VFA-82 - and F/A-18 vs. F-15

[[email protected]]

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17006

The only sad thing in this story is the fact that another squadron with
a great history is gonna be shelved. But it reminds me about VA-55
Warhorses, disestablished while its crews fought in Desert Storm under
the flags of other squadrons.

I wonder if it is easy to pin down an F-15C flying F/A-18C? VFA-146, on
their official web site, show some great-looking proofs to that:
http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint1.jpg
http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint2.jpg
http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint3.jpg

Bravo Zulu, Blue Diamonds, for nice website and great photos!

Jacek Zemlo
(USN&USMC aviation enthusiast from Poland, and an armchair flyer;-)

[John Carrier]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17006
>
> The only sad thing in this story is the fact that another squadron with
> a great history is gonna be shelved. But it reminds me about VA-55
> Warhorses, disestablished while its crews fought in Desert Storm under
> the flags of other squadrons.
>
> I wonder if it is easy to pin down an F-15C flying F/A-18C? VFA-146, on
> their official web site, show some great-looking proofs to that:
> http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint1.jpg
> http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint2.jpg
> http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-146/Images/shootprint3.jpg
>
> Bravo Zulu, Blue Diamonds, for nice website and great photos!

Back in the day, the F-8 community put on a happy hour for the Phantom guys
at the Miramar O-club. Composed of a few weeks of gunsight film that was
equally embarrassing (a near-riot ensued). While we did enjoy a level of
superiority to the less maneuverable jet, a really good Phantom driver would
prevail. I learned this the hard way when I bumped into that particular
driver one afternoon. And there came a time when I WAS that guy, with a few
thousand hours under my belt.

The F-18 is the better high alpha, turn radius airplane. That advantage can
be overcome, but it takes skill and patience. The F-15 in the picture may
never have seen his opponent (that's the usual way perfect gunsight pictures
are generated ... ask Eric Hartmann), or he may well have lacked that skill
and patience.

R / John

[[email protected]]

Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
changing battlefield environment.

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

> Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
> in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.
>
> In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
> 2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
> scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
> increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
> self-defense capabilities?
>
> In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
> successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.
>
> Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
> external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
> as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
> extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
> dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
> changing battlefield environment.

Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
(before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

Guy

[Raymond Marshall]

> draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
> developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
> the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

You can see the results of that research on the F-18 E/F as
stations 2 and 10.

Ray

[Guy Alcala]

Raymond Marshall wrote:

> > draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
> > developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
> > the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.
>
> You can see the results of that research on the F-18 E/F as
> stations 2 and 10.

I think not. 2 & 10 are designed to carry 1,000 lb. A/G stores IIRR, far heavier
than needed for an AAM, and in addition there's no room for such a pylon on an
F-18A/C wing. The intent was to replace the current 2 & 8; presumably 3 and 7
wouldn't need to be carried for the AD role in Swiss or Finnish airspace. At
most they might need a C/L tank.

Guy

[[email protected]]

As it can be seen on aviation photo web sites (like www.airliners.net)
Suomi's and Switzerland's Hornets are quite often flown in a clean or
"almost clean" (w/fuel tank on the centerline) fighter configuration.

As for the USN/USMC Hornets it's a different story. You put one fuel
tank under the wing. You put the second on the centerline (this pylon
in F/A-18A/C is not suitable for PGMs, also not very good for dumb
bombs, so why waste another underwing pylon for a fuel tank?!) You put
FLIR/NITE Hawk on the port nacelle station. And you have an aircraft
for any mission - day or night, fighter or strike, 2VX/4VX self-escort
flight...

That's a bit different with Marine F/A-18Ds, carrying LITENING on no.5
(centerline)station.

East or West - the rule must be the same - when something is assembled
and works well, DON'T TOUCH IT! - so I would not be surprised when a
Rhino once configured as a tanker stays as a tanker for a next few
days...

The F/A-18E/F gives some more capabilities: Thanks to ATFLIR (two pods
in one, as a matter of fact!), an AMRAAM can be carried also for CAS
sorties. You can use the "small" outboard wing stations for additional
HARM or AMRAAMs for self-defense, being still capable of carrying PGMs
and LOT OF extra fuel. You can even put a Maverick on a Rhino in a
tanker configuration, in case any surface contacts may appear in the
area!

Jacek

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
>>in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.
>>
>>In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
>>2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
>>scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
>>increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
>>self-defense capabilities?
>>
>>In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
>>successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.
>>
>>Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
>>external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
>>as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
>>extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
>>dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
>>changing battlefield environment.
>>
>
> Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
> (before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
> booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
> misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
> answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
> both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
> a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
> F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
> improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
> draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
> developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
> the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.
>
> Guy
>
>
Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.


Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[John Dallman]

In article . com>,
() wrote:

> In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
> 2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
> scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
> increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
> self-defense capabilities?
>
> In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
> successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Presumably, any CTOL fighter that is reasonably safe to make a carrier
approach in must thereby have pretty good low-and-slow handling? Whereas
planes built to operate off long concrete runways don't /have/ to be
nearly so capable in that respect, and therefore usually aren't?

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Guy Alcala]

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:

<snip>

> > Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
> > (before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
> > booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
> > misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
> > answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
> > both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
> > a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
> > F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
> > improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
> > draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
> > developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
> > the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> >
> Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:
>
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
> I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.

Thanks for the picture. Quite a difference in size and (presumably) drag. One question -- does that look like the stock nose tow bar on the NLG?

Guy

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Guy Alcala wrote:


>>>
>>Those have been developed and are in service with the Swiss AF. Such a pylon loaded with an AMRAAM can be seen in the picture to which I provided the link below:
>>
>> http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/nomad0403.jpg
>>I don't know whether the Finnish AF uses them as well, but it does seem likely.
>>
>
> Thanks for the picture. Quite a difference in size and (presumably) drag. One question -- does that look like the stock nose tow bar on the NLG?
>
> Guy
>
>

You're welcome. The bar indeed looks a bit odd to me, but AFAIK it
wasn't uncommon for the bar to be removed on land-based export Hornets,
or to be replaced by something a little less beefy. The latter is
probably what we're looking at here.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg