It wouldn't be able to be launched from that ship if it did catch a wire.

 

True. It's a multi-role fighter. But air superiority is one of its roles and it performs it well.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

salmonid would disagree with you......

Resale. Buying a plane that can't take off and land on a carrier is like buyin a truck without 4 wheel drive.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

 

Because the F-18 didn't exist in that form when they bought the F-16, it was against the YF-17 which was developed off the F-5.

Sorry guys, I have to post this....  

 

 

Wikipedia, thou hath failed me  

No USAF Phantom ever did a carrier landing.  The landing gear and tires on AF Phantoms were not the same as Navy and USMC F-4s and AF F-4s could not handle the impact forces.  As it was the F-4E was redesigned to use to the F-105 wheel and tire to handle the increased weight of the F-4E over the F-4C and F-4D.  If you look and at F-4E or F-4G you will see a hump on the wing where the gear well was enlarged to use the larger wheel set.

But the AF Phantom made good use of the arresting hook during emergency landings, because they had no structural problems with the hook and attachment points.  F-105s for example, were more likely to have the hook rip out of the plane rather than come to a stop when they would take the cable.

We had to take the approach end cable on my first Phantom flight and were moving at over 160 knots when we took the cable.  Stopped damn quick and the hook had no problems stopping the plane in under 200ft.  And arrested landings were a regular thing for the Israeli Air Force so they could regularly use short runways of around 5000ft compared to the USAF's idea of a short runway being 8000ft.

eta: F-111s were also equipped with carrier rated tail hooks like the F-4, since the basic F-111 airframe was designed to be able to operate from carriers as the Navy's F-111B.  When they had to make emergency landings the F-111s had no problems with structural damage caused by using the hook.

As someone who used to fly off carriers in a single engine helicopter this was my first thought. My single engine UH-1E was phased out and replaced with the twin engine UH-1N in 1976-77.

 








 

I thought the Swiss baby hornets were specially configured and built?  Something about stronger wing structure and correspondingly higher software G-limiting.

You need someplace for the lint to collect.  

 

Maybe against nordo airliners.

 





 

 

For the same reason the USAF flew the Phantom, Spad and Corsair II. Good aircraft are just that. It doesn't matter from
where they land or take off.

You probably know more than I.  I only get to talk face to face with the guy once every few years when one of us makes our way across the pond.  Looking into it though, it does look like the acquisition ruffled some serious feathers though.  My personal experiences with the F18 are limited to talking to them on a radio for 30 minutes before they go dry and are replaced by something with more play time.  Cant tell you to much with regard to naval service.

What are upgrade 21 and 25 mods?

Hence why I put a question mark by the PMs name.   But way to be as confrontational as possible in your response.  I guess Ill return the favor.  We arent talking about the F8.

ETA- A little more research, Australia got 24 Super Hornets in 2007 and another 15 in 2010.  Probably the topic of conversation.
Australia Super Hornet
They spent 6 billion on an interim aircraft that didnt meet the nations needs and was out classed by their competitors.

Okay...

That's exactly what every link regarding the YF-17 says.  Even the Light Fighter Competition video from the early 80's said the same thing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-17.htm

YF-17 developed from the F-5

Verbatim from the F/A-18 book.

"Northrop revised the design to develop the YF-17..."

I've Googled the exact page of the book, as you requested.

Page 4 second paragraph.

From Wiki, so you can roll your eyes some more.

The aircraft's main design elements date to early 1965, from the internal Northrop project N-300. The N-300 was itself derived from the F-5E, and features a longer fuselage, small leading-edge root extensions (LERX), and more powerful GE15-J1A1 turbojets, rated at 9,000 lbf (40 kN) each. The wing was slightly elevated to increase ordnance flexibility. The N-300 further evolved into the P-530 Cobra, which uses 13,000 lbf (58 kN) GE15-J1A5 engines, with a very small .25 bypass ratio leading to the nickname "leaky turbojet". The bypass effectively was only a cooling stream for the rear of the engine, allowing the engine bay to be constructed of lighter, cheaper materials.[1]

The P-530's wing planform and nose section was similar to the F-5, with a trapezoidal shape formed by a sweep of 20° at the quarter-chord line, and an unswept trailing edge, but was over double the area, with 400 sq ft (37 m2) as opposed to 186 sq ft (17.3 m2) of the F-5E. Initially shoulder mounted, the wings were gradually shifted down to the mid position. Its most distinctive new feature were the LERXs that tapered into the fuselage under the cockpit. They enabled maneuvering at angles of attack exceeding 50°, by providing about 50% additional lift. The extensions also trapped airflow under them at high angles of attack, ensuring airflow into the engines. The resemblance to the head of a cobra lead to the adoption of the nickname "Cobra", often unofficially used for the YF-17.



The F-5 was so successful that Northrop spent much of the 1970s and 1980s attempting to duplicate its success with similar lightweight designs. Their first attempt to improve the F-5 was the N-300, which featured much more powerful engines and moved the wing to a higher position to allow for increased ordnance that the higher power allowed. The N-300 was further developed into the P-530 with even larger engines, this time featuring a small amount of "bypass" (turbofan) to improve cooling and allow the engine bay to be lighter, as well as much more wing surface. The P-530 also included radar and other systems considered necessary on modern aircraft. When the Light Weight Fighter program was announced, the P-530 was stripped of much of its equipment to become the P-600, and eventually the YF-17 Cobra.

Buying a jet isnt as simply as buying the best thing on the market and then you're done.  By buying supers they are keeping everything from their pilot training to their logistics very similar.  It would be silly to put up with buying a totally new aircraft and dealing with everything that comes with when it's just meant as an interim solution.  The fact that they are wired for G conversion is nice, too.

For when China invades Alaska, and the U.S. annexes Canada for defense purposes.

All legitimate statements.  I was commenting more on the fact that the initial purchase of the F18s was poorly suited to Australia's geography/needs and that the recent purchases were done despite significant opposition.  The Hornet and Super Hornet are great aircraft in certain roles, but there are a LOT of people who just dont think its the right fit for an island nation the size of the US that doesnt have sufficient carrier support. I dont live there so most of my info is second hand.

Well if you go by Wikipedia it says the f-15 was ruled out due to no a/g (valid at the time) and the f-16 because when it loses an engine it's a lawn dart.  Valid reasons imo.  

Not going to argue there.  There was more than two options though. Their rebuy ticked a LOT of people off though.

REAGAN for the win!

Yeah, but could you imagine the embarrassment if, while waiting on the F-35, they had a shipping confrontation or whatever situation with any of the Flanker equipped countries in the region and were unable to establish air superiority or lost aircraft?  F-35 delays bone yet another country.

I don't think you have a belly-button. if you had a belly-button saigaman would of started a thread about it!



 

We have modified them. The centerline hard point is also stronger in believe.. I think they are at the latest upgrade too

Not sure of all the details, but latest upgrades included datalink, JHMCS/AIM-9X capabilities, targeting pod, and other avionics if I am not mistaking.

At least part of the decision was based on wanting an aircraft with two engines.  Given the wide expanse of our northern airspace, the F-16 and its single engine was deemed too risky.  The F-15 was a leading contender and there were demos done with F-15s with Canadian Markings on them.

The F/A-18 was cheaper and did both the fighter and attack role at a time when the F-15 was purely air-to-air (not a pound for air to ground as they used to say before the E model).

Canada placed the largest non-US order for F-18s back in 1982, something like 138 of the A and B models.

Several of the guys I work with have worked on the CF-188s and worked for L-3 on the upgrades to the fleet.  

Dez

Why dont we practice landing and taking off from roads?

Greece only a few days ago retired their A-7 Corsairs.  A solid CAS and ground attack platform, just happened to be carrier capable

Because there are tens of thousands of airports that work better?

We were flying F-111's until very recently. The big hoopla in the media was about the F-35 and why we didn't even explore other options. Apparently the Eurofighter guys weren't even met at the airport and the contract was awarded for the F-35 before they even got a chance to sell their product and make a case for it. The extra Hornets was just the usual whinging about military expenditure being wasteful etc not so much the plane itself.

The Super Hornet is the best bang for the buck when it comes to Western twin-engined fighters. The Dassault Rafale and Eurotrash Typhoon are both expensive, and they were relatively late to the party.

Also, if a country requires STOL-capabilities it makes sense to buy a carrier aircraft.

Because your airfields aren't within range of Iskander.

The typhoon is expensive, but it will stomp a mudhole into a superbug if operated by a competent pilot.  Way better power/weight, way less drag, massively better aerodynamics and system integration.

High value aircraft

Possible plans to have a carrier down the road

Possible collaborative effort with countries that have carriers

True, but the Superbug is good enough for taking down Cold War era Sukhois and MiGs.

The Superbug is also a better strike aircraft, since the Eurotrash was only offered as a A2A fighter in the first tranche.

beefed up suspensions/ landing gear

Your answers are very enlightening and informative.



However, I am now envisioning Swiss pilots landing on a land based runway that is mounted on hydraulics actuators like a mechanical rodeo bull.
 

The F/A-18 offered some advantages the F-16 didn't have at the time - mainly 2 engines and a better radar.

That depends on who the opponent is.

That elevates Switzerland to King of the Neckbeards.

These Brazilian Skyhawks were former Kuwaiti aircraft that fought during Desert Storm. They are back in their intended environment.