Your the one that needs to stop saying the Super Hornet is a better Fighter than the F-35 Lighting. As its unsupported by that facts and any metrics available. (really)

Also, I would add the comments below are from a highly experienced Test Pilot. With extensive background flying numerous Fighters. Including Vipers, Hornet, Raptors, and Typhoons to name a few….

Quote:

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

7 Feb 2013

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission,” says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.

Flynn says “that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane” with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft’s envelope with a full load of weapons is “inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets,” says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g’s respectively.

Asked to address the issue of transonic acceleration compared to the best performing fourth-generation machines, in this case an air-to-air configured Typhoon, Flynn reiterated that the F-35 was better than or equal to that aircraft. Even with the reduced transonic acceleration times mentioned in the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation 2012 report, the F-35, including the C-model which had its specifications reduced by 43 seconds, still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration, he says.

If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35’s, “It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,” Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. “You’re not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft,” Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says.

In terms of high angle of attack (AOA) performance, Flynn says the F-35 is better than the Boeing F/A-18E/F, even though the Super Hornet is capable of reaching higher angles than the JSF’s limit of 50°. “We are better than any airplane out there,” says Flynn, a veteran Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet pilot who has also flown thrust-vectored prototype variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet at NASA. “You can go to higher degrees of angle-of-attack in the F/A-18, the flight control system will not limit you, but that’s not necessarily controlled flight.” In the F/A-18, Flynn says that past 50° there is a lot of very violent buffeting.

“You maneuver the airplane much like an F-22 or a lot like I maneuvered the prototype F-16 20 years ago with thrust vectoring,” Flynn says. “You maneuver the airplane back and forth with amazing controllability at the highest degree of angle-of-attack, and that is not the case with the only other Western airplane that can go to high AOA, the F/A-18.” The one other exception is the Raptor, which Flynn does acknowledge as having better high AOA performance than the F-35 due to its thrust vectoring capability. The Typhoon, by comparison, has a 25° AOA limit. In the F-35, Lockheed made the decision to limit the AOA to 50°, but test pilots have flown the aircraft well past that.

The high AOA limit gives the F-35 “great” instantaneous turn performance. “We knew that 50°, from our years of research, is about as far as you need to go to take advantage of the aerodynamic performance” of the jet, Flynn says. “There is no reason to be there [at extreme AOA]; you’re not going to get much more capability at 75° than you would at 50°.” The limiter will allow an F-35 pilot to fly with “reckless abandon”, which Flynn says is not possible in a Hornet because an F/A-18 can depart from controlled flight.

Those statements are just critical features. Your the one that needs stop saying the F-35 is better than the Super Hornet on my thread. I can carefully read your statements.

“The Super Hornet will be outmatched for another 10 years”.

Djcross: any photos that illustrate the application of RAM on the F/A-18C?
Thanks

So what’s this RAM thing on the Aircraft?

I am saying the huge RCS of the external stores overwhelms any reduction in RCS of the airplane which carries them.

And the RCS of a clean “C” and clean “E/F” is not significantly different.

Ok I get you know 😉 so your saying that when it carries weapons it gives it a high RCS like for example: Fuel Tanks or Bombs?

No, the AI technology is not there to allow unmanned air dominance fighter jets. 6th gen A2A fighters will still be manned, at least both Boeing and Lockheed 6th gen concepts still feature cockpits.

Ok I get you, but wouldn’t technology be easier in 2030? Would be VERY different technology. Well the Super Hornet might stay with us until the end of 2039. 😀

You have the mistaken impression that F/A-18 was designed as an air-to-air airplane. It was not. It was designed in the mid-1970s to be a self-escorting replacement for the A-7 and F-4 in the light strike role. The “A” and “C” models never achieved their required combat radius, so the “E/F” was enlarged to add more fuel capacity.

The F/A-18 was never intended to be the fleet defense fighter. That role was owned by F-14 and its successor, the NATF. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union docked its fleet and grounded its Backfire regiments, the US Navy made a decision to drop the NATF. This was based on the correct assumption that there would be no credible airborne threats to the fleet for at least 20 years. AEGIS with CEC and F/A-18 in the role of flying SAM battery would suffice to protect the CSG from aerial threats.

The bottom line is F/A-18 was, and still is, a light attack airplane. We have yet to see how the requirements shake out for FA-XX. Maybe it will take a greater A2A role, or maybe it will extend the A2G role to a greater distance than F-35C can achieve. My bet is the later. The role of the CSG is to project power, and that means destroying ground targets. The CSG has great utility in that role because 90% of the world’s population lives within 500 NM of the sea. To waste CVN deck space on airplanes which can only destroy air targets would be a travesty.

Both F/A-18A/C/E/F were designed for both Air Superiority and Air to ground roles. But we’re not talking about the old F/A-18 here. We’re talking about the newer Super Hornet. The Super Hornet CAN defend carriers, do air superiority and can do many roles that no other Multi-Role aircraft can do. The Super Hornet can be very deadly with its JHMD, AMRAAMS, AIM-9x, APG-79 radar and other of its missiles and bombs. The Super Hornet can defend carriers mainly because it has REDUCED Radar Cross Section which is VERY IMPORTANT for a fighter today and able to defend carriers and not get detected first. If there were no Super Hornet today the regular hornet wouldn’t be able to defend carriers and neither be very good at the a2a and A2G role because of its LARGE Radar Cross Section.

Which would be useless?

Useful would be the EPE Engine, Conformal Fuel Tanks, IRST and weapon pod.

Useless Missile laser warning and 5th Gen cockpit. Well the 5th Gen cockpit might be useful for the WSO seat.

Probably CFTs, but I like the weapons pod as well since it can be used by other jets in the airforces.

I wouldnt be surprised if they would fit the Gripen, F16 or F22 as well.

I see pretty much CFT’s and EPE Engines are a useful upgrade.