I wonder what brought sweetman around on the super hornet? he killed that thing when it was going into service.

What do you mean? He didn’t killed it

On the acceleration: Boeing has been quoted on that number with CFTs and the weapon pod, and the uprated engines.

Acceleration should improve on the Rhino if it gets CFT’s and EPE Engines “Combined”. Without CFT’s, it will dramatically accelerate very fast. But CFT’s EPE’s and Stealthy weapon pod is the Super Hornets key thing to have on its potential Block III upgrade.

One of the well known deficits of the F-16 is its AoA limitation of ~ 25deg.

Yea F-16 AOA limit is 25°. Even if you get to 50° or 60° that’s the F-16’s deep stall limit. But still the F-16 can do a high alpha heh? I remember the F-16 VISTA with testbed aircraft incorporated a VISTA nozzle that provides for more active control of the aircraft in a post-stall situation. The resulting aircraft is supermaneuverable, retaining pitch and yaw control at angles of attack beyond which the traditional control surfaces cannot change attitude. The F-16 VISTA if i remember had a 70° 80° or 180° limit by going high alpha?

C-141 Starlifter

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218256[/ATTACH]

I know any perceived slight of the hornet sends you into conniptions, but thats not really accurate. It will also be buddy refueling hornets topping off their “sidekicks” who then do the deep missions. who is whos sidekick will completely depend on the mission. in some cases a hornet will be better, in others an F-35.

its ok. your super hornet is alright, its over now.

The marines signed onto the A-12 program, I wonder how different things would be with the JSF if that had gone through?

Sorry for bringing up the word Super Hornet on every thread.

I just like talking about it.

But the marines should’ve better gone for the A-12 Avenger II. Since that’s the plane that could fit in the Marine service beacuse the marines are all about saving the troops. But there’s no debate on how could that happen, the A-12 had program delays and production costs.
The government felt the contractors could not complete the program and instructed them to repay most of the $2 billion that had been spent on A-12 development.
McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics disputed this in Federal Claims court. causes for the cancellation have been debated and remain an issue of controversy, with suggestions of political expediency and scheming to be behind the action.

The A-12 was to have 5,160 pounds of weapon loads. Although it had the tiniest RCS than any combat aircraft. I think this plane would’ve been the right choice for the Marines. But it’s the cost that’s devastating

😉 This picture is the bomb!

You need to go back and re-connect with the real history of the Hornet.

The YF-17 was the “A2G with secondary A2A” aircraft.

When the USN decided to make a carrier version of the YF-17 they decided to make 2 separate versions… the F-18 to replace the F-4J/S Phantoms in the dogfight & CAS roles and the A-18 to replace the A-7E in the pure ground-attack role. The airframe would be virtually the same, but two different sets of avionics would be fitted… and they could not be transferred between the types.

It was fairly late in the development program when it was realized that advances in avionics allowed both versions to be merged with a single set of avionics!

So the Hornet WAS designed from the start with the airframe and avionics suited for air-combat equally with ground attack!

He wasn’t talking about when the Hornet was initially intended to use the role. He was talking about the how the F-16 and F-18 were tasked as its mission requirment on the squadrons. Read my post under SpudmanWP’s post.