Super Hornet performance question

aaam · by **aaam** » 02 Nov 2011, 03:03

geogen wrote:Regarding Super Hornet performance, it's better utility would probably be as a stand-off missile truck (in both a2a and a2g) and keep it under mach .85?

That's not really feasible in the environment in which the Navy has to operate. Remember, there are only so many armed a/c you can put on a carrier's deck, and for the near term, they're all going to be Hornets.

The SH isn't a pig, and its electronics are really advanced.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 02 Nov 2011, 08:40

It is an advance pig then.

Why makes such a good striker as the SH, and then put it on some CAP or Airsuperiority mission if you have other Jets like F-15C/F-22 hanging around?
If the SH is on a CV, i'll understand. It has to do CAP mission, but otherwise..

The Su-34 has ofcourse the same mission profile, and should never do anything else than Strike missions.
The Su-27KUB are nothing more then a Naval Trainer, the difference from a KUB to the Su-34 are quite extensive.

weez · by **weez** » 02 Nov 2011, 18:00

haavarla, you keep wanting to draw comparisons between the Super Hornet and your ungodly looking SU-34. Okay. Perhaps since your airplane is strictly a striker why don't we compare apples to apples, hmm? Maybe we should compare overall strike effectiveness of your hordes of SU-34's versus our Super Hornets which have been putting ordnance on time on target for years now. Also how effective is your SU-34 going to be at hitting it's targets when you don't have air superiority (unlike some Caucasus flare up). The SH is more than capable of fighting its way to the target and fighting it's way out. And the advanced avionics combined with the superb APG-79 give it a lethal BVR air to air capability. But your airplane doesn't really do that all that well does it? Maybe a couple of archers for close in self defense but it's really nothing more than a monstrously large fighter sized bomber is it? And don't get me started at comparing Russian A2G weaponry versus their Western counterparts. It just wouldn't seem fair. I will concede that the SH has somewhat lackluster kinematic performance compared to many other multirole fighters, but its low speed high AOA performance shines. Combine this with JHMCS and high off-boresight AIM-9X and this seems to negate these kinematic disadvantages in a knife fight.

Also, on a personal note, I hesitate to refer to any airplane that defends MY freedoms as a, "pig". The only US fighter I'd call a, "pig," would be the A-10. Then I'd fondly refer to it as, "the Hog"!

weez · by **weez** » 02 Nov 2011, 18:19

Oops, I wasn't done yet. Hey haavarla, why did you bring the SU-34 into this thread anyway when the OP asked some simple questions about the Super Hornet?!? Seems really random and off topic to me. Here's a novel idea for you. Why don't you just...wait for it...start a NEW THREAD about your diminutive fleet of SU-34's. I have a title idea for you as well. Why don't you call it, "The SU-34 and why it does everything better than the Super Hornet, but not really.". Wait, that's probably too long. Maybe it could be, "SU-34...is niiiice," and we can imagine it in our best Borat voice. Oh well, I'm sure you can figure something out.

aaam · by **aaam** » 02 Nov 2011, 20:23

haavarla wrote:It is an advance pig then.
Why makes such a good striker as the SH, and then put it on some CAP or Airsuperiority mission if you have other Jets like F-15C/F-22 hanging around?
If the SH is on a CV, i'll understand. It has to do CAP mission, but otherwise..

The Su-34 has ofcourse the same mission profile, and should never do anything else than Strike missions.
The Su-27KUB are nothing more then a Naval Trainer, the difference from a KUB to the Su-34 are quite extensive.

Generally, F-15Cs and F-22s are not going to be around when the Navy or Marines need them. SH is all that's being bought for all those Navy missions, built is mainly a attack aircraft, which was what the Navy's crying need was when the A-12 got canceled. It wasn't envisioned when it was first mooted that it would be the only thing on the decks, but now here we are.

The point I was making about the SU-27/33KUB is that it shared a common ancestry and airframe design and performance with the SU-34 in response to your point about performance from a carrier plane. It's not carrier operation that would adversely affect the overall performance. In any case, bringing in the SU-34 is kind of off topic in a discussion about the SH.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 02 Nov 2011, 21:03

haavarla, you keep wanting to draw comparisons between the Super Hornet and your ungodly looking SU-34. Okay. Perhaps since your airplane is strictly a striker why don't we compare apples to apples, hmm? Maybe we should compare overall strike effectiveness of your hordes of SU-34's versus our Super Hornets which have been putting ordnance on time on target for years now. Also how effective is your SU-34 going to be at hitting it's targets when you don't have air superiority (unlike some Caucasus flare up).

Gee if i hurt you feelings, i'm sorry. The Su-34 has more in common with the SH than any other jet both in USN and VVS.
I have one question on SH performance, name me the mission profile of the RAAF SH today?

Oops, I wasn't done yet. Hey haavarla, why did you bring the SU-34 into this thread anyway when the OP asked some simple questions about the Super Hornet?!? Seems really random and off topic to me. Here's a novel idea for you. Why don't you just...wait for it...start a NEW THREAD about your diminutive fleet of SU-34's. I have a title idea for you as well. Why don't you call it, "The SU-34 and why it does everything better than the Super Hornet, but not really.". Wait, that's probably too long. Maybe it could be, "SU-34...is niiiice," and we can imagine it in our best Borat voice. Oh well, I'm sure you can figure something out.

Great.. what to respond here.. Just answer my question above. The Su-34 has more in common with both the F-15E and SH, they have the same mission profile, bar the CV operation.

weez · by **weez** » 02 Nov 2011, 22:20

Okay, I'll play your silly little game, haavarla, and I assure you, you did not hurt my feelings.

First: To answer your question, the role of the Super Hornet within the RAAF is as a stopgap multirole fighter capable of undertaking A2A and A2G missions until their F-35's enter service. What's next, are you going to start quoting Kopp?!?

Second: You have said that the SU-34 has more in common with the Strike Eagle and SH but I would counter that both US aircraft have air to air component to their mission profile that far exceeds that of the Sukhoi.

My third and final point: You seem to be ignoring the fact that you intejcted your Sukhoi fan-boy-ism into a thread where it is simply and completely off topic. One moment we're answering someone's questions about the SH and then you decide to post a video about the platypus and start blabbering about how much better it is. Are you kidding?!? Dude, create a new topic about the darn airplane and I'm sure you'll get plenty of people to discuss it with you. Heaven knows there's plenty of Sukhoi fan boys on this forum.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 03 Nov 2011, 00:07

uhh..

Pls backtrack and show me exactly where i said anything of the kind?
Other than calling the SH an advance Pig, i actuall said the SH is a great Striker.

Another question. What kind of A to ship amunition has the RAAF?

weez · by **weez** » 03 Nov 2011, 03:45

haavarla wrote:uhh..
Pls backtrack and show me exactly where i said anything of the kind?
Other than calling the SH an advance Pig, i actuall said the SH is a great Striker.

Another question. What kind of A to ship amunition has the RAAF?

Anything of what kind?!?!? I suspect there is a bit of a language gap here so I'm trying to be patient with you. Please quote me on something and I'll be happy to respond to something specific.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 03 Nov 2011, 07:53

weez wrote:Second: You have said that the SU-34 has more in common with the Strike Eagle and SH but I would counter that both US aircraft have air to air component to their mission profile that far exceeds that of the Sukhoi.

My third and final point: You seem to be ignoring the fact that you intejcted your into a thread where it is simply and completely off topic. One moment we're answering someone's questions about the SH and then you decide to post a video about the platypus and start blabbering about how much better it is. Are you kidding?!? Dude, create a new topic about the darn airplane and I'm sure you'll get plenty of people to discuss it with you. Heaven knows there's plenty of Sukhoi fan boys on this forum.

About me blabbering the Su-34 beeing so much better? Nonsens, i have said nothing of the kind.

The Rhino still enjoys a range advantage and weapons bring back capability over the legacy aircraft, but the Hornet drivers pride themselves on their aircrafts superior acceleration and maneuverability.

So me posting an vid of the Su-34 in answer to this post is Sukhoi fan-boy-ism?
If that is so, then this post surly are McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ish.
Even the F-15E have longer range and payload here.

weez · by **weez** » 03 Nov 2011, 17:31

About me blabbering the Su-34 beeing so much better? Nonsens, i have said nothing of the kind.

Well, you quoted me completely out of context for one. I'm guessing with regards to the, "range advantage and weapons bring back capability," comment I made in which I was intending to explain that the SH has a range advantage over the LEGACY Hornet, not all 4th gen strike fighters! Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, sorry! However, you quickly enter the conversation, quote me, and respond by saying, "Well you could have fooled me," with the devil emoticon, and posting your SU-34 airshow vid. How is anyone supposed to take that when we're all responding to some guys question about a specific airplane?!? I get it. I'm guessing you're Russian and you really like Russian airplanes. That's FINE. I'm actually okay with that. The point I'm making here is that you seemed to have taken me out of context and posted your comment and video in a thread where it DOES NOT BELONG. Further, you continued to degrade the SH by referring to it as a, "pig," and later an, "advance pig."

So me posting an vid of the Su-34 in answer to this post is Sukhoi fan-boy-ism?

Yes. It DOES NOT BELONG in this topic. You clearly like Russian airplanes (I've seen some of your other posts you know). Like I said before, I'm okay with that. I would argue that most people on this forum are fanboys of something. A lot of us are Viper fanboys (myself included). This is f-16.net after all. I consider myself a Viper, Strike Eagle, Raptor, Lightning II, Super Hornet, Gripen fan boy. Probably in that order. Everyone likes something different. That's okay, right?!? I don't mind that you're a Sukhoi fan boy, dude. It's okay.

If that is so, then this post surly are McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ish.

You are incorrect. The OP is reading a book about the Super Hornet and had some questions. Several of us were answering those questions. How does that translate to McDonnell Douglas fan-boy-ism?!?!? How can I get you to understand this, haavarla? How can I make this any clearer to you? This argument is getting very tiring. The poor OP is probably getting notifications every time someone responds to his thread and probably thinking, "what a couple of clowns!"

Even the F-15E have longer range and payload here.

WHOA!!!!! Seriously?!?!? That was a HUGE revelation!!!!! (oozing with sarcasm in case you didn't notice).
:wink:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 03 Nov 2011, 17:35

The comment made before the posting of the video was that the Legacy Hornet has more agility while the Super Hornet has more range and payload. The posting of the Platypus was irrelevant as the comparison was only between the two Hornets. The comparison was only between F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E-G. And frankly the Su-34 has WAY more in common with the Su-27 (Su-30) family than the Super Hornet has with the Hornet. Su-34 has new nose (for side by side cockpit), new electronics, and canards. SH has new fuselage, new wing, new tails, new engines, new electronics, new cockpit. The SH is an entirely different plane with the exception of visual layout.

you beat me to it weez

weez · by **weez** » 03 Nov 2011, 18:03

Thank you, sprstdlyscottsmn.

He doesn't get it, though.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 04 Nov 2011, 08:02

No just an advanced pig, it was Geogen whom refered it to a Pig(allthough not his words, yours), not me.
I didn't see the compairison was only between F-18 and SH, my bad.
Fine, sorry about the OT.
Weez, u need to step down from your high horse there.. u are way too Personly in your posting style.

Moving on.
Will the SH++ International Roadmap ever see daylight after it was out of the MMRCA? I guess there is the Brasil Tender left?

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 04 Nov 2011, 16:02

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The comment made before the posting of the video was that the Legacy Hornet has more agility while the Super Hornet has more range and payload. The posting of the Platypus was irrelevant as the comparison was only between the two Hornets. The comparison was only between F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E-G. And frankly the Su-34 has WAY more in common with the Su-27 (Su-30) family than the Super Hornet has with the Hornet. Su-34 has new nose (for side by side cockpit), new electronics, and canards. SH has new fuselage, new wing, new tails, new engines, new electronics, new cockpit. The SH is an entirely different plane with the exception of visual layout.

you beat me to it weez

I'm somewhat skeptical on the claims of agility advantages of the legacy Hornets vs Super Hornets, in terms of practical real world conditions. The Super Hornet has superior care free handling qualities, and better post stall agility. This allows the Super Hornet pilot to fly much more aggressively.