Jump to content

Is the Super Hornet a good A2A platform?


Recommended Posts

Seems to be a lot of US Navy experts here so I though it would be a good place to some honest opinions on the Super Hornet.  It seems to be pretty effective attack aircraft, but how would it stack up against front line PLAAF or PLANAF opponents in an air to air engagement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super Hornet was never intended to be a pure dogfighter. It's a hybrid, multi-role aircraft, and that's exactly what you get. It's not the best at anything. I have a couple of friends who flew with the Rippers. They did a det against the F-22. They said they were dead in under 60 seconds every time, even when they started with a tactical advantage. If you go by that, it could not hold it's own against a fifth generation fighter. With that said, pilot training has a LOT to do with the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

The Super Hornet was never intended to be a pure dogfighter. It's a hybrid, multi-role aircraft, and that's exactly what you get. It's not the best at anything. I have a couple of friends who flew with the Rippers. They did a det against the F-22. They said they were dead in under 60 seconds every time, even when they started with a tactical advantage. If you go by that, it could not hold it's own against a fifth generation fighter. With that said, pilot training has a LOT to do with the outcome.

 

Why wasn’t the f-14 replaced with a comparable carrier defense interceptor? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

I believe it would be the same reasons that most platforms nowadays are not replaced with a more fully capable acquisition, politics and money. My two cents.

 

 

 

Was the failed A-12 project a factor? It frustrating to think the US spends as much as we do on defense and would put the Navy in a position where it was uncompetitive vs a likely future adversary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

Why do you think it wasn’t ?

 

Because seems like the super hornet is not that great? In fact as a replacement for the A-6, F-14 and legacy Hornet, it might be considered that a carrier air wing in the early 90s was more capable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vaildog said:

 

Why wasn’t the f-14 replaced with a comparable carrier defense interceptor? 

 

Because there wasn't the need (or budget) for it.  The Cold War was over, and large forces of carrier-attacking aircraft have not been anticipated.  The F-14 was largely designed around the AIM-54 long range missile, a weapon whose role has not been filled with a replacement either, but eventually outlived its mission anyway. The SH was conceived as a stop gap to keep the carrier decks capable until the Navy could get a fifth-generation fighter. From what I hear from Hornet pilots (And engineers from PAX River), the prominent deficiency in the Super Hornet is the under-powered engine which they would like to see upgraded. The legacy Hornets have better performance, and it seems weird that the Navy has not addressed this in all these years.  But, the SH is not a bad fighter and a decent attack plane, (jack of all trades but master of none) and it's done its job for nearly 20 years now (and we haven't lost any carriers).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Camus272 said:

 

The legacy Hornets have better performance, and it seems weird that the Navy has not addressed this in all these years. 

This bothers me even though the E/F otherwise should be a more potent platform than its predecessor. I'm now thinking mainly from the  Finnish Air Force's perspective which has chosen the Super Hornet as one of the candidates for its HX program. 

Edited by janman
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, janman said:

This bothers me even though the E/F otherwise should be a more potent platform than it's predecessor. I'm know thinking mainly from the  Finnish Air Force's perspective which has chosen the Super Hornet as one of the candidates for its HX program. 

 

I was in San Diego last year and met a pilot who had flown both. His opionion was that he'd rather take the C model into a dogfight than an E

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a lot going on in situations like this, and it's not always as easy as saying "Plane Y is not as capable as Plane Z because it lacks X."   The Super Hornet has a bit more fuel, and is a little stealthier, etc., so there are tradeoffs either way.  I know someone who transitioned from A-7s to F/A-18A/Cs to Super Hornets, and he said the difference in radar signature was noticeable, even to them, and he seemed to have no issues with flying the Super Hornet in combat.  Combat results are not tied to a specific performance metric, and using an aircraft's strengths can provide a positive outcome, even if its strengths are different than the aircraft it's up against.

 

I think a big factor in not replacing the F-14 with another similar aircraft is that the Aegis system was taking over for long-range fleet defense, and the carrier didn't need to take up space with aircraft dedicated to that purpose any more.

 

I am by no means an expert, just sharing what I've seen and heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ken.  No offense intended but the original question is a bit ludicrous.  What metric are you comparing?  Sheer dogfighting performance, long range BVR missile shoots?  Which model SH are you comparing?  Single-seater, two-seater,. or the incoming upgraded version with more fuel, IRST, etc? There are so many variables, it's pretty much impossible to really answer this.  Also as noted, pilot skill typically counts for more than the quality of the plane he's flying. 

 

Personally, nothing and I mean NOTHING will ever surpass the beloved Tomcat (except maybe an A-10).   The real question should be - could a single Tom destroy the entire PLAAF in a single sortie.   I say yes.

 

Discuss....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Cartwright said:

I think there's a lot going on in situations like this, and it's not always as easy as saying "Plane Y is not as capable as Plane Z because it lacks X."   The Super Hornet has a bit more fuel, and is a little stealthier, etc., so there are tradeoffs either way.  I know someone who transitioned from A-7s to F/A-18A/Cs to Super Hornets, and he said the difference in radar signature was noticeable, even to them, and he seemed to have no issues with flying the Super Hornet in combat.  Combat results are not tied to a specific performance metric, and using an aircraft's strengths can provide a positive outcome, even if its strengths are different than the aircraft it's up against.

 

I think a big factor in not replacing the F-14 with another similar aircraft is that the Aegis system was taking over for long-range fleet defense, and the carrier didn't need to take up space with aircraft dedicated to that purpose any more.

 

I am by no means an expert, just sharing what I've seen and heard.

 

Makes sense. Personally I always want to have a high degree of confidence the US Navy can dominate contested air space globally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vaildog said:

 

I was in San Diego last year and met a pilot who had flown both. His opionion was that he'd rather take the C model into a dogfight than an E

 

Ive talked to several who have said the same thing. One went so far as to make the comment about comparing a hot rod to a dump truck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

I think a big factor in not replacing the F-14 with another similar aircraft is that the Aegis system was taking over for long-range fleet defense, and the carrier didn't need to take up space with aircraft dedicated to that purpose any more.

 

This is what I was referring to when I asked "Why do you think it wasn’t ?"

 

F-14 was replaced, just not with another manned airframe.

 

Times change, so does the threat, so does the response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to view aircraft from the 50's onward as weapons systems, not just an airframe.  Todays aircraft and abilities are an equal mix of airframe, sensors and weapons, not to mention aircrew training.  A super hornet with AESA radar and AIM-120C missiles is a vast improvement over an F-14 and a legacy hornet.  Add in data linking with other platforms, including AEGIS, and you have an extremely competent fleet defense fighter.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, planeboy said:

You need to view aircraft from the 50's onward as weapons systems, not just an airframe.  Todays aircraft and abilities are an equal mix of airframe, sensors and weapons, not to mention aircrew training.  A super hornet with AESA radar and AIM-120C missiles is a vast improvement over an F-14 and a legacy hornet.  Add in data linking with other platforms, including AEGIS, and you have an extremely competent fleet defense fighter.   

 

 

 

Super Hornets are fielding AIM-120Ds now also.

 

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...