Viper076
Viper076So how was the block III 9x born?
Viper076Typhoon= Better Interceptor
Rafale= Better Bomb Truck
😉
Viper076Initially, the Super Hornet’s avionics and software had a 90% commonality with the F/A-18C/D fleet.
Differences include a touch, control display and a fuel display.
The Super Hornet has a quadruplex digital fly-by-wire system, as well as a digital flight-control system that detects and corrects for battle damage.
😉 I bet you Voodoo will say “Not Enough Info”.
I think you did provide information on the 1st paragraph, but you started off talking about how superior it’s systems are and how good the plane is. Didn’t quite answer his question except the 1st paragraph. Bet you were lazy writing that whole thing :highly_amused:
Viper076Many aircraft from varied nations have just as good if not better avionics. I think it’s mediocre compared with whats out there today. In the middle of the pack.
If it is such a great A2A fighter, how come the countries that buy American (South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Saudia Arabia, to name a few) are buying the more expensive eagle?
Before you bring up Australia, note that it was originally only a stop gap until the F-35 came on board. The U.S. Navy was suppose to buy them back.
Well your opinion as i say. It isn’t a mediocore fighter, it’s one of the best aircraft in aviation, and it’s becoming a classic navy fighter. Navy and Australian pilots have faith in what it does. Great systems and sensors in the US. Most advanced Navy fighter.
Australia and the US Navy will use the Hornet until 2030-2040, If i guess right.
I think they buy the Eagle beacuse it’s faster able to intercept airspaces. Reasons why the Super is losing beacuse it’s lower top speed and acceleration takes time while most fighters are faster and accelerate faster than the Bug. If the Block III upgardes are available, then the contenders may consider buying a pack of Super Bugs. They might choose the EPE Engines first to improve performance. The Bug is in the Brasil, Canada and Malysa competition
Viper076I do respect this aircraft. I think it is a mediocre aircraft. There is nothing fancy about it. It does it’s job.
I just don’t like how you and growler keep calling it a superior air superiority aircraft. I think it can hold it’s own in a dogfight. But it hasn’t been in enough dogfights with a diverse amount of aircraft to put that label on it.
As to the F-101 Voodoo… It was a mediocre aircraft. The only reason Canada used it was because we had spent all our money developing the Cf-105 Arrow. When it was cancelled, we struck a deal with the yanks for the Bombmarc missle. Part of the deal was to aquire F-101’s that were leaving American service.
I like the Voodoo. But i know it for what it was. A long range interceptor. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t go around touting it as a superior interceptor…
So it’s a mediocre aircraft? Nothing new or fancy? How about avionics and systems? That’s not mediocre at all, (not being an excuseable idiot). But it shares far more preferable avionics better HOTAS and many things. Though its the navy’s primary fighter. I don’t see nothing mediocre in the Super. But it’s your opinion i guess 😉
But meaning superior Air superiority fighter is that we’re saying it’s a great A2A fighter for the Navy with capable avionics, systems and how it works in A2A. The Super Hornet isn’t America’s #1 air superiority fighter while the Raptor is americas fleet defense fighter for the whole US and USAF. The Super Hornet is the Navy’s primary air superiority fighter (Meaning that to defend the fleet threats) while it’s a Multi-mission fighter to do many roles in the Navy inventory. But if you don’t like the word “superior” than we’ll at least call the super hornets secondary role (which is air-to-air) a great A2A fighter.
Viper076Knew you were going to say something. So i deleted it
Yea good because you didn’t make sense when you replied.
Viper076😉
Now you just deleted the post. Really? Fine…..
Viper076I think it’s been discussed to death now by many of us, no point in discussing it again…
And i think you keep asking this because you look up on the internet to see if it’s superior in A2A. Don’t trust the internet because it’s significantly like looking up “is this plane famous in a movie”? Now please stop trolling on the internet finding if it’s capable in A2A. If you want to ask, ask any person who flies the Rhino or Bug. Like 35 AoA.
Read the paragraph i wrote, clearly why he asks that alot about the Bug in A2A.
Just pointless for a Super Bug fanboy to ask that question. Beacuse a fanboy is supposed to know that it’s capable.
Viper076It’s not that they have faith… It’s more that they have nothing else. NATF being canceled, F-35 being late. Not much of a choice. Of course they have to talk it up. Can you really hear them say or go on record saying that it’s crap? Can you really hear Boeing going on record and saying “Don’t buy our aircraft, it’s an underperformer”?
I’m not saying that it is garbage.. I think it is a mediocre aircraft. I don’t think it will be on par with many aircraft coming out or down the road for very long!
And this is why growler asks this question alot, please respect this aircraft nicely. It’s like saying the F-101 Voodoo is a mediocre aircraft for any country. It’s a good aircraft. The Navy sure has alot of faith on this aircraft. So please continue…..
Viper076So let’s talk about the Super Hornet in A2A. Is it a viable platform in A2A as its second role? Is it viable against the Flanker series and Mig-35?
you’ll get the idea that it’s not always about the platform (that being the Super Hornet in this case) but the system of which it is. And a question like “is this aircraft good for air to air combat” is sort of like asking “how long is a piece of string”, there’s many other variables outside of simply the aircraft’s specifications that will determine its effectiveness in combat. Aircraft don’t engage in mano e mano gladiatorial combat, they operate as part of a multi-platform warfighting system. Within one such system, the primary operators of the Super Hornet, the US Navy, appear to have faith in the Super Hornet’s ability to perform in air to air missions.
And i think you keep asking this because you look up on the internet to see if it’s superior in A2A. Don’t trust the internet because it’s significantly like looking up “is this plane famous in a movie”? Now please stop trolling on the internet finding if it’s capable in A2A. If you want to ask, ask any person who flies the Rhino or Bug. Like 35 AoA.
To be clear the Super Bug may have slower acceleration and speed.
But it’s avionics and sensors will exploit the Flanker or whatever rival the Rhino’s facing in A2A combat either WVR or BVR.
It’s nose point is good which why it’s longer to point the target in a A2A dogfight.
Normally why the super bug is clearly more superior in WVR combat.
Also the HMD and AIM-9x, which helps the bug in A2A. and it’s large payload to carry more weapons, which the flanker could be firing tons of missiles and the super hornet with it’s great maneuverability can run the flanker or the rival out of missiles and exploit the rival and get the kill.
If the aircraft is not able to have superior performance like acceleration for example. It’s still able to accelerate and navy pilots fave faith in accelerating fast even if it lacks acceleration.
It’s normally the pilot trained well. Like the F-4 wasn’t that of a great dogfighter, but many pilots had alot of faith for the F-4 to dogfight which was necessary proven to do it in A2A combat and so it did receive kills dogfighting even if it lacked being a great dogfighter.
So to be clear the Super Hornet isn’t proven in A2A in combat, but it’s demo in Farnborough or somewhere else show it’s a superior dogfighter able to point the nose and do all of the things it can do in A2A well. Well that’s not all it can do growler.
The Super Hornet is a far effective/viable in A2A as it’s secondary role. and that appears that navy pilots do have faith for the rhino performing well in A2A combat. So it’s the interface machine that does well.
It’s the same thing when the F-15 was new people thought it couldn’t do A2A or could be superior against any Russian or any rivals that are willing to face with the machine, but look the F-15 did well. Same as the F-14, many thought it was a step back from the F-4’s A2A ability but it was able to prove it could do A2A well.
No more dicussing this to be clear, if you want to know its superior re-read this paragraph. I’m sure this post will keep in your head on the game. Now follow another discussion please.
Viper076Isnt the AA combat record for the F16 around 76-1 and the FA18 2-1? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records
The SH and Hornet are excellent missile haulers and versitile platforms, but they aren’t as optimised for the AA role as say the eurocanards (especially the latest versions) or the Flankers.
SH still a good A2A bird right? The Navy used the Hornet C/D for the low and the Tomcat HI. The Hornets kills are good, but good thing they didn’t shot alot of hornets down in A2A in 1990. But i’d see the Super Hornet do better in A2A combat than the C/D. Beacuse of newer and superior enhancements and avionics atleast. Then the SH can raise up that Kill ratio and more kills.
Least kills doesn’t mean it’s least effective, more kills and least shoot downs means its good and effective.
I think the Super Hormet with the right pilot and great weapons, could make the SH a effective A2A platform for the MiG’s or Flankers.
Viper076How about buring? Its very hot and die easily. Or getting freezed up by water?
Viper076How about buring? Its very hot and die easily. Or getting freezed up by water?
Viper076Every design has a series of compromises. So, while the Super Hornet may bleed more energy under certain conditions. It may on the otherhand have a better Role Rate, Sustained “G”, Trans-Sonic Acelleration, High AoA, etc. etc. etc.
Really, in any Fighter vs Fighter Engagement. They’re are many factors on who will win. Its all about exploiting your advantages and your opponents dis-advantages.
Hell, in some aspects a Japanese Zero was much more agile than the F4U Corsair and P-51 Mustang in WWII. Yet, we all know what types were superior overall………..
In short you need to look at the big picture not just one aspect…..
Overall the SH may not be the fastest fighter in the Navy or sky, but it’s a great fighter in US Navy service. It has AIM-9x HMD great avionics systems etc. the Hornet families are know for good dogfighting capabilites, systems, avionics and well missionary roles. It’s still capable verusing the Flanker SU-35 or any Flanker rivales, Mig-35 or the JF-17. On top of that were just comparing fighters to fighters for advantages and disadvantages between a dogfight. It’s not all about wanting your plane winning. That’s fanboyish just a sensitive talk comparing.
I’d really like to see a comparison between the JF-17 vs F-16. :dev2:
Sign In
