A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 16th 05, 04:33 AM
Raymond Marshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #2  
Old February 16th 05, 05:50 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #3  
Old February 16th 05, 10:06 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.