F/A18E/F Super Hornets block 1 and BLock 2 E/F ( lot 26)

[CheckGear]

I'm very much onboard with the F/A-18/E/F Super Hornet! Sorry, F-14, but the Super Hornet is the best thing that ever happened to Naval Aviation. It's a master of all trades and is super-reliable! It's going to serve far longer than the Tomcat ever did and I'm a huge F-14 buff!

[Ghostraider]

But is still active ! To many classified

[BlackLion213]

I'm very much onboard with the F/A-18/E/F Super Hornet! Sorry, F-14, but the Super Hornet is the best thing that ever happened to Naval Aviation. It's a master of all trades and is super-reliable! It's going to serve far longer than the Tomcat ever did and I'm a huge F-14 buff!

 

Seems doubtful that it will serve much longer than the Tomcat. The legacy hornet (F/A-18A-D) had the same service life in the USN as the F-14 - 32 years.

 

My guess is that the F/A-18E-G will have roughly the same service life unless new airframes start production. But most of the talk is about upgrades not new production.

 

Seems that high performance fighters have a reasonably fixed service life given the rigors of carrier aviation.

 

-Nick

[3WA]

But is still active ! To many classified

 

 

This. We can wish for whatever we want, BUT....

 

 

Would like to see it as an AI though, if you can guess at it's capabilities.

 

 

Seems doubtful that it will serve much longer than the Tomcat. The legacy hornet (F/A-18A-D) had the same service life in the USN as the F-14 - 32 years.

 

My guess is that the F/A-18E-G will have roughly the same service life unless new airframes start production. But most of the talk is about upgrades not new production.

 

Seems that high performance fighters have a reasonably fixed service life given the rigors of carrier aviation.

 

-Nick

 

 

Looks like everything's going to be replaced by F-35. Not that I agree everything should be. I know they want to kill the A-10, but it's a TOTALLY different aircraft. They should all be transferred to Army and Marine Aviation.

Edited January 1, 2019 by 3WA

[CheckGear]

Seems doubtful that it will serve much longer than the Tomcat. The legacy hornet (F/A-18A-D) had the same service life in the USN as the F-14 - 32 years.

 

 

If you factor in Marine Corps service (which is very much a part of Naval Aviation), the legacy Hornet's going to serve almost four decades. That's incredible longevity.

 

 

My guess is that the F/A-18E-G will have roughly the same service life unless new airframes start production. But most of the talk is about upgrades not new production.

 

 

That's the other thing - upgrading it seems to be much easier than it was on the Tomcat. The Block III variant is going to be a beast.

 

 

Looks like everything's going to be replaced by F-35. Not that I agree everything should be. I know they want to kill the A-10, but it's a TOTALLY different aircraft. They should all be transferred to Army and Marine Aviation.

 

 

Personally, I like the air wings the way they are now - all Super Hornets. Not as cool as the days when we had six different types of aircraft, but it's still a high-tech, rock-steady air wing.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

But is still active ! To many classified

 

Then why are we getting a Viper? And why do we have a Legacy Bug when the USMC still operates them?

 

There's a lot more going on than it just being new and classified; basically everything we have has classified stickers all over certain aspects of them.

[SkateZilla]

There will be both Upgraded Block III and New Built Block III

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

Next to the F 18C the Super Hornet is my favorite fighter, so it would be a big surprise

Edited January 30, 2019 by Raytheon

[Kev2go]

found this article,

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ultra-hornet-212600/

 

Notes AN/AGP79 didn't become operationally installed until Lot 30 production ( block 2 +) super hornet.

 

Block 2's from Lot 26 - Lot 29 were still fitted with AN/APG73 phase 2 radars as well meaning F/A18E/F Lot 26 may also be feasible since its detailed in the manual.

 

 

are the exact nuances of new mission computers/ processors simulated in dcs? if not then may as well include early block 2 ( lot 26) into this thread ;)

Edited March 29, 2019 by Kev2go

[JayBird]

What would be the point? Two extra stations and a bit different cockpit. Big whoopee, move onto other aircraft.

[Kev2go]

What would be the point? Two extra stations and a bit different cockpit. Big whoopee, move onto other aircraft.

 

 

Using your logic:

 

What would be the point of the L39C vs L39ZA? two extra weapon stations, a cannon, and bit different cockpit. big whoppee Ed should have moved onto other aircraft.

 

 

What would be the point between the F14A+ and F14B, slightly different cockpit. no Lantirn? Big whopee move onto different aircraft heatblur.

 

 

Yea no ...... there are more differences between the F/A18E/F to the F/A18C than there would be between those aircraft, that it would be a familair yet at the same time refreshing experience to fly, at least for some here. We get it every different players has preference for different aircraft, but thats no reason to be so dismissive of suggestions of them.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Kev2go

[hughlb]

Using your logic:

 

What would be the point of the L39C vs L39ZA? two extra weapon stations, a cannon, and bit different cockpit. big whoppee Ed should have moved onto other aircraft.

 

 

What would be the point between the F14A+ and F14B, slightly different cockpit. no Lantirn? Big whopee move onto different aircraft heatblur.

 

 

Yea no ...... there are more differences between the F/A18E/F to the F/A18C than there would be between those aircraft, that it would be a familair yet at the same time refreshing experience to fly, at least for some here. We get it every different players has preference for different aircraft, but thats no reason to be so dismissive of suggestions of them.

 

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the F-14 variants and the L39 variants we presently (will soon) have, and Super Hornet module. The F-14 is the best comparison because it represents a late model A and a B, rather than the D, so comparable systems with the significant change being the engines. With the Super Hornet, we would be looking at a completely different airframe, with unique aerodynamic properties, as well as different engines, and slightly different cockpit. There would be quite a bit of additional work, in fact it would be a project unto itself.

 

But more importantly, how do you monetise something so similar, but also quite different?

 

The Tomcat comes as a bundle of A and B, as does the L-39, because I would assume the two variants were comparably straightforward to develop together, with only, as I said, engine changes for the F-14A. If ED went on to develop the Super Hornet, would they make it a standalone package or would they bundle it with the existing Hornet? If they did bundle, would they increase the price of the "Hornet" package to account for the additional work? If so, how do you think that would be received? Not well, I'd imagine. Especially considering people buying the "Hornet" package would question why ED would develop two very similar aircraft and charge more as a package deal. If they didn't charge additional for the Super Hornet, then why would they bother developing it, it would be a net loss. If they created a standalone package, it would be so similar to the existing Hornet that it would undoubtedly split the market share for both modules.

 

Something like an F-16C on the other hand, offers again, a similar but just different enough aircraft, that performs similar functions, for a variety of export partners, on the back of an established following through the Falcon/BMS community. The Super Hornet is probably just on the wrong side of the fence to make it a viable module.

 

Now for me personally, I'd like something like a MiG-25 or F-117, because I want unique experiences that don't exist in the sim presently. I'd also buy a Super Hornet, but it'd be a difficult module to rationalise investing into, given the existence and popularity of the Charlie.

Edited March 29, 2019 by hughlb

[Kev2go]

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the F-14 variants and the L39 variants we presently (will soon) have, and Super Hornet module. The F-14 is the best comparison because it represents a late model A and a B, rather than the D, so comparable systems with the significant change being the engines. With the Super Hornet, we would be looking at a completely different airframe, with unique aerodynamic properties, as well as different engines, and slightly different cockpit. There would be quite a bit of additional work, in fact it would be a project unto itself.

 

But more importantly, how do you monetise something so similar, but also quite different?

 

The Tomcat comes as a bundle of A and B, as does the L-39, because I would assume the two variants were comparably straightforward to develop together, with only, as I said, engine changes for the F-14A. If ED went on to develop the Super Hornet, would they make it a standalone package or would they bundle it with the existing Hornet? If they did bundle, would they increase the price of the "Hornet" package to account for the additional work? If so, how do you think that would be received? Not well, I'd imagine. Especially considering people buying the "Hornet" package would question why ED would develop two very similar aircraft and charge more as a package deal. If they didn't charge additional for the Super Hornet, then why would they bother developing it, it would be a net loss. If they created a standalone package, it would be so similar to the existing Hornet that it would undoubtedly split the market share for both modules.

 

Something like an F-16C on the other hand, offers again, a similar but just different enough aircraft, that performs similar functions, for a variety of export partners, on the back of an established following through the Falcon/BMS community. The Super Hornet is probably just on the wrong side of the fence to make it a viable module.

 

Now for me personally, I'd like something like a MiG-25 or F-117, because I want unique experiences that don't exist in the sim presently. I'd also buy a Super Hornet, but it'd be a difficult module to rationalise investing into, given the existence and popularity of the Charlie.

 

you know i think if most people read 1st page then there wouldn't be a need to for me to constantly recycle most of what i say. This is not intended to infringe on development of the F16C or the currently planned aircraft ED has officially announced. Besides being a mere suggestion the whole point of it was to educate people that the Super Hornet inst too advanced ore classified compared to a late Lot Legacy to be made as a module, as vast array of people on the forums kept parroting with confidence. As i explained it varied on which Lots

 

 

This is suggested as a standalone module, and in fact would make sense if anything to bundle it with F/A18E with a F/A18F or vice versa than F/A18C.

 

 

and in a future, a DLC could be included to upgrade Lot 26 with AN/APG79 AESA radar ( Since IRL Lot 25 - 29 Super Hornets were later retrofitted with it) in eventuality if enough information could be obtained to guesstimate its functionality. But for good reason this was focused on SH models that were produced still equipped with AN/APG73 phase 2 initially.

 

It would also allow mission makers in potential future the freedom to choose to balance the Super Hornet. A Super Hornet with AN/APG 73 phase 2 wouldnt be much more dominating that a legacy hornet in A2A. but a AESA equipped SH would be.

 

anyways why should the tomcat be the only 2 seat aircraft for the navy. F.A18F would still offer something more different than those who would want a F/A18D, and F/A18E may still interest those who just want the single seat experience of the Classic Hornets Successor. Being able to be dual qualified and easily switch between 2 aircraft types due a straightfowrard learning curve transition process is a good thing IMO.

 

You also didnt consider that maybe some who bought the F/A18C module only did so because ATM there is no Super Hornet ( closest thing is the legacy) or others who are using the F/A18C a multi mission stand in for the F16, until they get that specific air-frame. Same reason why many bough the M2000C. Not necessarily because it was their favorite or ideal aircraft, but at the time was the only option for western 4th gen fighter, in the same way how the Legacy Hornet for the time being is the only option for a proper multi-mission fighter with post Y2K upgrades.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Kev2go

[hotrod525]

thats the problem Its classified ( Unless ED or 3rd party are confident as to guesstimate AESA based on general knowledge) AS of now there There seems to be enough information to make a Block 1 Super Hornet, and it would be easier to make due to some avionics similarities to the Late model Legacy.

 

 

Lo23 would still share enough similarities with Lot20 whilst still having comparable features that the Lot 20 has via post production upgrades like JHMCS and AIm9x. earlier lot 21-22 did not yet have Aim9x or JHMCS.

 

Lot25 would offer a more modern feel with its new Colour LCD based DDI's, but more challenging to create as there is a new mission computer and some software changes, but still enough similarities imo that it still feels like one is flying an aircraft from the Hornet family, and doesnt yet have AESA radar. It still seems its not possible to get enough data on it.

 

 

the Reason for the Super Hornet even without AESA would offer More Ordinance carry but much more importantly have better endurance aka loiter time. ( said to be 35- 40% better than the F/A18C)

 

Why? Super Hornets is a larger aiframe. It can store more fuel internally, and carry larger external tanks compared to the legacies. OFC as a Icing on the cake the SH air frame design offers RCS reduction of X10 against radars from the Front section.

 

 

An educated-guess is fair enought. I know that the real specs are classified, but you can still create a pretty "closely accurate" thing with open-source intelligence.

 

 

And as Boeing agreed with ED for the F/A-18C hornet module, i'm quite sure that ED could also reach an agreement with them on F/A-18E.

 

But first and foremost, we need a complet F/A-18C module prior to any endeavour on the Super Bug. :smilewink:

[Kev2go]

An educated-guess is fair enought. I know that the real specs are classified, but you can still create a pretty "closely accurate" thing with open-source intelligence.

 

 

And as Boeing agreed with ED for the F/A-18C hornet module, i'm quite sure that ED could also reach an agreement with them on F/A-18E.

 

But first and foremost, we need a complet F/A-18C module prior to any endeavour on the Super Bug. :smilewink:

 

 

it isnt just a matter of guestimation , but creating new radar mechanics to simulate AESA radars. they dont function quote the same way as a Mechanical Array radars.

 

thats exactly why ive edited the original thread and included Lot 26 into it, as i came acorss some new information . Lot 26 is the first block 2 were also still fitted with AN/APG73. hypothetically it would open way in the future to also have AN/APG 79 as dlc module should a developer want to try to simulate it as block 2's pre lot 30 ( lot 26- 29), were eventually refitted with that radar.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

I voted no because these polls and threads are super stupid and really are Exhibit A of what make this forum the cesspit that it is, as evidenced by the first 8 posts being people that I have in my ignore list.

 

I bet far more people have you in thier ignore list that just the first 8 people considering how you troll a wide array of topics.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Kev2go

[Baco]

Is it feasible? yes sure.

 

But in my eyes its redundant, F-18C, F-15E, F-16 Block 50, and you want another multi role with the same approximate capabilities?

[Gladman]

In time I'd like a SH but there's other aircraft that differ significantly from the C Hornet that I'd much rather see first.

[SonofEil]

I voted no specifically because the poll is asking about an E. Another single seat hornet couldn’t be any more redundant. If it were an F...that might push me into the yes camp.

...super stupid and really are Exhibit A of what make this forum the cesspit that...[whah whah whah:cry:]

Poor baby, is it nappy time?

[NineLine]

Closing because of all the sand being kicked in each other's faces, seriously guys, there is an ignore list, if you can't play nicely, ignore.

[fitness88]

The Blue Angels Are Getting a Super Upgrade...

 

Will we ever?

 

 

Thank you.

[Wizard_03]

Doubt it, but I’m praying for an AI asset at least.

[donkeyrider]

I know Wags has ruled it out but hopefully at some point they reconsider. even if they just make a version of a similar time frame to the F/A-18C Lot 20 i.e. 2005 or so.

 

It would be great to have the extra fuel / range, a couple of more pylon stations and a higher trap weight. And most important, buddy refueling.

[fitness88]

Who knows maybe one day we'll wake up to an update upgrade...but in the mean time I also really like what we have!

[Kev2go]

I know Wags has ruled it out but hopefully at some point they reconsider. even if they just make a version of a similar time frame to the F/A-18C Lot 20 i.e. 2005 or so.

 

It would be great to have the extra fuel / range, a couple of more pylon stations and a higher trap weight. And most important, buddy refueling.

 

When did wags ever rule out ED ever considering a Super Hornet module at any point in the future?

 

I did a wishlist thread , mostly to educate that depending on the version of the Super Hornet, would not be too "classified" Block 1's ( lot21- 25) seem very feasible since its not much more advanced than contemporary era lot F/A18C with post production upgrades

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202373

Edited April 24, 2019 by Kev2go