0.67:1 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Where'd you get that? I'm not implying in the least "YOUR WRONG!" but I've heard that stats. posted for the SH are one for the C/D.
By who? The test pilot.

The Super Hornet, with respect to ex-tom pilots experiences and some recent documents, is clearly not crap. You all are entitled to your opinions but I as a laymen see this: if three pilots(one ex-Tom) are praising this new design, pilots that are gonna strap this new design on and fight, then I'm gonna sway towards the pilots side.
Even an ex-pilot on this site said it was a winner and coincidently that's when the trashing began. You couldn't stand to hear that said.
But that's okay, trash all you want, this air frame will come through
I'm a bit curious that's nothing recently documented or to make a counter-statement, it's mainly just conjecture.

Your right on the money TT, Navy pilots are worthy to be wearing their wings of gold. If their professionalism made the Tomcat a weapon to be feared then it won't be hard to transition that to the next plane. I'm waiting on that paper! By any is it for grad school?




Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 03 2003 06:19 AM

Tritonal, if you were an active duty Navy pilot, how inclined would you be to publicly state that the USN's new fighter is subpar????

Just curious.....

The figures i derived are based on the F-18F's max wieght divided by it's thrust.

Quite simple math.

The price for the F-22 keeps going up cause they keep cutting into the buy number, if they left the buy number alone the price would still be a lot more reasonable.

It's still a bargain anyway, cause there is no doubt that a single F-22 is superior to three 57 million dollar F-18F's in the ACM/deep strike arena.

Any attempt to compare the F-18F to the F-22 in any sort of favorable light makes you look very silly.(Or stoned)

I like you Tritonal, and i respect your right to your opinion, but i just do not agree.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f18.htm

F-18 Specs, all models....

General Characteristics, C and D models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft
Contractor: Prime: McDonnell Douglas; Major Subcontractor: Northrop
Unit Cost: $ 24 million
Propulsion: Two F404-GE-402 enhanced performance turbofan engines
Thrust: 17,700 pounds (8,027 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 56 feet (16.8 meters)
Height: 15 feet 4 inches (4.6 meters)
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 51,900 pounds (23,537 kg)
Wingspan: 40 feet 5 inches (13.5 meters)
Range (w/external tanks):
Fighter: 1,379 nautical miles (1585.9 miles/2,537 km);
Attack: 1,333 nautical miles (1532.9 miles/2,453 km)
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.7+
Crew:
A,C and E models: One
B,D and F models: Two
Armament: One 20mm M-61A1 Vulcan cannon;
External payload: AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, Shrike, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Walleye, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets.
Date Deployed:
First flight, November 1978
Operational, October 1983 (A/B models); September 1987 (C/D models)


General Characteristics, E and F models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas
Unit Cost: $ 35 million
Propulsion: Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines
Thrust: 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 60.3 feet (18.5 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.87 meters)
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 66,000 pounds (29,932 kg)
Wingspan: 44.9 feet (13.68 meters)
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.8+
Crew:
A,C and E models: One
B,D and F models: Two
Armament: One 20mm M-61A1 Vulcan cannon;
External payload: AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, Shrike, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Walleye, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets.
First Flight December 1995

Now divide 44,000lbs(total thrust), by 66,000lbs(Max TO weight), and you will see that the F-18E/F's P/W ratio is 0.67:1

Hardly impressive, even by 70's standards.

consider....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projec ... cs/f15.htm

F-15C Eagle

Specifications
Primary Function: Tactical fighter.
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners.
Thrust: (C/D models) 25,000 pounds each engine.
Length: 63 feet, 9 inches.
Height: 18 feet, 8 inches.
Wingspan: 42 feet, 10 inches.
Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5-plus at S/L
Ceiling: 65,000 feet.
Maximum Takeoff Weight: (C/D models) 68,000 pounds
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks.

P/W ratio at Max TO- 0.74:1
With the bigger F-100-229 engines the P/W ratio is 0.88:1 max TO.
ACM configured both models of engine give a greater than 1:1 PW ratio.

For the F-15E max TO weight is 81,000 lbs, and it has the big 29,000lb thrust -229's, so it's max TO p/w ratio is 0.72:1

That's with a 24,500lb bombload!!!!

For the F-14D....

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/ ... cation.htm

Type F-14A F-14B (F-14A+) F-14D
First Fligth 21 Dec 1970 Sept 1986 Mar 1990
Wingspan (unswept) 64 ft 1.5 in 64 ft 1.5 in 64 ft 1.5 in
Wingspan (swept) 38 ft 2.5 in 38 ft 2.5 in 38 ft 2.5 in
Lenght 62 ft 8 in 62 ft 8 in 62 ft 8 in
Height 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft
Wing Area 565 sqft 565 sqft 565 sqft
Empty Weight 40,104 pounds 41,780 pounds 43,735 pounds
Max. Weight 72,000 pounds 74,349 pounds 74,349 pounds
Powerplants 2 P&W TF-30-P-414A 2 GE F-110-GE-400 2 GE F-110-GE-400
Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs 56,400 lbs 56,400 lbs
Wing Loading 92 psf 94 psf 96 psf
Max. Speed 1,544 mph 1,544 mph 1,544 mph
Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38
Ceiling 50,000+ ft 53,000+ ft 53,000+ ft
Range 1,730 nm 2,050 nm 2,050 nm

At max TO weight the F-14D has a PW ratio of 0.76:1

For the F-16C Block60 it's....

http://www.prdomain.com/companies/g/ge/ ... 021204.htm

42,500lbs Max To and 32,500lbs thrust, for a max TO p/w ratio of 0.77:1. AAW configured the F-16C60 is close to 1.5:1

So oh boy, the F-18E/F have a lower power to wieght ratio than any US fighter since the F-4 Phantom.

Something to be proud of i guess....


Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And there were never visions in the 80's to make it bigger, that would defeat its very purpose.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I have a book published in 1988 that mentions the "3A studies" which states they were specifically looking at larger wings and a fusalage plug for fuel.
BTW I AM a Navy guy, my DAD was in and I wanted to fly attack jets (eyes not good enough) I have always believed the "trappers" were the best pilots on earth (well untill a year or 2 ago, but we must never speak of that again !! LOL)

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Tritonal, if you were an active duty Navy pilot, how inclined would you be to publicly state that the USN's new fighter is subpar???? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Oh man, If only! Thanks for exposing up my failed dreams.

Me? Personally? VERY INCLINED. Pilots first, platforms second. And since I'm such an arrogant person I wouldn't want anything to impede on the greatness that is me<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>.

However, you will not hear that sentiment by current pilots, not because their afraid, but because they believe in their new plane. Although valid thing to bring up though with all the dubious info that's released publically.
But hey, Mudd even find favor it and all kidding aside, he's no slouch.
Perhaps its my imagination but it is that instant when you started responding to this thread, you couldn't stand to hear something nice said about this plane. I bet it ate you up inside<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Any attempt to compare the F-18F to the F-22 in any sort of favorable light makes you look very silly.(Or stoned) <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Apparently you don't know me very well; It makes me look silly and ridiculous because I AM SILLY AND RIDICULOUS.
And hey cut it out, that stuff relaxes me!<img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle>

All seriousness, I think it just makes me look curious.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It's still a bargain anyway, cause there is no doubt that a single F-22 is superior to three 57 million dollar F-18F's in the
ACM/deep strike arena. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>-Well Duh!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The price for the F-22 keeps going up cause they keep cutting into the buy number, if they left the buy number alone the price would still be a lot more reasonable. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If that's not irony I don't know what is. I've heard that point-of-view before but it's never explained. On a personal note, I'm for a whole Air Force of those miracle planes.

I like the airplane specs. although I take anything civilian with a big grain of salt.
Remember how you scoffed at the chart I posted in the other thread? I could easily do the same with what you posted. But, I won't.
It's not a water/oil thing with me, I'm open to all sides of the debate.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Tritonal, if you were an active duty Navy pilot, how inclined would you be to publicly state that the USN's new fighter is subpar???? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Oh man, If only! Thanks for exposing up my failed dreams.

Me? Personally? VERY INCLINED. Pilots first, platforms second. And since I'm such an arrogant person I wouldn't want anything to impede on the greatness that is me<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>.

However, you will not hear that sentiment by current pilots, not because their afraid, but because they believe in their new plane. Although it is a valid thing to bring that up Sniper with all the dubious info that's released publically. I also would not say that to certain pilots-It would be the equivalent of getting your teeth handed to you. But, I'm gonna play devil's advocate and do it anyway.
But hey, Mudd even finds favor it and all kidding aside, he's no slouch.
Perhaps its my imagination but it is that instant when you started responding to this thread, you couldn't stand to hear something nice said about this plane. I bet it ate you up inside<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Any attempt to compare the F-18F to the F-22 in any sort of favorable light makes you look very silly.(Or stoned) <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Apparently you don't know me very well; It makes me look silly and ridiculous because I AM SILLY AND RIDICULOUS.
And hey cut it out, that stuff relaxes me!<img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle>

All seriousness, I think it just makes me look curious.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It's still a bargain anyway, cause there is no doubt that a single F-22 is superior to three 57 million dollar F-18F's in the
ACM/deep strike arena. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>-Well Duh!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The price for the F-22 keeps going up cause they keep cutting into the buy number, if they left the buy number alone the price would still be a lot more reasonable. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If that's not irony I don't know what is. I've heard that point-of-view before but it's never explained. On a personal note, I'm for a whole Air Force of those miracle planes.

I like the airplane specs. although I take anything civilian with a big grain of salt.
Remember how you scoffed at the chart I posted in the other thread? I could easily do the same with what you posted. But, I won't.
It's not a water/oil thing with me, I'm open to all sides of the debate.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>



Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 03 2003 4:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Hey Mudd do those varmits have aurburn hair?

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gunnison prarie dogs they have a Bowling Pin silhouette some are dark complected the rest are golden Red/Brown. Good Fun when that 4000 FPS 40 grain Abomb hits the Target. Brings a whole new meaning to "reaching back like a pimp and slapping the..!"



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

OH boy Mudd,i am looking forward to vaporizing a few rodents out there bro!

Tritonal...

"If that's not irony I don't know what is. I've heard that point-of-view before but it's never explained. On a personal note, I'm for a whole Air Force of those miracle planes."

This is how that works. Unit cost is derived by dividing the total number of airframes projected to be delivered by the total program cost.

If you reduce the number of fighters, you are not reducing the R&D and tooling expenditures, which are a 'sunk' cost.

Therefore, while you do slightly lower the total program cost by reducing the numbers, it is still not enough to offset the massive R&D and tooling costs, so the price per plane goes UP, not down.

The more you cut into the buy total, the more it goes up, the more planes you actually BUILD, the more the unit cost is lowered, because you ared dividing the total R&D/Tooling into a larger number of aircraft.

See?



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Here's an example.

We design the YF-25.

The total R&D is 100 billion.
Tooling costs another 10 billion.

So before we build fighter one, we have spent 110 billion dollars on the aircraft.
So now let's say to actually BUILD a YF-25 costs 50 million(actual parts and labor).

If we buy only one fighter, we pay a total cost of 110 billion, plus 50 million for it, and are left with one EXTREMELY expensive fighter.

If we build ten, for 50 million each, we get a total unit cost of 11.05 billion dollars each.

We build 100, our cost is 100x 50 million= 5 billion, plus the 110 billion in sunk costs, for a total unit price of 1.15 billion each.

And so on, and so on. The more you buy, the less they cost per airframe.(there are also a lot of other smaller factors that make that true, and further contribute to these savings).

So when they say the F-22 costs 120 million each, that is INCLUDING all the costs to design it and to build the factory, PLUS the aircraft themselves.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Feb 04 2003 03:37 AM

something the media never quite figured out with regaurds to the B-2

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Makes sense, I just didn't know the mechanics of it.

Boomer, the B-2 is THE EMBODIMENT(??) of that argument!

If the USAF had gotten what they actually WANTED, they would have cost about 90 million EACH! An UNBELIEVABLE BARGAIN!

But we only built 20, so the ENTIRE program cost was divided by twenty airframes.

Viola- a Billion dollar bomber.

Cutting these programs to save money is what they call the law of diminishing returns.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

yeah that's what I meant, the bombers DONT cost 1 billion each but when the program is figured in the total cost shows as a billion. If we build 10 more( we wont) it wouldent cost us 10 billion.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Yup.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.